why not ask if the hawaiian creation myth of everyone being on the back of a turtle corresponds to plate tectonics?

I think a lot of the things in the Bible are taken as not being literal. I have not studied the Bible heavily, so I can’t give a better answer.

It has always confused me how people can believe some things in the Bible as literal, and some as not.

One of my favorite things to talk about is my intro to Bio class at college, when talking about evolution and religion explaining that religion doesn’t belong in science, but just because something isn’t science doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Religion and Science represent different types of knowledge. It’s apples and oranges.

Yeah, but they’re both fruit… Hehe… 😉 I was going to add something better, but I refuse to be serious today.

This is topic I’ve studied very heavily and I’ve never found a reason why evolutionary theory and the Bible should be opposed to each other.

Well, it depends. If you think that Adam and Eve are the first humans, and that we are all descendent’s of Adam and Eve, then yes, this does contradict modern science. (as does the 6 day creation theory.)

If however, you hold some metaphorical meaning behind it, then perhaps you might be able to compromise your faith with evolution.

I was not able to compromise both. I just could never see why god would say one thing in the Bible, yet mean another. It never made sense to me. I never understood how for 1900 years priests could say "the earth is 6,000 years old, and we are from adam and eve"and now all of a sudden change it.

Of course, some take the torah metaphorically. Maimonides, the BIGGEST and most well known scholar of Judaism made it clear that the torah should conform to modern science. Ibn ezra affirmed that belief, as did many other Jews throughout history. Pope Benedict said that evolution and theism are two complementing aspects. Of course, I still disagree with them all(because why would the Bible say one thing but mean another) but oviously many other prominent scholars who have devoted their lives to the Torah or Bible have had no problem accepting things metaphorically.

The Bible is actually not in its pure form. It has been edited by many people since it was revealed. So, we can not blame God.
In the Bible many scientific errors are written. But still, if you believe in Bible you have to accept that science is wrong and if you believe in science you have to accept that Bible is wrong (not God).

Right, because the bible teaches us to live our lives unscientifically and and science teaches us to live godlessly.

Apparently, you don’t know know much about either field.

Science may explain a how, but it definitely does not explain a why. We have evolved to eat meat, but does that mean we "ought" to eat meat? If you think so, then you’re committing a logical fallacy.

Religon is not interested in being scientific; why would you debase the supernatural into naturalist terms? Why should any religious text contain accurate scientific descriptions to "prove" its "holiness." It doesn’t. I find it terribly demeaning when people try to impose their own personal beliefs on what a religious text should or should not be and then create a false dichotomy out of their own ignorance.

Mith, this is probably the wisest paragraph I have ever heard in this forum. You’re going in the Member Quotes Thread for this one.

As mith said, I would suggest you do a little background research into this subject. The original texts of the Bible still exist and most modern translations strive to be as close to the original as possible. The Bible is in no way obligated to contain accurate scientific data as it is a religious text first and a historical record second, but never a scientific text book. There is no reason at all why a believer cannot simultaneously accept both science and the Bible.

mith wrote "Religon is not interested in being scientific; why would you debase the supernatural into naturalist terms? Why should any religious text contain accurate scientific descriptions to "prove" its "holiness." It doesn’t. I find it terribly demeaning when people try to impose their own personal beliefs on what a religious text should or should not be and then create a false dichotomy out of their own ignorance.
_________________

To-day that all sounds very logical and plausible but you should also take into account
that for many years the church did represent the “science” that was then available. Until the age of enlightenment clerics were in the main the only educated people and the early parts of the bible does its best to describe natural “scientific” processes. Proof of this lies in the resistance that the church has put up against scientific discoveries that it did not approve.

You cannot blame people for confusing “the natural with the supernatural” for the church has been doing just that for many years. Had the church just stuck to morals then perhaps there would have been less confusion?

But that was ages ago. Scientific principles and ways of knowing have been established way back(like you said, enlightenment) and the church has long since stopped burning people. Referring to some of Alex’s posts, you’ll learn that the Church does not support creationist claims and instead is behind evolution. What does that mean? Is this the work of the church? Look carefully at the people who support creationism and would spend millions on building a museum. Some are the same rich people who selectively ignore the passages of the bible that deal with poverty. I think ultimately, people are to blame.

If you want to blame someone, blame the budget cuts to science programs after all the excitement from Sputnik died down. I heard from one of my profs that the main reason people don’t understand evolution/science/creation is because for some 20 years, no one was required to take an intro evolutionary course and instead the focus was all on molecular biology(DNA) and such.

I quite agree with mith that the modern church for the last (?200 years) is trying to make the bible fit with science rather than trying to make science fit with the bible. But 200 years compared with 1800 years is recent history. So when creationist take over the cause of the bible as a scientific explanation for nature we are reminded only too well how people were forced into ignorance when the church was a major political power. Luckily for all mankind creationists are not as yet a strong political force. I hope that all thinking people make sure that they never do become a political force.

Happy Solstice javascript:emoticon(‘:wink:’)

Genovese, I would advise you against making generalizations and blanket statements against all religion. Not all churches oppose evolution, and some have been supporting evolution and other scientific research since a long time before Darwin. St. Augustine, for example, was a leading evolutionist of his day.

That said, Mith is right. It is not so much the "church" (whatever that means) that is to blame as it is the people that corrupt it.

I was not trying to suggest that all religions oppose evolution. I have previously accepted what you have to say about that. I was more concerned with mith’s statement about "Religon is not interested in being scientific;….."

I was agreeing with mith in focussing on some people-creationist- who I perceive as posing a threat to free-thinking if they were ever to become a political force. I used the example of how Christian churches have behaved in the PAST when they were also a political force, whatever their denomination. History has a tendency to repeat itself, so we need to remind ourselves what can happen.

Like you, I find it difficult to separate the actions of people from that of the organization to which they belong. I can only judge by their beliefs and actions. If the leaders of an organization start to play power/politics then what they espouse also becomes important for those not belonging to that body of thought. I am all for people believing what they want to believe – no harm in that – it’s what they then do with those beliefs that is sometimes threatening.

I tend to judge people by their "deeds" rather than by their "beliefs".
I believe that is how Jesus talked about salvation. If I have understood his message correctly, I would agree with that philosophy.
Praying and worshipping might help some people to achieve good deeds but many people that I have met do not go on and do the "deeds" after they have worshipped.

You raise some good points, but you might want to focus your wording specifically on creationists, if that is your meaning, rather than using broaders terms like "religion" that can apply to more groups than just the ones you’re talking about. If you do wish to discuss religion in its broad sense, then you might want to take into consideration all religions instead of just one.

For example, you are right that Christian fundamentalists do have some dangerous beliefs, but Christianity is not alone in this. Consider, for example, the former Taliban government in Afghanistan. If we are to discuss this darker side of religion, we should keep in mind that this darker side applies to all religions and not just one.

That said, you are right that deeds are more important than beliefs, just as actions speak louder than words. Jesus’s favorite word in the Gospels was "hypocrite," because He was constantly speaking out against precisely those sorts of people who would dare to call themselves holy while living a life of corruption.

You are right that my fears apply to all religions and all strongly held beliefs (political) I have tended to focus on Christianity since I was brought up in that religion and feel more confident when discussing such issues.

I think we agree – Happy Christmas.

Oh I certainly agree with you; many of my own opinions on the darker side of religion are focused against Christianity and especially Catholicism since, being my own religion and the one I’ve been around the most, I’ve experiences more of the Catholic Church’s good and bad aspects than any other faith. I try as much as possible to keep an open mind when discussing the topic of religion in general, although no matter how hard I try not to I will always see the world through Catholic eyes.

Afterall,the endless questions between scientific facts and biblical aspects nonetheless would be always a mystery. It seems that this is how man endlessly asks for something that his mind could no longer calculate. –talk about a a self-destructing unit in your PC.

do not forget that the bible only contains four gospels out of the more than thirty written. Who is to say that the orthodox church was right? Well, mainly the orthodox church. Why believe in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and not in the Gospel of Thomas, that of Philip or in the gospel of Mary Magdalene? I hope that this will not be misinterpreted but i try to take the bible as-is and exclusively. What they did at Nicaea was basically to say "This is the true word of God! Not those other words you might hear."

on the topic, has anyone ever read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-G … 171&sr=8-1
I was thinking of buying it

I’ve read Finding Darwin’s God many times, and it is a very good book; I highly recommend it! The scientific aspects of the book are well-written and easily understood, and the religious aspects are well-thought out and persuasively argued. I would definitely recommend it if you are interested.

How fool you are!
please realise even now that there is no similar explanation about human evolution from ancesters. many researches have been proved that evolution by darwin’s theory. there is no evolution spontaniously as your paster told.

DNA test on Y-chromosome of all men around the world showed that the most recent common male ancestor reflect humanity’s origin and spread around the world are within biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Find out more via http://dnamazing.com/dna-testing-%e2%80 … hromosome/

You are correct; those other gospels are actually quite disgusting forgeries. All of them were written around two or three centuries after the Biblical gospels and contain many historical innaccuracies. I have yet to find a single historian who takes the non-canonical gospels seriously.

Wow Alex, good word usage. You better get your multisyllabic self back to school. It would be a waste of your verbiage otherwise.

Thank you, thank you. *bows*

Well, speaking of the gospels other than those of the bible; those with less faith I guess would subject them into confusion, isn’t it? and if they contain certain inaccuracies (though I really do not have much of the idea about them), would it be salient to say that the writers of these other gospels have a stong opposition against the doctrines of the bible or the catholic church in general? I suddenly remembered the da Vinci’s code by Brown.

Well I haven’t read Dan Brown’s DaVinci code nor the Nag Hammadi library, but I’ve heard some historians speak in various documentaries(not the ones that are just commercials to Dan Brown’s novels) about them(the gospels, not Dan Brown’s books) and none said that they had historical inaccuracies. I’m not saying they don’t, i’m saying I have never heard that opinion before.
And the fact that they are from 300 AD doesn’t mean they were written then. Heck, they could have been written 290 years before. If we all get wiped out right now and in 10000 years aliens come here and radiocarbon date the bible in my room they will conclude that the Bible was written in 1995. Take the Gospel of Judas(as it is so popular now): it was radiocarbon dated to around 300 AD(i hope i remember correctly). The catch is: it was found in Egipt and it was written in Coptic. Maybe it took 200 years for it to reach Egipt and get translated.
Just a thought…

Well, the Gospel of Judas, others say that its quite mystifying.

religeon exists to explain what science cannot. the bible was written, what, 10000 years ago? back then there was no science, so people expalianed things to the best of thier ability. so it followes logically that the only place for religion now is what happens to us post death, since nearly all other arias of the bible are covered by science. but wait! the bible was written by people to whome god was speaking to! that mayby true, but how do you explain how all of everything works to someone who thinks that by swallowing chocolate covered spiders will cure them. the answere? translate it into terms they will understand. so logically the bible cannot be interpreted word for word.

call me satin but if you get angry at this post your just proving that I’m right 😈

MrMistery, keep in mind it is more than just radiocarbon dating that helps determine the age of a book. Another helpful source is looking for references to it in other texts. For example, an alien civilization might date your Bible to 1995, but if they found a text that referenced the Bible and dated that one to 1500, they’d know the Bible was at least five hundred years older than their copy. It’s those two forms of evidences together that help establish the estimated age for many ancient texts. It’s still possible for a book to be older, but without any evidence, it wouldn’t be good science to stake your faith on it.

Roan, it is a mistake to write off religion as merely a substitute for science. Indeed neither can substitute for the other; science explains the natural, religion the supernatural. There is no overlap between the two and it is a mistake to assume that they must therefor be in opposition to each other.

Well alex here are my thoughts.
every foreign book someone could find on the market in this country 25 years ago was about Russia, China or North Korea. The western world was that bad place nobody needed to know anything about. So I can safely say that it is possible for something that is not "correct" to appear as inexistent. And it is clear to me that the church deemed the gnostic gospels as "incorrect" and therefore it would not be a surprise if those gospels were older but the references to them were simply destroyed.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I think nobody doubts the church is capable of anything..

A conspiracy of that magnitude requires near-absolute power, something the Church has never really had. Indeed, many of the Church’s most embarrassing moments were the direct result of its inability to resist secular powers who sought to manipulate it to their own benefit. Examples of this include the Schism of 1068, the Avignon Papacy, and the Spanish Inquisition. So I doubt that it was possible for such a conspiracy to take place, and as I said before, without evidence your theory is weak at best.

You talked about the things that the Church could do for the sake of the benefits that the people there may get; power and wealth are good reasons definitely. I see here that the purpose of the Church is poorly reflected.

Evidently, Bile is written by human beings themselves but not God.
Conversely, God is also created by human beings. So God is not perfect because of the narrow ideas of our ancient. If we design a God today, I think it will be more perfect and less paradoxical than before.

Generally speaking, people today are much more narrow-minded than they were in the past; this post could be taken as an example.

I doubt your affirmation alex, people were and still are quite narrow minded. Many cultures considered racism, religious intolerance, sexual discrimination and other such behaviours are perfectly acceptable. And there is still quite a lot of work to get rid of it.
As a result "modern" religions are not better (take the Church of Scientology) than the older one… One could say that just as the old one they are a mean of power and exclusion (of the non believers) just as they often were although some of the old religion have gone away from this and have become much less inocuous and tolerant.

Obviously, I must confirm that you are a skeptic as well as me. If you are, I think we have different definitions in narrow-minded. Your definition more likes prejudice, and my opinion is about rationality of design. For example, as the omnipotent God can’t predict the sins that are made by humans from Adam to his descendants and stop the sins before them occurs. Why does the omnipotent God design the heathens? Why doesn’t the omnipotent God teach ancient people to use computer and CD-RW Rom that can hardly be falsified and misunderstood comparing with parchment recording Bible?

The scriptures can’t be broken. The people long time ago had wrote God’s words because they encountered Him, God had worked in their lives. I know for sure that you have heard of God’s words at the same time (and if you are a Christian) and so do I. Now we must do the same, by letting others hear the words if ever they haven’t known of it yet.

The key is how to prove these words really came from God but not Human. If the scriptures can’t be broken, why do so many different versions exist? How to identify these scriptures fiction or fact? I’m sure the result of identification being disappointed. It is so lucky that I am a skeptic but not a Christian. I trust the civilization should be more advanced without the interference of religion.

@Canalon:
You make a good point, and I would agree with you that people in general are narrow-minded. Perhaps I stated myself poorly but I meant to illustrate that just because people today pretend to be more "tolerant" than we were in the past doesn’t mean we are any less narrow-minded, and it is a form of foolish arrogance to believe that we are somehow superior to our ancestors when the fact remains that we haven’t done much better than they did at solving the world’s many problems.

@tianlai:
I suppose some would consider me a skeptic though I do not usually like to attach labels to myself. I mean no offense but I would caution you against your own narrow-mindedness as you seem to expect an omnipotent God to automatically use 21st century technology. Indeed if God is truly omnipotent then even today’s modern technology must be childishly simple compared to His power, and had He so chosen He could have easily provided for the Bible to remain unaltered even in parchment form, most likely using techniques that are quite beyond our ability to understand or even detect. Of course I’m not necessarily saying that this had to happen, but it would certainly be possible for an omnipotent deity to do, and an open-minded skeptic should consider all the possibilities. To say that God is flawed because He doesn’t play by our 21st century rules is foolish in the extreme.

Science needs proof. So today’ theory would be replaced by another new theory. Wrong point of view will be corrected by new evidence. Do any proofs support God’s exist? I just prove this world without any Gods.

That is science all about–it has to be supported by facts. But the Words are given different meanings by science. It does not necessarily need scientific methods to fully understand it, it simply needs faith. Man keeps in confusing his mind by making simple things more complicated than the usual. Yes, we do open our mind to different possibilities to broaden our perspective, to treat things justifiably. But what is more important to work on is to continue our living at the present. Enough to see that ourselves are breathing today, that we progress each day because we work for it hardly. Appreciate the past but question it no more. There is nothing wrong if we would like to achieve more than anything we have today. For the realization at the end is the simple thing that at least, we have achieved something.

"I am a student in the University of Makati in the Philippines. I may not be a bible reader but I might suggest that these
stuffs written in the bible may not be accurate. Because only people translated it into what it is now. I am a church servant,
on the contrary… I love science,because it tells us how life function! It is great indeed that God designed a very beautiful world
for us to live in without complications. But we humans tend to seek more of what is life all about."

Science and Religion, I might say.. is very connected to each other! How? Because every living creature on earth has LIFE..
And this life is governed by natural energy- GOD! Why do you think we breath? Its because, we have life and how this life function?
Biologically speaking, we have cells that functions in life processes, and this cells make up tissues, and this tissues make up organs and this
organs make up the systems of the body and these systems makes up the Body itself.

But aside from these facts.. Why do you think these stuffs work? Its because God governs each being that walks the earth.
Lets not isolate Science with religion…. that’s all. tnx

Hi Jellybeans, we’re from same country and same school too!

You are indeed right here. However, some people are also having confusion in regards to religion and what really a FAITH should be. Religion is also a knowledge, that we man had created here on earth because we are also asking about our Creator as well. In addition, it’s a man-tenet dogma.
But anyway, hope you’ll enjoy the forums–see how everything on earth are carefully investigated? these are just some of them. Good luck!

Huwag mo kalimutan isama…

Oh I bet I spelled that wrong.

It’s alright, I see that you must be saying here, "Huwag mo akong kalimutang isama…".
Jellybeans, nanirahan kasi dito sa atin si MicahelXY minsan.

Don’t you love when people talk about you in languages you can’t understand?

Well, its nice knowing MichealXY, it seems lyk he enjoyed his stay here in our place.
Well, investigation of all stuffs regarding Science is so much fun!
I believe I gotta be enjoying all these stuffs here!

You will surely enjoy Jellybeans.

"my question is does Darwin’s real concept of evolution contradicts or *opposes* that of the bible’s concept or his concept simply complements that of the Bible’s"

When Darwin did his research on evolution and wrote his book "Origins of Species", he knew what he was doing would offend people of the Church.

Science is naturalistic – working with our surroundings to come up concepts of truth and understandings. Darwin saw relationship between other species and their interaction with environments and saw a correlation between anatomy, behaviour with environment(s).

Darwin flatly admitted that he could describe the processes of evolution but could not define the origin – the beginning. This right here, can be interpreted that there is some implicature going on (i.e. some controller), but I doubt it.

But yea, the theory of evolution does oppose to the bibles notion, thus, why evolution was band from being taught at schools in America. Evolution implies that we derived from other animals and in fact we are animals, which contradicts the anthropocentric view of the bible that states in the book of Genesis

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.
This verse implies we are beyond other animals, according to the chain of being, are separate from animals. Darwin’s theory questions that.
Here is another quote that could support my answer

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” – Charles Darwin

Darwin was just stating the facts, it just happened to be that it was going against the creationism movement.

Thanks, I am new to this board, nice to be part of it.

In one of the books I’ve read, it was not really his intentions to contradict that of the Bible’s. Darwin’s thoughts are more of telling that the origin of species is not necessarily talking about the progress from a simple to a more complex being. It’s how is an organism, already existing was able to modify to an extent that made it adapted to certain selective pressures imposed by its nature.

Welcome here, Darwin420.

Although Darwin certainly knew that his theory would offend prevailing religious authorities, his desire was never for this to happen. He might perhaps be compared in this way to Jesus Christ, Who had nothing but good will yet was still seen as a threat by the Pharisees. I am in no way trying to imply that Darwin is equivalent to Christ (although many atheists seem to worship him as such), but in this the two share a common pattern. Indeed, in Darwin’s England, the Church was literally the pawn of the government; a convention going back to the English Reformation under Henry VIII, who had converted the English church from an independent religious organization into a tool for exerting royal power and will over the people. The English Church thus represented a large degree of authority and social control unparalleled by any other religion since the Sanhedrin of Jesus’s day. In Victorian society the essence of virtue was to follow the established norm; "Don’t rock the boat," one might say. This is why the Church of England was such a powerful force in opposing Darwin.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that Christianity in general should be opposed to evolution. One must not forget that the largest Christian Church in the world, Roman Catholicism, has never opposed evolution, and has had its own theories of evolution since long before Darwin, dating back to St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century. Indeed it was a Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, who significantly advanced Darwin’s theory and founded the modern study of genetics; it was also the Catholic Church that developed the big bang theory in order to scientifically prove the existence of God. This Catholic acceptance of scientific theory may have contributed to the Anglican Church’s opposition of evolution at least as much as Victorian conformism. The Anglican Church had long opposed anything Catholic as "antichrist," a bitter rivalry dating back to the wars between Protestant England and Catholic Spain.

But enough history lessons for now. In principle, there is no reason why evolutionary theory and traditional Christianity should be opposed to each other. On the religious side of the issue, the creation story in Genesis seems to me to be a remarkably accurate (although heavily symbolic) narrative of the evolution of life on Earth. Add to this the long history of Christian acceptance and development of evolutionary theory (dating from centuries before Darwin), and the acceptance of evolution by orthodox Christianity is no problem. On the scientific side, evolution has always been a story of how life developed after it was created, not how it was created in the first place. At least in principle, there should be no reason why an omnipotent deity would not have chosen to create the first life and then allow it to evolve on its own into the many species of today. Add to this the fact that many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists have been Christians, and it is obvious that the acceptance of faith by modern science is no problem.

The great rivalry between faith and science is largely a false conflict that has been created and fed by both sides as a ploy for power and prestige. Just as the Church of England in Darwin’s day was largely a tool to advance a political agenda, so too is today’s evangelical movement more concerned with political power than with advancing the Christian faith. Similarly, the anti-religious movement (expressed by quite a few hard-line atheists here on this forum) is also more concerned with gaining power to advance an agenda (in this case the exact opposite agenda of that proposed by their evangelical opponents) than with actually advancing the good of science. It would thus be to the great benefit of both sides if such foolish dreams of rivalry and power were put down in favor of an attitude of mutual respect and cooperation towards the common good of all mankind.

by Heywood Broun (1888 – 1939)…. 😛

Alex would you say the Church of England (circa Darwin) had more political power and influence than the Roman Catholic during the crusades and/or inquisitions?

I won’t copy and paste Genesis 1 in here, but I’m having a hard time seeing how;

day 1: light and dark (day and night)
day 2: earth and water seperate
day 3: Vegetation
day 4: Sun Moon and stars
day 5: Birds and fish
day 6: Land animals, humans (As well as God’s permission for humans to subdue and have dominion over everything else on earth)
day 7: Phew! Day off from all that hard work.

reflects what most scientists theorize as the sequence of evolution. The part where the sun and moon came into existence after vegetation on earth really doesn’t seem to fit. Perhaps you’re talking about the second creation story (Genesis 2)? The one where man is made before any other living thing?

I can’t help but view it as nothing more than a myth of creation, such as exists in every culture on earth.

Don’t get me wrong, I love your willingness to compromise between the two, and I wish more people did so. But I think you’re really having to stretch to say that Genesis is an allegory for evolution.

I agree with this. Well said.

If I could, at this point, direct your attentions to a thread I started in the Off-Topic forum called "Dawkins Reviews "Expelled" by Ben Stein." It discusses this divide between church(es) and science(evolution). And I’m afraid the documentary does nothing but inflame the already divisive atmosphere.
about13583.html

I think one must read the Biblical creation story not so much as a detail-by-detail account of creation but more as an allegory for the creative process. To begin with, it is very easy to understand why the story is written as it is, and it is an almost exact duplication of Sumerian creation mythology. Being a Sumerian himself, Abraham inherited these stories and passed them on to the first Hebrews. The main point of the Biblical creation stories then became to show that it was the Hebrew God, and not some pagan deity, Who alone created the entire universe.

I firmly believe that the Biblical creation story is not a literal account of how the universe came into being, but an allegorical story meant to show everything in existence was created by God. If we accept that the story is mostly symbolic, we can forgive a bit of poetic license on the part of the author if certain details seem out of place to a literal interpretation. That said, there are certain details that seem to hint at an evolutionary process. For example, in both accounts life begins in the water. The first few verses (God said "Let there be light," and there was light.) sounds to me almost like a description of the big bang. And of course, in both accounts humanity is a very recent creation.

A few days ago I was discussing this with a friend of mine, and I asked him how long are the six days of the creation story. He thought they were twenty-four hours. I do not know how long these days are, but I am certain they are not the usual twenty-four hour day we are accustomed to. A day may be twenty-four hours on Earth, but not in other parts of the universe. On Venus, a day is approximately three months; on Mars, twenty-five hours; on Jupiter, only twelve. All these places were created by God, Who exists in Heaven. How long is a day in Heaven? The Bible tells us that a day and a thousand years are the same to God, as each is but a drop in the ocean of eternity. I therefore am convinced that the days of the creation story must represent much longer periods of time.

And therein lies the real heart of the issue, which is the human tendency to interpret God’s word in strictly human terms. Perhaps one can be forgiven for thinking only in our own terms, but we must understand that God, being eternal, is not bound by human reasoning. Just as a day to God may be different from our own day, then other certain "inaccuracies" of the creation story may be nothing more than the product of limited human understanding. For example, you mentioned vegetation being created before the sun, which is of course a requirement for vegetation to exist. Perhaps on this day God was creating life not on Earth but on some other planet that already had a star to support it? I of course cannot be certain of this but it’s something to think about.

As for your other question regarding the power of churches, yes I do believe the Church of England was more powerful than the Mideval Catholic Church. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Catholic Church is made to shoulder the blame for many things that were not its own doing but instead the work of the various European kings of that time. For example, many of the Crusades were organized entirely by kings acting without or even against the Church’s approval; yet although the Church had nothing to do with these events, it is still blamed for them. The same is true of the Inquisition, which was also largely a tool for various kings to oppress their opponents while appearing righteous. No where is this more evident than in the English government’s use of the Inquisition to prosecute and execute Joan of Arc, whom the Church had already stated was sent by God an therefore innocent of the charges against her. It is no coincidence that in the years following her death, the Church went to great effort to punish the Englishmen responsible for her death.

The main difference between the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the English church of Darwin’s day is that the Catholic Church has always been an international organization and thus able to preserve a considerable degree of independence from secular governments. The English church, however, was founded entirely to give the English monarch sole control over the spiritual lives of the English nation. Since the head of the church was also the head of state, the English church was thus little more than a tool for royal policy. Unlike the Catholic Church, it had no power of its own to stand against the government when the government became tyrannical; instead, it could only play along, as it was itself but a tool of government policy. Perhaps it is not right to describe the English church as powerful in its own right, but as a pawn of the government acting behind it, it was certainly a force to be reckoned with.

Who needs history textbooks when we have alex? 🙂

Thanks for your informed response.

My brother is a person that believes in literal creation, as put forth in Genesis. I don’t want to get in a big argument with him. I tell myself it’s not really worth discussing, or that there’s nothing wrong with him believing that. But when it comes down to it, he and others that believe the same way, may be the ones voting against evolution being taught in schools. Or, similarly, voting to force teachers to pass things like ID off as science in the classroom.

I wish there was a way I could get him to see that they really don’t need to be mutually exclusive, within a person’s life.

Astus, if you can convince your brother to read it, Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller is a great book about the subject of harmony between faith and science. I used to have trouble myself seeing the two as compatible, but Miller’s book convinced me otherwise.

Hey folks,

I’m new here- just stumbled on the site while surfing the net at lunch.

The opening questions asks if Darwinian evolution is supported or is contradicted by the Bible.

I’ve read a few books on both sides of the issue, and have a hard time seeing how anyone can twist the words of the Bible in such a way as to make it appear to confirm evolution. There are legions of apologists out there inventing interpretations and excuses to make the Bible (or any other god inspired text) seem relevant. You would be hard pressed to find any book with the same history and topic that couldn’t be made to say what you want. The simple fact is, if it were even accidentally true, no one would have to change anything to make it true.

The reason some people think it’s okay to say that religion and science are not in conflict, is that they equate faith and knowledge. I don’t. Science deals with knowledge supported by facts and logic and reasoning, while religion deals with faith based on deeply held beliefs (with no regard given for facts and logic and reasoning). If religion was concerned with facts and logic and reasoning, it would be science. They are not in conflict as long as they don’t try to explain the same thing. As soon as religion tries to explain anything that science explains, only one can be right, and pretending they are both equal but different, is faulty thinking.

Cheers

Corax, I would suggest a quick study on theology (literallty the study of God). Most of the great theologians, from Augustine in the 4th century through Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages, right down to John Paul II in our own era, have sought to discover religious truth through facts, logic, and reasoning. No doubt there are many religious belief systems that try to minimize the role of reason (especially evangelical protestantism), however there are many faiths (such as orthodox Christianity) that base their beliefs on solid reasoning. To claim that all religious belief lies forever outside the realm of logic is just plain ignorant.

If someone is looking to verify their faith with facts, they’ll be forced to either eliminate the facts that aren’t working for them, or (mis)interpret them.

You can’t have faith in anything and be entirely rational. Faith is the very definition of irrational. So if there are historical examples of people that said rational sounding things, that doesn’t mean that they were open to ideas that contradicted their faith. Where their ideas are concerned with morals or the like, it’s very possible for them to be as ‘right’ as anyone. It’s where science and religion collide that there are problems.

John Paul II said " "[I]f the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project … nview.html) So the pope thinks evolutions great, so long as the story of his god putting a mind and soul into man is allowed to be included, contrary to any evidence or reason.

How hard would it be to find more irrational ideas from him and the other examples? Not very hard I think.

Since having faith means you are willing to believe something for no other reason than you want it to be true, I don’t think anyone with faith in the supernatural can be entirely rational or logical. Not that they are purposely being dishonest, but they are simply forced to limit and change the information they accept.

It’s not really ignorant to see how religion clouds the ability to be rational or logical. I know lots of people who are very strong in their faith, and are quite intelligent and rational in most matters. However, they are trapped in their faith, and are completely unable to see anything like evolution without dragging biblical ‘truths’ into the discussion- making the discussion another attempted conversion. (They’re all great friends and people, so there are no hard feelings. We all have a good time actually.)

In a way you are perhaps arguing against yourself, because it appears that your own thinking is clouded by your predetermined opinions ("faith," if you will) concerning the supernatural (namely, that it does not exist.). This is the great fallacy of atheism, to claim pure logic based on this completely illogical assumption (even in the face of evidence to the contrary).

I again suggest a study of history’s major theologians. You are wrong to assume that faith is something one believes entirely because one wants it to be true. A quick study of the lives of these theologians (and countless others) will disprove that in a heartbeat. Augstine of Hippo, for example, spent much of his life trying to avoid religious belief, until the weight of reason and evidence finally overcame his doubt.

If it is religion and science must always be in opposition to each other, or if religion is inherently independent from reason, then I ask you to explain your opinions on the big bang theory. No self-respecting scientist who has studied the evidence is likely to argue against the big bang, yet the theory was originally developed by the Catholic Church as an attempt to prove the existence of God. Indeed, one could argue that the mere idea that everything could have sprung out of nothing (a scientifically impossible concept) is in itself fatal to atheism. Certainly many atheists realized as much, and this is why atheist scientists were so opposed to the big bang for several decades. Yet today we know almost as certainly as science can tell us that the big bang happened. Here we have a prime example of religion and science working hand-in-hand to discover a truth that either one, if operating on its own, would probably never have thought about. If science and religion were as opposed to each other as you claim, I do not think this ever would have happened.

Why cant creationists and evolution believers ever reconciliate…..as the saying goes "its not necessary to believe everything you know….the sign of an educated person is that he could entertain a thought in the mind without accepting it…so let the two be at peace from here :D"

why m I budging in here uninvited n giving my advice unsought…God knows!!..oops the mods will warn me for making a crap post…

I agree, it’s a crap post.

I have devoted quite a lot of my time here to trying to establish points not very dissimilar from what you describe.

A warning would have served the task better 😆 …see im again at it…lalalalalalalalalalalalalala…now ull get angry 👿 ….a straight ban…

@ Alex: yea keep doing the good work 😉

One does not think atheistic thoughts because ‘faith’ in a lack of the supernatural clouds ones reasoning. Far from it. Atheists are what they are because there is no evidence of the supernatural. An atheist doesn’t ignore evidence or proof, or shy away from theological arguments that aren’t logical or reasonable. Typically, they seek out those things, to see if they are worth exploring further. Since the vast majority of atheists are not swayed by these things, you call them illogical, yet it’s logic that forces them to reject it all. How can you accuse atheists of being illogical, if that very thing is what makes them atheists?

You say…
"In a way you are arguing against yourself, because it appears that your own thinking is clouded by your predetermined opinions ("faith," if you will) concerning the supernatural (namely, that it does not exist.). This is the great fallacy of atheism, to claim pure logic based on this completely illogical assumption (even in the face of evidence to the contrary)."
I would be happy to look at your evidence to the contrary.

Looking at histories examples of religious people with good ideas, or those who were swayed to believe in a god due to the information they had, is not an accurate gauge of religions situation today. Today, science is eliminating the need to invoke god all over the place. Is it necessary for me to do the reasearch to show you the countless ideas that have been stripped from religions arena by a scientific explanation? As religion is reduced in it’s influence in everyday life, believers construct straw men to tear down, and cast their net far and wide to dredge up weak or even false examples to support their argument. [Alextemplet, you are not being dishonest in your replies- there are unfortunately many who are willfuly dishonest. I just want you to be clear on that.] But do you really think that a few examples of smarter than average believers represent the whole? There are so many more Hovinds than Lemaîtres, that it is almost not worth mentioning Lemaître and the other notable faithful, because it highlights their extreme rarity.

The Big Bang was not developed by any church. It was a theory arrived at by observations and calculations of smart people, one of whom happened to be Catholic. Lemaître is not a typical Catholic because of his willingness to think independently. If he were the norm, the Catholic church would be a distant memory, because it’s only through lack of independent thinking that it can keep believers. There are a whole lot of whacky ideas that are part of Catholisism, so belief without a shred of proof is 100% necessary. Lemaître, by this measure, is a terrible Catholic.

When I have time I will do some digging into the stranger Catholic beliefs, and into the ways Catholic doctrine has conveniently changed gods perfect word to match scientific discoveries. Then we can see who’s more illogical, the theist or the atheist.

You are perhaps proving my point more than you know. First of all, an atheist is not someone who willingly seeks out evidence of the supernatural; if he did, this willingness would make him agnostic. An atheist is someone who has decided even before looking at the evidence (or perhaps choosing to ignore the evidence?) that the supernatural does not exist.

As for Lemaître, I find it interesting that you so conveniently ignore the fact that the only reason he was ever researching the origins of the universe was precisely because the pope had commissioned him to prove that the universe did have a date of creation. You see, at that time, the prevailing atheistic theories stated that the universe is infinitely old and thus never needed a deity to create it. It was the Church that put an end to this myth. This is obviously not something that atheists generally want people to know, but the fact is that the Catholic Church has a long and well-established record of scientific research and discovery. Mendel was a Catholic priest, after all, and the Church was even researching evolutionary science fifteen hundred years before Darwin.

I should perhaps make a clarification here. It is, sadly, true that some religious belief systems expect the believer to abandon all logic at least as far as it applies to the faith. Evangelical protestantism is especially infamous for this, and it thus no surprise that this is the faith responsible for the creationist movement. However, to lump all faiths together and assume that they are all illogical, is simply not true and reflects a good deal of ignorance. There are many religious faiths that are founded upon reason, and encourage independent and rational thought as a means of discovering deeper truths about the universe. Make no mistake, I am not trying to talk you into believing any of these faiths; only understand that they are more rational than you think. To categorize all religious believers as illogical dolts who never use their minds is completely and horribly unfair.

As for evidence of the supernatural, researching bleeding host miracles is probably as good a place to start as any. Another interesting topic to investigate in detail is the Shroud of Turin. If you have the time, there are countless miracles that completely defy scientific explanation, if you are ever interested in studying them. In my own experience, I have seen prayer accomplish countless miracles, from the financial to the medical. I could thus conclude, based on the evidence I have seen, that there really are powers at work that we can neither perceive nor understand at present.

Another way to define an atheist would be: Someone who has concluded that there is no tangible, logical evidence for the supernatural, and lacking evidence, belief in such becomes a moot point.
My point being that just because someone is now an atheist, doesn’t mean they haven’t done an extensive amount of enquiry, research, and "soul-searching" to come to their conclusion.

As for the bleeding-host miracles… Until such a time as objective 3rd parties can be brought in to study these things (maybe this has happened? post a link?) and deliver a peer-reviewed paper on it, they’re not going to get much credibility among a scientific community. No offense, but when I watched the "miracle" video (http://www.dsanford.com/miraclehost.html) it just looked like a hoax to me.

I’ll accept your point on the definition of atheists. Perhaps I was thinking of the more militant types, often labeled as "maltheists"?

As for the bleeding hosts, I’ll look around for some sources for you. I did an extensive research project on this a few years ago. Scientific testing of one of them showed that the bread had turned into human heart tissue that had the exact same DNA as the blood on the Shroud of Turin. I’ll check for some sources since if that’s true, it’s almost impossible to fake.

alextemplet, I urge you to look on the internet and read some of the thousands of personal stories of people who have concluded that there is no such thing as a god. Many of these people are ex-ministers/pastors/preachers, exmissionaries, or other category requiring strong faith. They are not people who ignored arguments in favour of supernatural belief, they were, typically, immersed in it from birth.

As for my own story, I was baptised as a baby but moved out to the country soon after, so attended a small community missionary church, up until my early teens. I believed in a god until I was about 32 or so. I was curious about science, so I read lots of Discover, Popular Science, Omni (that’s going way back) and other science magazines, as an older teenager. Once in college, I stumbled on Skeptic magazine by accident in the library, and my discomfort in the many obvious flaws in religious though and writing, really took a jump. I now had others who thought like I did, but weren’t trying to cram the convoluted peg of religion into the very different shaped hole of reality. But I still had ‘faith’ that there was a god out there.

It took a long time to prove to myself that god still wasn’t real. The apologetic arguments were always able to play the brainless ‘ineffable Mind of God’ card at every turn, so I had to agonize for about a decade before I finally got sick of lying to myself. Easily the most mentally liberating decision I ever made was the one to toss the mind-trap of faith to the wayside.

To say that…
"an atheist is not someone who willingly seeks out evidence of the supernatural; if he did, this willingness would make him agnostic. An atheist is someone who has decided even before looking at the evidence (or perhaps choosing to ignore the evidence?) that the supernatural does not exist."
…is inexcusable. Your ability to write well is obviously no indication of your ability to think while doing it. I’m sorry for my bad attitude, but you sound so smart that it’s frustrating to see your potential wasted on faith. I can never persuade you to see the world without religion. You will have to decide to do that on your own. I don’t want to sound holier-than-thou, but I was in your position for a long time, and now that I know what it’s like to be religion free, I get frustrated at people who are unwilling to see through religon. I didn’t have the benefit of the internet until I was in my late 20’s, and I reasoned my way out of religion. Anyone nowadays who doesn’t see religion for what it is, is purposely turning a blind eye to contradictory information. (Typing "exchristian" or ‘atheism" into a search engine will net you more informationin 3.1 seconds than I had available in 27 years.)

I have seen debates between atheists and theists, and the theists are not unintelligent, just utterly blind to reason. I have see the atheist’s jaw literally drop at their opponents stunning inability to comprehend even the most basic concept. This is not always the fault of the theist, since it’s a byproduct of faith.

alextemplet, I’m sorry for the horrible sounding attitude, but I am frustrated. Plus, it’s hard to argue against someone’s philosophy of life without sounding condescending, and I am no diplomat at the best of times. I do see that there are more theists in the world that atheists, but that is because most people aren’t willing to even give the atheistic worldview an honest look. You are able to argue for your side as intelligently as is possible, but until you know what atheists really think, you won’t be able to convince me you are taking my side seriously.

I’ll leave you with a quote from http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35736” target=”_blank”>http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35736 that says what I’m thinking- only much better.

"Lesson 1 : What is Atheism
There are many definitions of Atheism, Weak Atheism, Strong Atheism, Negative Atheism, Positive Atheism…. ect but the share the following statements.
a)Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods
b) Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.
There are definitions of the weak ect put better on this website.
But simply put Weak has no reason to believe, Strong strongly disbelieves.

Lesson 2: Atheism is not a religion.
It really does not matter how many times you say it is, it isn’t. The only way you can understand this is actually quite simple.
Firstly there are some smart analogies like -Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying "Bald is a Hair Style" or "Off is a TV Channel".. or "Not Crossing your fingers is superstition" ect but simply put the closest I can get to what if feels like when you insist on saying it is the following…
To say "Atheism is a Religion is like saying Christianity isn’t…" then repeating myself every time someone says it is. How annoying would that get ? How stupid would you think I am if I kept saying "Christianity is not a religion" every time you said it is ? What arguments would you uses to convince me it is and I’m wrong. What if I chose to ignore those arguments and keep repeating it isn’t a religion…"

But which is easier to do, to believe or not?

Depends on the person. Some can’t imagine living without it. Some can’t imagine living with it.

It depends on two things mainly- 1)how or if you were indoctrinated as a child and 2)your emotional disposition.

Yes it still depends on the person. However given the chance that many have been exposed to learning and discoveries because of science, that so many information has been fed into our brain, and that there is the Holy Bible and its contents honestly delivers to us the Words of God; in which are we getting most of the benefit truly, in accordance to which is supposed to be more important in this world? Is glorious living out of science enough in this world, that we just exist entirely for the fact that our life is to quest for more and deeper knowledge without minding that it is a celebrated ignorance or simply to lead and strengthen our lives in acccordance to what is written in the Bible, isn’t this one easier to do?

Hi guys. I’m new to the board and I’m a Muslim. Hopefully I can take this discussion in a new way. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

Firstly, it’s thrilling to see such well crafted points from both sides. I am a strong believer in my faith, thus, I believe it is my responsibility to seek the truth of my faith through science. To say that science and religion is opposite of each other is totally ignorant. Since a long, long time before, religion has change the world. No atheist can deny this. The question is, how does religion change world and science? I believe there is two type of relationship here.

The first one is the oh-so-common where religion is being used to deny everything scientific. Just like someone has said before, like the Taliban government who deny women of academic achievement, banning them from school, etc. This kind of action is totally oppose to what religion (at least Islam) is.

The first sentence given to Muhammad is "Read" means go study. Thus education is a primary focus in religion, not only Islam. I remember quite well reading how when the Muslim army conquered all the way to Spain, transfer of knowledge and the development of science speed up enormously in 7th and 12th centuries.

Qouting Steven Kreis on http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture18b.html "In the 8th and 9th centuries, under the Abbasid caliphs, Islamic civilization entered a golden age. Arabic, Byzantine, Persian and Indian cultural traditions were integrated. And while in Europe, learning seemed to be at its lowest point, the Muslims created what I suppose could be called a "high civilization." Thanks to Muslim scholars, ancient Greek learning, acquired from their contact with Byzantine scholars, was kept alive and was eventually transferred to the West in the 12th century and after (see Lecture 26). But not only did Muslim scholars preserve the heritage of Greek science and philosophy, they added to it by writing commentaries and glosses, thus adding to what eventually became the western intellectual tradition. Throughout the Qur’an one can find a strong emphasis on the value of knowledge in the Islamic faith. The Qur’an encourages Muslims to learn and acquire knowledge, stemming from, but not limited to, the Muslim emphasis on knowing the unity of God. Because Muslims believe that Allah is all-knowing, they also believe that the human world’s quest for knowledge leads to further knowing of Allah."

My point is simply, if you’re an atheist and you trying to find ONLY the reason why God should not exist, it’s a crime. If you believe and God and not trying to find the truth behind it, it is also a crime. I have studied Quran quite thoroughly and finding science in it never make me confuse like you do Corax. I’m sorry for you.

I like your attitude Sirikell. Your concluding paragraph, in spite of your well meaning (if misplaced) condolences, is right on the money. I love the idea that beliefs without thinking about them critically is basically a ‘sin’. In fact, my all time favorite quote is

(If I ever get a tattoo, it’ll be that quote. I want it on my tombstone too. I just love it.)

Since this is a science based forum, even those with religious beliefs are at least slightly inclined to look at things with a critical eye. I have no problem discussing this stuff with anyone here, as long as they don’t waste everyones time with, "’goddidit’. Alextemplet is a good example of someone who is looking for proof or reason to believe in a god. Sirikell, too, is seemingly openminded. Although they seem willing to accept information that I would have a hard time even looking at with a straight face, they’re at least looking. I appreciate the difficulty of changing your frame of view to look in at religion critically. Like I said, it took me 30 years to see the religion from the outside. As long as you know that a blind faith is far less valuable than an intelligent, informed one, you have any reasonable persons respect, atheist or not.

I don’t expect to change anybodies mind here. That would be cool, but hardly likely. I would like to be able to show people that there is a great way of looking at reality, and taking the time to understand it is not a sin.

Hello, I’m new here as well and I am a Christian, thus I have a belief in God. It is not blind faith, though. I have taken biology classes, and more than that, I have questioned.

I haven’t read this entire thread so forgive me if some of my thoughts are redundant or just misplaced, but I’ll give you some of the things that have crossed my mind with regard to God.

If I am going to believe fully in any scientific theory, it always raises questions. Take evolution – I can see the logic in saying every organism on earth came from one bacterium. The question is, where did the bacterium come from? Explanations have been given as to how it could emerge from abiotic matter – but where did IT come from? If you trace the world back to a single explosion resulting from two particles colliding – where did they come from? Science can never explain far enough back to know the origin of everything. Science always leaves me questioning, even if I believe in it completely.

If, however, I choose to believe fully in God, I have no questions, because the entire premise and the greatness of God is in his eternity, the way He is and always has been outside of time. With God there is no beginning and no end; He is the embodiment of forever. Thus he is the answer to where the particles, the bacteria, the world came from, and consequentially a belief in God is, to me, infallible.

That being said, humans are far from infallible. You know how many mistakes you’ve made, how many errors in judgement, how many times you’ve started with a great idea only to end up tangled in it and realize the human mind is completely imperfect. We all have. So I can not accept that a human mind, complex though it is, could have created such an infallible theory as God. To say it is infallible means it is perfect, and the only perfect being is God himself, therefore the only perfect ideas must be from and of Him.

This is just the way I see creation. I have other thoughts regarding faith, blind faith, religion and natural phenomena but unfortunately little time right now. Hopefully I’ll get the chance to add them later.

To put it politely, you should read the rest of the thread.

Corax said:

Actually, there must be no point of argue regarding our different doctrines. To debate things sometimes turns to a pointless direction; moreso we donot really expect to change others. As a matter of fact, it is good to see us being enlightened and really getting the prime benefit of what must be sought in this world. To ask or impart new things to a learned person in relation to his/her doctrine will always be a big thing, however. Some may just rather choose silence and stop opening conversations or queries just to prevent untoward responses, not unless of course a broad mind is always willing to hear. Now if some become unbelievers or already exactly the same thing, if they do not believe truly, and given they have the benefit of the doubt, "what if there must really be…".
Now this question is for everybody whatever they are, to where there will be a greater lost?

My friend once asked a pastor if there would come a day wherein different religious advocates here would come and work together as a one.The pastor responded that it won’t happen at all. It should not be like that. I am sorry if I am getting out of the thread telling this one, but please allow me to share some of the things which were also shared to me as well: As for many Christians, we still differ at least in many things. That as Christians, we know and we say that we are supposed to be living in Christ’s way. We have been exposed to different traditions, wherein the real matter is that it further brings us away from what must be done. Please check also Mark 9:25 in the Bible. My friend shared to me things regarding the deaf and dumb spirit being told there. That at the present, most of us Christians are actually in fact deaf and dumb regarding the truth. That it is very hard for the most us to listen and speak the revealed things.

Surikell said:

I have a question. My friend and I have been asking for this one. What is the Islamic name of John the Baptist? Is there a quotation there about John the Baptist as the voice in the wilderness preparing the way of the Lord? Thank you.

Well, thanks for being polite. 😛
I was a little short on time, but I always have trouble keeping my mouth shut on topics I’m passionate about. I’m getting through it, though.
Sorry for posting… inconveniently, if that’s the word?

No, but you’re proverbially spinning your tires in the mud if you’re passionate without considering what exactly the argument is about or what has already been said.

I understand that. I’ve already apologized for inserting myself and my views where they didn’t belong and I’m in the middle of catching myself up so I can contribute. I don’t think I can remove my post so i don’t know what else there is to say.

Propsie, you did nothing wrong. It would hardly be possible to involve yourself in a discussion without giving those involved the low-down on your basic beliefs. Even if you had read the thread from beginning to end, your first post would likely be exactly what yours was, letting others know where you’re coming from, faith wise.

That being said, your belifs have holes in them big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through. This thread isn’t the place to list them, let alone explain them. Just read what you put, and if the illogical/contradictory statements don’t leap out at you, then I don’t know who can help you- but I know it won’t be me. I don’t have enough hair to try to get through to someone as trapped as you (it tends to get pulled out after the 73rd time someone says ‘but science takes faith too!!!’.) Time, nonbiased information, and an open mind, will have to do what I can’t.

You don’t need to apologize, and neither should you remove the post. Move forward.

watch zeitgeist.
it will give you a neutral position on this controversial subject.

personally, i don’t agree with the bibble.
in our world are so many different cultures with different religions based basically on the same thing so talk about the bibble as the real truth is not a good spot to start a discussion.
Besides, they have no scientific proofs for their speechs and i guess all of us know the scientific method.

Whew, it’s hot outside. 30 Deg. C out there, so I’m in the basement for a few minutes to cool off.

My son’s Grade 2 class went to the Tyrrell Museum a couple of weeks ago and I was one of the chaperones. At the museum, as often as I could (which wasn’t very often, considering the two boys I was to keep an eye on were all over the place, never stopping for more than a few seconds at any one place), I tried to reconcile the ideas of evolution and creationism. For the life of me I can’t even come close to imagining the mind-set required to believe the Bible’s version of the origin of life.

Seeing the skeletons of Edmontonsaurus, Albertosaurus, T. Rex, Pachycephalosaurus, and many others, makes it rather difficult to pretend that they were alive only thousands of years ago, and either wiped out by the flood or taken (as babies or eggs naturally) on the ark, then all dying for some reason after the water miraculously disappeared. They were so fundamentally different from anything currently alive that the idea of their coexistance with todays life is a non-starter. And the fact that many of the fossils were recovered in locations that were demonstrably incapable of supporting them mere thousands of years ago, is yet another brick in the wall separating evolution from the Bible.

Ignoring Bible literalists, I can only comment on the Apologists claim the Bible is a massive, god-directed, moral story. If it is simply a set of stories, what right does it have in being interpreted as science? My old Mad magazines have just as much right as the Bible to be mined for scientific truths and information. Unless a god decides to say directly that the Bible is literally true, it is wrong to think it is factually true.

Well, out to the yard again.

The Bible should not be interpreted as science. Of course, it is impossible to prove God does or does not exist. Therefore, in a poor correlation it is impossible to prove that the stories the Bible tells are or are not valid. However, for something to be called science it must possible to verify by the experimental method.

The Darwin theory and Bible story are co-related. Darwin prove by scientific way and the Bible discribes by literally.

——————————-
juliana

[quote="juliana29"]The Darwin theory and Bible story are co-related. Darwin prove by scientific way and the Bible discribes by literally.
quote]

Darwin hid androgenesis entirely. The Bible – partially.

I almost feel as though we should have an entirely separate forum dedicated entirely to discussing the relationship between science andfaith. That way, we could be free to discuss the purely scientific aspects of evolutionary theory here without having to worry about every thread getting hijacked into a creationist debate.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (1Co 1:22)

In conception of Christ have a lot of wisdom.
Christ is a biological phenomenon.
He is Second Adam.

The clan of Adam/Noah is a special clan.

Good question and one i also struggled with for a while, i can tell u the conclusions i came to. Firstly im a scientist a molecular biochemist with a PhD, but i was also brought up in a Catholic school. The way i see it science and religion dont have to be a logger heads at all. The way i see it i help people understand the universe that was created. The bible has been rewritten and interpreted so many times, and it was written for people who were at a lower intellectual level. But the messages are still there and as science progresses as do the meanings behind the stories in the bible. So back to the main question. The bible does not say evolution is wrong. If you read genesis it basically describes evolution in 7 Days. What is 7 days to us may not be seven days to God. Maybe the 7 Day thing is not to be taken literal. I dont know its up to the individual wether they believe it literally word for word. Personaly if you read the bible wanting to understand with an open mind it give you the answers you need. Scientificaly we are made from elements found on earth (genesis claims we were made from dust) try telling a person from way back then what an element was! maybe thats why the word dust waas used. The important part which relys on faith is that genesis claims the breath of God was needed to bring life. Atheists who do not belive in a soul discount this. Personally after studying biology/chemistry/physics for over 10 years have come to the conclusion that something has brought order to chaos, and i believe that that is God. Without a soul we are just a bunch of molecules. A computer doesnt work without electricity. The more i do science the more it convinces me there is more to all this.

Macro-evolution is still to be proven, it is still a theory, micro-evolution is proven. scientists do not know if micro evolution can work on a macro level to explain how we got here.

Another important thing in the bible are these sayings ‘i am the alpha and the omega’, no beginning and no end, as humans we cant imagine this, how can something have no beginning, yet matter can neither be destroyed or created according to our own laws. Isnt this saying the same thing??? Also the bible says ‘in the beginning there was the word’ If you read behind this word could mean alot of things including sound and vibration. Some string theorists claim the universe is made out of vibrating strings.

If you go back to the big bang, a ball ready to explode into the universe. Where did this come from? did matter suddeny appear out of a huge nothingness and explode into a universe?

My point is to believe totally in atheism and think science explains everything requires faith in something you cant see and is ignorance. To believe soley in religion and discount science is ignorance. Both require some level of faith in the unknown. And atheism is in itself a belief. You can never prove God exists but you can never prove he doesnt. How can you discount science when it explains the world we live in that was created. The two need to be hand in hand.

I find that the more we learn the more it has already been written somewhere in the bible. Its a very clever book, and should be read spiritually not literally. Atheists read it literally and so poke fun. The scientists i work with seem to be split into two, atheists and believers. Personally i just have to look at the smile of a child or springtime to know there is more to all this then chemical interactions.

Maybe evolution was how we were developed and created. Maybe humans were just created and didnt evolve. The bible certainly doesnt disprove evolution, most scientist who say it does have never actually read it !!!

sorry for going off on a tangent

Sorry just read the threads properly. Im new to this. As far as i can see the question was does the bible support evolution! yes? so why has it turned into a religious debate with believers arguing with atheists? This is what annoys the hell out of me. Im a scientist and no matter what is proven in science, it does not discount religion. None of you should be slagging each others beliefs thats what causes so many wars. We were given free will to believe or not. Those of us who believe should not force faith on atheists. And atheists should not look down on people with beliefs thinking they are just trying to comfort themselves through life. Those of you who say read this argument on th enet read that. I have read most of them and each is biased according to their own beliefs. My own beliefs aside if you read philpsophical/science explanations all point to something bringing order to chaos.

I have beliefs but my reasoning is based on logic. Those of you claiming religion has no proof, i hate to burst your bubble but science doesnt have much of it either. I work in research and its not until you truly get to this level that you realise that actually as a human race we know sweet FA about anything. One person has said we should have a separate thread for these discussions. You could try but you will never get it because too many people like to impose their beliefs! If you want to be an atheist be an atheist if you want to have faith have it but never tell someone else their beliefs are wrong!

Welcome to the party, Seahorse. It’s refreshing to see a like-minded Catholic here every once and a while.

There is one reality. There are a plethora of descriptions of this reality that depend on supernatural entities. Science is a method of describing this reality without depending on supernatural entities. If anyone can tell me why I should abandon reason when it comes to the big questions, I’d be happy to listen. Selective suspension of reason has its place, but it’s not very productive in the quest for knowledge.

No one’s asking you to abandon reason; in fact, reason would require us to be open to the possibility that there might be something more to the universe than we can explain. Reason is a marvelous tool but it has its limits, and it can only take us so far. Human reason is largely limited to what we can explain, and I don’t think we’ll ever be able to explain everything. Thus there will always be at least some room left for all sorts of possible hypotheses. To assume that science alone has all the answers is a downright unreasonable assumption, because there is absolutely no evidence nor any other reason to believe that this is true.

Adam was supernatural entity. He lactated and bore Eve on his nipple, like marsupial.
The autogenesis is necessary for the appearance of new species.

In fact Adam is collective noun for generations of autogenetic men, without use women.

Hi alextemplet. No one is expecting science to supply proven answers to all questions, least of all scientists (scientific proof is indeed a rare thing in reductionist approaches). Particularly the ultimate questions, such as how the universe or life began. We may come up with good hypotheses that agree with observation as far as we can take it, but we cannot test these hypotheses. My reference to abandoning reason involves making the leap of faith required to believe in supernatural entities as a replacement for acknowledging and accepting our ignorance. My leap of faith involves believing that nature is all there is. I suspect we will all die without knowing the truth of the matter, but I have to make my bets based on probabilities of what is likely. My wife (a Christian) likes to tease me by saying I’m a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists, though, are people who know they are right. I don’t and can’t make that claim. I just love the process of trying to figure things out.

We seem to have common ground if we both love figuring things out. For me, the reason for religious belief is as simple as having seen more reasons to believe than I have seen reasons to disbelieve. During high school I had a rather fundamentalist faith in logic alone, until I realized that a person can use logic to justify or defend just about everything. Just look at politics; both sides claim their arguments to be entirely logical, yet they are in complete opposition to each other. Does logic help us here?

More than anything else, I would say that I am a skeptic. I have a habit (perhaps a bad habit) of constantly questioning everything, including my own ability to reason. I am also often amused by how even the most closed-minded people claim to be open-minded and honestly beleive themselves.

As a rather silly example, who’s to say that the entire universe around us is nothing more than a giant illusion so well-designed that our own puny devices can never discover the truth? There would be no way to disprove such a wild hypothesis, and I could easily claim that all the so-called "evidence" for our own theories is all part of the illusion, all designed to further the deception that we so foolishly believe. Maybe it really is all about the Matrix! 🙂

I belive what bible says.

Good for you, tom. But you must be curious about evolution, since you’re here. Any questions?

Or is he just a spammer whose link has been removed by a mod????

So do I. What’s your point?

The Bible hint about androgenesis.
The language in the Bible is secret.

Hi alextemplet
Sorry im not a catholic but i was brought up in a catholic school, im church of England. Likewise its nice to see like minded people.

Thats exactly what they are though hypothesis. Have you ever looked at the cosmological arguement for existence? Go back to the big bang and discount everything the bible and science says for two minutes. you have this thing about the size of a baseball about to explode into the universe. where didi this ‘baseball’ for lack of a better word come from? Did a ball of matter materialise from nothing or has it always been here? Both questions are hard to imagine any answer to. How can something come from nothing? How can something have always been here. I suspect the bible gives the answer we seem to spend our entire lives trying to research. In fact how do we know that what you nicely term ‘supernatural’ will be science fact in years to come. I suspect one day scientists will prove the exsistence of a soul etc and explain it then it wont be supernatural any more. People once thought science was witch craft. It amazes me that atheists are so closed minded. Science can only explain material things. It will never explain love, it can tell u how it happens, our bodily processes but never how we really feel it or go out of our way to feel it. Point of thought also. There are particles that pass thru us all the time to them we are like cloud. How is that for a perception of reality. We are made from elements, the same elements that make up inanimate objects, at what point did a bunch of atoms that are apparently randomly bonding and rebonding become conscious???? Im sorry but my neurological connections, and atomic chemistry do not describe who i am, they describe a part of how i work. The bible describes man as a trinune, soul, spirit and body. How many years of research is it gonna take before this statement too is proved right? All science can do is describe the world that was created. And wasnt Darwin a christian anyway? (i may be wrong about that)

yes i was wrong darwin was agnostic. people never mention the theories that he came up with that were down right wacky! A lot of science contradicts things other parts of science call laws ie thermodynamics. Evolution is a theory for a very good reason, a lot of it disagrees with some of these laws. I believe micro evolution which Darwin observed is obviously right we see it day by day. But it does not describe or even come close to describing how we got here. Im not saying the bible is 100% correct either, although it hasnt been proved wrong yet. What im saying is to believe in one or the other requires a huge leap of faith. To be an atheist requires just as big a leap of faith! The fact that atheists have even thought about what they choose to believe is a paradox in itself, as why would a random bunch of molecules want to justify their own existence. If we are as evolutionary theory says then why do we have the need to achieve, to love, and to be loved. To promote a feling of wellness therefore ensuring survival of the species? I dont think so. The very fact that atoms have arranged themselves into human bodies with needs is very very strange in itself and disagrees with thermodynamics. we if anything should be eating, sleeping, and reproducing and thats it, yet we have books for enjoyment, cinema, we actually care about animals that should be our competition for food in the wild. Im sorry but i have to say this again i am more then a bunch of atoms and survival techniques. That materialistic part is only part of who i am, it is not the whole. To say we are just atoms means basically that at some point atoms developed consciousness. Yet im sure i dont see any tables and chairs arguing on this forum!

This is a bit of topic, but as far as i know, there are no contradiction to the laws of thermodynamic. Just people who do not understand them… And evolution or human life are definitely in plain agreement with thermodynamics.

I will not preach about atheism (that would be a bit contradictory), but I can certify that love, altruism and desire of achievment and many other things do not need to be grounded in the belief of any mystical superentity. And atheism is not the belief in the absence of god, it is simply the absence of belief in god (i.e. there is no need for any external entity to explain the world as we know it).

As for your argument about conciousness, there are not chair nor tables arguing on this forum, but this does not prove anything, because it seems that conciousness require a bit more than just atom piling, something like organization. And then when I look at some animals, well I see this complexity and definitely thngs that reflects different derees of reaction to the environment, from the simplest (bacterial chemotaxis) to the more complex (baby caring in many species for example.)

seahorse, it’s pretty well known that the second law of thermo concerning entropy only refers to a closed system.

I would say that atheism is precisely a belief in the absence of a deity; the very word means "without God." Absence of belief I would call agnostic, which means "without knowledge."

I think the supernatural will forver remain outside the capability of human understanding. Even if the universe is purely material, there would still be a limit to how much we can learn because of concepts such as the uncertainty principle. Also, if the universe really does exist in ten or eleven dimensions, as superstring theory speculates, our ability to comprehend the whole of it would be even less. How can we possibly understand ten dimensions when we can only observe four of them? I think God intentionally designed the universe this way, so that He can freely act however He chooses and we would be blissfully unaware, thus leaving maximum scope for our own free will. I have seen more than enough miracles convince me of the existence of the supernatural, and I believe these miracles are nothing more than God working through normal natural processes that we simply cannot understand. Understood in this sense, miracles are not really "miraculous" in terms of violations of natural law, but simply the properties of laws we do not and might never understand.

So maybe the distinction between the natural and the supernatural is a false one, but I don’t think the whole of it will ever be entirely within our comprehension.

Well as for people not understanding laws, i have worked as a research associate (after completing PhD) for 10 years so i would hope i would by this time! Atheism is a belief!! look it up, if you dont believe in anything you are agnostic. From what i see its all about a persons perception, one person can look at a tree and be in awe, another can look at it and see a bunch of biochemical processes. I love the way unbelievers choose to word anything spiritual with words such as mystical, or superentity. These are quite derogatory words in the context you use them (proving again that atheists are offended by people having beliefs), and refer more to other religions. As far as i can see none of the believers on this thread have ever said anything derogatory, it seems that non believers feel the need to tell us we believe in fantasy!

It is nice to see someone who is open minded also alextemplet, with the same views as myself. But we may have to agree to disagree with this one. Another thread should be opened for science vs God i think.. This seems to have gone on a tangent. I have worked with both physicists and chemists on collabolrations and there are honestly more believers then atheists. the more i work in science the more i realise we know nothing, there seems to be a very fine balance, a choice to believe or not, there is proof for both choices, it all boils down to faith, and faith alone. We have free will to believe or not. If you choose not to, fair enough your choice. But do not tell me i believe in mystical superentitys. The bible as someone mentioned before isnt a scientific text and should not be taken as so, but it certainly doesnt contradict science, anyone who says otherwise has never read it.

Seahorse, I think you might be taking offense at something that isn’t meant to be offensive. Words like "mysticism" or "superentity" are nothing more than generic terms used to describe the supernatural or the spiritual. I don’t understand why you would be offended by these words, or insist that they only be applied to non-Christian religions. In fact, mysticism is a word that is used often and with great pride among Christians. Many great theologians like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila referred to themselves as mystics, and were not ashamed to do so. The word means to be in touch with the spiritual, and that is something that I think every Christian should strive to achieve.

As far as starting another thread, I really don’t think that would achieve much. It would inevitably go the same route as all the others.

BUt seahorse since you know so much about the laws of thermodynamic, could you please enlighten me on waht generally accepted part of science would be in contradiction with the laws of physics in general and the laws of thermodynamic in particular.
Just so you know, the comparison between plane assembly and evolution is just a comparison and not a good one at that. And as such will not be considered as a convincing proof.

The truth is hidden in The Bible – androgenesis among humans(generally-mammals) related with male lactation.

Darwin also hide the truth of biological alchemy.

Well I am not offended by people having other beliefs being an atheist infact being in India i need to see a lot of different religious people and who are mostly very so called faithful to their "God".I donot fell offended by their presence infact I learn more about human mind and how it would and could have been in our ancestral times[Hinduism is a very old religion with few changes] and it is good to know why they believe it.

Science is based on OBSERVATION, faith isn’t. The Bible is a faith book, not a science book. The Bible records a second hand acount of creation. God told Moses what to write. No one actually observed creation, therefore the Bible is not scientific. Neither is evolution, nor most other religions. Without observation, there is no science.

First point: Yes, science is based on observation.

Second point: The Pentateuch (at least the form in which it exists today) was written a few centuries after Moses died; in fact it is doubtful if Moses himself ever wrote a single book.

Third point: Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion.

How could it be scientific if it wasn’t observed??
Evolution was NOT observed, therefore it cannot be a scientific theory.

Evolution is observed. Just look at the rate at which bacteria and viruses evolve resistance to medicine.

But the evolution of the world was not observed….

No, but by observing life as it is now, and even as it was before (and is now presented in fossils) some correlations can be made, and some hypotheses suggested. and tested when new observations are made. That is how the theory of evolution has shaped in what is sometimes refferd as the modern synthesis (between evolution and genetics in fact), and this is completely scientific, even though we did not observe the facts by themselves.
It is a bit like CSI, observe the facts after the event, and deduce the sequence of events that lead to the present state. Deductions being confirmed (or sometimes infirmed) by facts found later.

EDIT: removing some unnecessary repeats. I will not post too late at night in the future…

right, it would be hard to convict criminals otherwise…

I’m sure your local law enforcement agency would be very pleased of you to inform them that their entire job is a bunch of hog-wash, since surely no criminal can ever be convicted if the crime was not directly observed!

Come to think of it, that might be handy excuse to get out of a speeding ticket . . .

Although that is probably one of those offenses that actually get observed. At least that was the case when I got one. Butyes science is not necessarily about direct observation of a phenomenon, but can also be about the observation of predicted effects of an otherwise invisible event. Hey, I do not think anyone has ever seen a graviton pulling an apple towards a scientist head, but the "theory of gravitation" is considered solid science…

I’m reminded of something that I think Andrew said once, when his teacher said that evolution is "only a theory." He responded, "An apple falling is a fact; gravity is a theory."

In my speeding ticket example, I’ll try to claim that since the police officer couldn’t actually see (ie, observe) the radar waves but merely read the reading, then he cannot write me a ticket based on such an unscientific theory as the electromagnetic spectrum.

[color=#FF4000]Religion is a primitive mans justice system, politics and science. 1000s of years before the Bible was written, you can find the same stories and cretures in other books that represented other beliefs The anti christ, noahs ark, demons, angels are just to name a few. The stories are the same, just changed the names and tweeked the story to fit their need. The Koran, the text that represents the Muslim cult has stories copied from other religions. Meca was a place of worship for 100s of different religions. It was here where people from the Muslim cult stole the term Allah from other religions. Allah started off as a female, god of the Moon. They tweeked it into a dude. Back then if copyright laws exsisted, some of these cults would not be around today.
———————————–
reetha

biology-online.org

[color=#FF0000][color=#FFFF00]According to a poll released by Harris, out of 2, 455 American citizens, 82% believe in God. From believing in miracles to heaven and Jesus himself, U.S. citizens have once again proven their religious fervor. This number is relatively unchanged from the same poll taken two years earlier.

An age-old argument, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution versus The Big Bang has been a topic of discussion for centuries. And despite technological and scientific advances in modern society, it is still a much talked about topic today.
—————————————————-
reetha

http://www.biology-online.org[/color%5D%5B/color%5D

I would like to tickle your brains for a moment……… the basics of darwinism states that nothing new is created during evolution. Everything that is needed for another "transformation", if you will, is borrowed or stolen from somewhere else in life. BUT, it did not state where all of this came from in the first place. If darwinism is correct, we spawned from a single cell that replicated, but how did this cell begin? How were these proteins bounded together into a singularity that all of the sudden spawned life? I wish to pose the argument that evolution supports creationism, and merely explains the process necessary to create. Remember that the book of Genesis was NOT written during the time of creation, it was written long after. Does My Lord explain the beginning? The Alpha?

Strictly speaking, no, the theory of evolution does not indicate how life began; however, that does not mean that sound theories do not exist. Experiments have shown that biological compounds can form randomly in nature, especially in the conditions that prevailed as the Earth was forming. RNA is especially important among these, as it has been shown to be capable of performing the additional functions of DNA and some proteins in addition to the roles traditionally associated with it. In fact, researchers at my university recently conducted experiments in which RNA was found to spontaneously isolate itself inside a phospholipid membrane; this could possibly explain the origins of the first primitive "proto-cells." RNA is also capable of surviving fairly well on its own, as the existence of viroids (basically similar to retroviruses but without the protein coating) testifies. An entire hypothesis called the "RNA world" has been built around these concepts, postulating that life may have begun with simple RNA-based organisms before evolving more complex DNA later. A quick search on Google or Wikipedia should provide some answers to your questions.

You know what, I would have a bit more respect (which i don’t) for creationist if only they would denounce the idea of "intelligent design" to mean [other] than some falsehood "god".

If you believe "god" is real, that he created the earth,the wind,the sky,and the flowers -while attempting to use "KNOWLEDGE"(something evil,sinful) [in this case we’re talking about science] as a means to quantify the existence of "god", than you’ve already shot yourself in the foot.

I don’t believe scientist are necessarily opposed to the idea of "intelligent design" as long as it includes or is defined as: something that we can’t phantom.
Something more plausible than "god"- more like an entire extraterrestrial civilization who’s odds of contemporaneous existence is 100%.

I like many other rationalist believe that the "bible" or any form of out-dated source of government- is merely a very clever old method of philosophical govern.

It’s merited with great amenity due to it’s "philosophical" content(I.E selflessness) which is scattered in allegorical illustrations, fables, and prophecy.

The bible has long been deduced as merely man-made due to many coherently logical reasons.
One[1] reason being due to the fact that we know man is utterly, intellectually capable to develop a system based on philosophical means(I.E America) The founding fathers of the American Revolution to say the least.
Man has not only known to have already been capable of concocting such believes, but also able to doctor up more sophisticated forms of government also: Capitalism for starters.
The only difference is,the philosophical values of this type of government ideology is written in one pithy commandment: Self-preservation.
And unlike the dark-age methods of government, the capitalists’ god is actually visible, it’s called the dollar.

Tho, it’s not yet 100% perfect,it surly does goads religion fundamentalist to sheer bitterness when they can’t "stone" a homosexual with rights in this governing system.

In recent months, there has been a sharp increase in "atheist" due to the accumulation of scientific evidence which contradicts, or reproves the faulty claims made by creationist.

One idea the creationist use as a tool to persuade others is illustrating how evolution, by natural selection,is utter non-sense, and to prove it they’ve used this exact metaphor:

"If you ever go to south dakota, you’ll most likely want to see Mt.Rushmore. When you go look at Mt.Rushmore, you’ll see the faces of 4-death presidents that are recognizable to all americans, and prominent human figures to foreigners." "Contrasting Mt.Rushmore to the evolutionary theory is to say that the most recognizable figures on that Mountain were merely made by "chance", and not design." "If you look around Mt.Rushmore and see the amount of natural slated, cracked, perpendicular formations of rock; you’d think nothing of them till you glance at these well incredibly crafted faces on that same exact mountain." "To say the faces on that mountain were a creation of coincidence is to be irrational."

I’ve already made a counter argument for this one, but i want to see if anybody here wants to take a shot at it first?

We call this a straw-man argument, Viloloco, and it’s a form of illogic cloaked in "reason." I haven’t seen anyone in this particular forum advance the Mt. Rushmore argument that you have set forth; perhaps you have, but it has not been mentioned here. This would be roughly analogous to an evangelical arguing against all of evolution based on the claims of social Darwinism. Not wise at all for two reasons. First, social Darwinism has never been advocated here; secondly, the truth or falsehood of the claims of a few does not affect the more common claims of the majority.

As for the Bible, you are right to describe it as a mainly philosophical book, but I do not think it fair to describe it as out of date. Philosophical systems do not go out of date quite so much as they fade in and out of use. Unlike hard science, the relative value of a philosophical theory is dependent almost entirely on personal opinion, and it is therefore unwise for anyone to make philosophical statements with any claims of established fact. I think there are certain elements of Biblical philosophy, particularly Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and 6, that would greatly benefit the world today were it more widely implemented.

Lastly, I would like to ask you where you ever got the idea that knowledge is sinful? This is a completely new concept to me; in fact I am wondering if this may be another straw-man type of logical fallacy.

I believe in evolutioın but completely apart from Darwin’s.If i could be in his position i wouldnt have hesitetations like he had.As i remember he wrote some religious entrence or end of his one book.And after all science and religion war started.than all bacame problem.Better we dont mix this topic especially with religion;)

Well, you pretty much started off ebulliently "sure", than died down to asking a simple question.
I’ll just begin by answering your question first.

Why is knowledge sinful?
I’m not sure how well you are able to discern allegorical messages from biblical fables , but in case you haven’t notice, all successful means of governmental philosophy have one crucial thing common,whether it be capitalism, communism, or even hinduism; that would be the need for cohesive cooperation.

There’s many ways to achieve that, in capitalism, for example- the major component that keeps mutual cooperation amongst it’s constituents is "capital" (money) which is ratified by means of satisfaction of it’s potential in a capitalist government.
However, capital doesn’t restraint you from exploring other sophisticated methods in which to obtain it (money),it’s designed for cohesive cooperation,and it doesn’t necessarily constrain you from expanding your mind to other miscellaneous activities, whether it’s buffing up at the gym, or drinking your butt off at the bar.
That’s where collective approval of capital govern philosophy is rooted,and why it’s successful.

That’s not true at all when subject to religion.
It’s methodology for cohesive cooperation is a lot more sinister by it’s very nature.
To understand how such an old govern philosophy, resiliently withstood the test of time, we must first take a very close look (read in between the lines) at it’s ideological principle.

I’m going to quote from the Kings James version of the Holy Bible.

One would be left to wonder, if God was predisposed to "knowledge"-has the will,and ability to distribute knowledge for those to acquire- than, one must assume that God is indeed guilty of withholding knowledge of which is "good" and "evil".
But, why than, is "God" and his "angels" exonerated from sin, yet, we [his people] are described as "imperfect"?
And why, if god was privy of "good", and "evil", didn’t he die?

Well, the common rebut for this is the fact that we aren’t capable enough of utilizing that knowledge for "good" (good:which is dictated by "god")

But that in itself is a contradiction when compared with the principle idea behind the cosmic battle between "God" and "Lucifer", which is to overwhelmingly prove to the "perfect angels" that God is the almighty truth.
Well than, if the angels, who are more privy to the information of gods truth, are as credulous, and easily mislead into temptation as our "we", than that leads one to assume that God’s angels aren’t "perfect" either.

So,what does this all mean? and why is it relevant?
It’s simple, to answer to your question, I had to support the claim on why "knowledge is sinful", and the only logical explanation for God’s disdain for knowledge is predominantly due to it’s potential for unavailing God’s true nature or identity.

It’s one of of many reasons. The biggest, nonetheless.

Now that I’ve answer your question, i can now refute the vitriol.
You equivocated my argument to a "straw-man" argument.
That to me or any fair-minded spectator , is considered irascible due to the fact that a staw-man argument has no real substance or validity in it.

Maybe you found it a bit unsettling,but mind you, it’s only your personal opinion.
Also keep in mind that this forum was designed to attract diversity in information, dissidence of debate, and stimulation for accurate knowledge. I’m well aware that my views, and values are not shared by others, but I do make an effort to display them for others to fill in the voids where they lack them.

Whether or not it was "wrong" to support a certain view just because it might have hurt a creationlist’s feelings on this forum, is ridiculous.
I was merely refuting the principle ideas behind creationism, and I evoked "natural selection" as a more plausible counter-argument, but not being indefinite to its legitimacy.
I would more than happily advocate a different view over mine if it had "substance of fact", creationism, lets face it, is recently new, repressive, and contradictory to core scientific principles.
That’s not to say it’s the banality of evil, it’s certainly is not, but should not be considered valid by earnest,knowledge seeking individuals.

Well, lets just define what it is to be "out-of-date" philosophically:
To repressive, or be oppressive in stark comparison to progressive.
I’d consider "slavery" an out-of-date philosophy and I’m sure you do too Alex.
Why? well, our "progressive" societies, by virtue of education, have chastises this humiliating form of human governing.
Sadly, some thrid-world countries still adhere to this form of dehumanization.
Doesn’t mean we, by majority of this progressed society, are going to go back to that standard just because it was merely convenient.
You’re correct that philosophical systems fade in and out, but the value of slavery, like religion, have been both devalued due to it’s repression, and oppression. So, why is it that we can value one repressive philosophy, and discard another when in comparison, they can both share the same municipal principle values? (keep in mind, alot of slaves were happier under slavery with shelter, than they were when they were free)

Also, you’re correct about hard science, but at least you can have an opinion in science, as opposed to religion.
Theologians are not really merited by any sect. They’re basically quasi-scientist who are looking for a means to validate the scriptures.

Again, your opinion is as substantial as established fact.
I pretty much reflect the views of many scientist who’ve studied that bible, and see it as mere poetical literature.
I’m sure no scientist would be as unscientific as to say there "isn’t" a god tho. That includes me.
It’s unwise to just assume anything without substance, much so to assume I’m spewing opinion based rhetoric just to ignite a debate.
I like most rationalist who’ve dabbled in scriptures, know it’s falsehood, and it’s negative counter-balance’s over the positive.
Even with that said, people shouldn’t be ignorant about the scripture, but should approach it in a cynical, third person perspective.

The reason I think your position is inherently a straw-man argument is because you seem to be accusing people of saying or doing things they haven’t. For example, I never said anything about hurting anyone’s feelings; I only said that it’s illogical to argue against someone based on something he never said. Your explanation of knowledge being sinful has only further convinced me of this, as I now understand that this is based entirely on your own personal interpretation of the Bible and not on the actual doctrines of any Christian denomination. I won’t go into an in-depth description for two reasons. One, I am no theologian; I have read the Bible in its entirety and have studied the doctrines of many religious faiths, but I hold no degree in the subject. Second, any attempt to elaborate would almost certainly devolve into my own personal opinions on how the Bible should be interpreted, and my own opinions aren’t really relevant to the point. One thing that is rather clear to me, though, after much study of scripture, is that the Bible is not self-interpreting. It was composed from literally dozens of sources, each written for a unique audience in a unique time and culture, and it cannot be clearly understood without much historical study into the languages and cultures of the time periods in question. For example, the first several chapters of Genesis are almost ver batim reproductions of Sumerian creation myths; this should come as no surprise considering that Abraham (the founder of the Judeao-Christian faith) was a Sumerian!

You are right that some religious doctrines are, as you describe, outdated and oppressive, but it is very unfair to generalize this to the practice of religious faith as a whole. For example, most Christian denominations (indeed, most religions) would disagree with your interpretation that knowledge is sinful. Some organized religions do, it is true, look down upon individual opinions and differences of thought, but the vast majority strive to keep an open mind and respect varying opinions. It is true that various religions have, at times, caused much suffering and harm on others, but so has practically every other invention that we humans have ever been able to create. I don’t think you’ll find anyone advocating the banning of automobiles due to accident-related fatalities. Many (probably most) religions do far more good than harm in the world, and do a lot of good for a lot of people. I try to keep an open mind towards most faiths, keeping in mind the good that these beliefs have done for their adherents. This is probably the single greatest reason why religious faith exists in the world; for one reason or another, it makes its believers happy. This is remarkably different from the scientific enterprise, where the goal is the pursuit of fact and not happiness.

This of course does not mean that we must choose one over the other; there is no reason why we cannot simultaneously pursue both universal fact and personal happiness. Most Christians, for example, are comfortable with accepting modern scientific theories such as evolution and yet they still find this perfectly compatible with their faith; the creationists are in fact a small but very vocal minority. I do not think it is fair to write off all religious faith as out-dated or harmful because of the opinions of a small minority of believers.

If I have misinterpreted your main point, then the error is mine alone. Also, I know I keep speaking in terms of Christianity; this is because the various Christian denominations represent the greatest field of my personal research and knowledge, and I felt it best to speak of a faith where I am at least somewhat knowledgeable instead of, for example, Buddhism or Hinduism, faiths that I know almost nothing about. I have tried to speak in terms of religious belief as a whole, using my knowledge of Christianity to provide specific examples.

Alex is right, viloloco, most of the ‘arguments’ you are using do not have solid premises. For example, out-of-date does not equal oppressive/repressive. Oppression is one of many philosophical by-products that are being weeded out of most societies. It is not purely a product of religion, nor is it synonymous with antiquated philosophy.
To really test the current suitability of a philosophy, look at its interface with contemporary society. How popular is it? Is it spreading? Is it meshing well with its constituents’ lives? Is it meshing well with the values of the society it’s in?

Furthermore, you’re confusing dogma/fundamentalism with the overall philosophy of christianity in your assertion that it is oppressive. It could be argued that true christian philosophy has been the driving force for freedom, and is the reason we have such a free, prosperous country today.

Just so you know, I’m not attacking you. I understand your frustration with creationist thought, and its political ramifications (ie what’s taught in schools, funding for research, etc). I’m merely pointing out that you’re taking the wrong approach to the problem. This is what Alex is doing as well. Consider the structure of your arguments. Support your conclusions with solid premises.

Oh and for better examples of creationist arguments that you could try to refute, go to http://www.icr.org

You shouldn’t cloud up your assertions.
What you’re telling me is not to made an argument that’s not specified by another,I understand that, but what you’re implying is that my opinions are made without substance, and I’m saying that this forum was meant for discussion, and debate. If you think that every one person[s] opinion is gibberish, than you would have to condemn every persuasive book author out there.
A Straw-man (which is a noun not a adjective) point of view would be someone who’s asserting opinion, based on "ignorance"(which is what you’re implying onto me) about a particular subject and has merit in what he/she says.
My statements about "sinful knowledge" which is a valid claim, is very much opinionated, but based on controversial interpretations by many rationalist who are debunking faulty, biblical beliefs.
Maybe it’s unscientific, than again, I didn’t make this thread. I assume everyone here does have their personal ideas about religion falsehoods and shouldn’t be criticized or hectored for it because than your positions transition into a polemical one.

What exactly do you mean by that?
If this relates to your assertion, than please listen.
Interpretations of the bible are arbitrary amongst all denominations of Christianity.
It’s a pseudo philosophy by it’s very vague roots, and that’s why it’s virtually irreconcilable, and a waste of time to debate amongst polemicist.
Unlike many other ancient philosophers (example: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle) , the bible doesn’t have just one[1] major contributor, it has many, and that’s where the obfuscation begins. We can’t even validate who documented the bible indefinitely.
However, my rationale arguments are poignant, and virtually irrefutable to any earnest Christian, or at least refute it off to convince me or others without contradicting themselves.
That’s why I made my argument, because I know the bible’s loop holes, but I state my claims candidly.
Like I said, I’d be open to be reproved, but I seriously find it utterly unlikely that will happen.

You know, you should have really stood to your position of "not being a Theologian".

First off, Abraham was NOT the founder of Christianity, or Judaism, he was a semite before Christ was even born!
He was however, the founder of monotheism.
Your statement is equivocal to fully accrediting Bill Gates for the "Internet.

Secondly,*Judeo-Christianity, is a concoction of American culture beginning in the early 19th century.
Every Theologian, Jew, and honest Christian scholar would agree.
Go look it up. It didn’t really make much of a presence till 1945 .
Ignorant political pundit’s, and Christian leaders catechizing this falsehood for political gain, we wouldn’t be talking about it.
Don’t confuse Judeo Christianity for "Christianity".

I have every right to hold resentment for such religions.
A) When a religious leader vehemently denies all other books to debunk fallacy from truth, that’s considered "demagoguery", and the idea of someone who’s a cynical as a pastor to ween loads of credulous human beings to believe that there’s only one book you need to live on this earth; excuse me, is as cruel as weening a child to the idea that there’s nothing more important than money.

I however, don’t want to imply that adults, who are privy to [it’s] potential corruption, shouldn’t be open to it.
I believe that someone who’s mature enough,and want to live their life under the biblical philosophical principles, is fair, and totally their business.
My disdain comes from the ignorance of religious leaders who fail to comprehend that this books falsehoods are very potentially harmful to young minds who would be easily mislead by any rebel radical.
If you knew me, you’d realize that Christianity has even camouflaged into the urban hip-hop community.

You want to bet?

They’ll tell you there’s a "Difference" between "Knowledge and "Wisdom".
Maybe that’s where you’re misinformed.
Ask any Christian, "why is knowledge bad?"

This is a very subtle,short-sighted,straw-man analogy.
Would you let a 5 year old drive an automobile on a high-way?
No, why is that- you must ask yourself.
Because, Automobiles, just like religion, are both mutually dangerous if not perspicaciously taught by rational, responsible adults, and I think you’d agree.

You’re not really comprehending what I’m saying, I’m NOT against the philosophical principles of the bible..I’m against everything else-meaning the falsehood belief that we as human beings, are participance of this cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil. I’m not sure you’ve deduced that yet.
Once the philosophical principles are met, there ((IS)) no reason why we have to follow any ridiculous practice like going to church because fundamentally, that’s where all the harm to children begins. Church should be optional for adults only.
When you have a dictator super imposing their beliefs [whether it be through philosophy, persuasion, or flat-out demagoguery] onto young minds,than that’s poignantly where the objections of many rationalist lie on. Those kids should be in school, being taught the essentials to a great education in order to keep continued progress in their society, and not be repressed backwards into an old standard, moderate way of living.
And this is not just "my" opinion by the way.

Thank you.

If you took a harder look you’d see "philosophy" at the end of that sentence.
And if alex is right, which he is in this quote, he wouldn’t have agreed with me, and disagreed with you.

Read everything I stated my latest post. It incorporates your arguments as well.

And as for the creationist site, their arguments are very rudimentary, so much so, that even Theologians have to refute them. All are very easily denounced with a little scientific work.
Creationist’s biggest hitter is always going to be the "conception" of life.
That’s where i based my latter assertions on- why I would accept the notion of intelligent design.

I’m glad you see my point, but I seriously think you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that anyone else’s opinion is gibberish. I merely stated why I disagree with yours. As you say, this forum is meant for discussion and debate.

The phrase "straw-man" can be either a noun or an adjective, and it is a form of logical fallacy involving arguing against something that doesn’t exist.

Once again I’m glad you see my point, although I would like to ask how you are defining "rationalist."

This is very true among some denominations; others are more careful with their historical research and try to interpret the Bible (as much as possible) within the context which it was originally written.

I think an educated Christian who’s down his historical home work would have a solid case against your opinion, but as I am agnostic I’ll leave that up to them.

Of course Abraham was not the founder of Christianity; he was however the founder of Judaism. Christianity and Islam are both later off-shoots founded by other men, but all three trace the roots of their faith back to Abraham. This is why Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often grouped together as the "Abrahamic faiths."

I am not. Christianity is Christianity, and Judaism is Judaism. The two faiths however have a lot in common, and the term "Judeo-Christianity" is a valid phrase that can be used when discussing both of them together, just as the term "Abrahamic faiths" is often used to describe Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Right you have but I still disagree, based on the fact that the characteristics for which you are condemning all of Christianity do not apply to the whole of it.

Yes I’ll take you up on that bet. Most people (Christians included) would define knowledge as knowing information, and wisdom as knowing how to use that information. Almost no one would describe knowledge as sinful.

My statement was not a straw-man; it was a valid analogy. You have condemned all of Christianity based on the actions of a minority of Christians; this is analogous to banning automobiles due to accident-related fatalities. My point was merely to show that every human invention has in some way been abused in one way or another. I don’t think you would advocate banning evolution from our schools because of the cruelties of social darwinism, yet you are quick to condemn Christianity based on the misinterpretations of a few.

So you’re against the belief that we are participants in a struggle between good and evil? In other words, you’re against an opinion that disagrees with yours? I don’t really believe in any sort of "cosmic struggle" either, but I don’t see the harm in trying to motivate people to do good. The world needs a lot more of it.

You are right that there may be no reason to attend church for you, but others might find reasons, just as many find reasons to go to football games or movie theaters. Church already is optional, but I don’t think you’ll have much luck trying to place bouncers at every church door to check IDs. I think you’re grossly exaggerating by claiming that this is destroying our children. Yes children should be in school, but fortunately church services are held on the week ends. I don’t think there’s a serious problem of children not being in school because they’re always in church.

In conlcusion, if you had limited your arguments against "fundamentalist" or "extremist" (or whichever term you prefer) Christianity instead of attacking Christianity as a whole, I would have never disagreed with you. Every accusation you have made is true of some Christian sects, but nowhere near all of them.

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

I like how you’re making up your own definitions for everything. Anyway, the whole straw-man thing was just pointed at your example creationist argument because none of us have heard it before, and we’ve heard all the most popular ones.
It’s really not an attack, in any sense, to point out a logical misstep. If he called you an idiot, that would be "irascible vitriol".

I was addressing philosophy. Apparently you, self-admittedly, were talking about doctrine. While doctrine is a subset of philosophy, any single doctrine does not represent its parent philosophy as-a-whole. Furthermore, since we’re using alex’s word as truth now, I’d like to point out that he said they are outdated and oppressive; not outdated because they are oppressive.

My own commentary on your illogic seems to have fallen on deaf ears (eyes?).
When A does not equal B, but you say C = A because C = B, that’s faulty logic. I will go back to my example–
–"out-of-date philosophy"(A) does not equal "oppressive/repressive philosophy"(B) even though many oppressive/repressive philosophies are now out-of-date. The definition of "out-of-date philosophy" relies more on social context, and is a much more complicated issue. You are oversimplifying and creating a purely subjective definition that fits your needs. Furthermore you are basing this definition on some supposed antonymical relationship between "progressive" and "oppressive/repressive", perhaps confusing them with "regressive".
–But you say "christian philosophy"(C) is(=) an "out-of-date philosophy"(A)
–Because: "christian philosophy"(C) is(=) "oppressive/repressive philosophy"(B)

And, as I said before, your second premise (that christian philosophy is oppressive/repressive) is arguable at best.

You’re spewing out a lot of words and trying to be controversial, but the people responding to you aren’t arguing so much with what you say as much as with how you say it and how your logic is presented.

reetha25 wrote:

Honestly, I am tired already to read all over again the latest posts here. As what I see here, since we are in a very modern age of reason, we have gone so far. Our minds are no longer satisfied for whatever information it has gone through. The speculations are being too wild that it somewhat can no longer fit into a more simple idea. We had made and thought too much of such ideas. Now, this could be a test to everybody. Setting aside science for the meanwhile, the world is clearly seen as a blinded home, a very dark place already. We learned because we have been educated, but what should be worried about is how far is this knowledge could bring us far from what we must be also giving a chance in our lives.

anyone who says that the bible is not true or God is just another story, think twice or even more.

I would advise anyone pondering this issue (or any other, to be honest) to investigate the matter thoroughly, but what does any of this have to do with evolution? We seem to have gotten far away from the original purpose of this forum, in my opinion.

Tobby, why should I think twice? Give me some proof to support your statement that I should think twice. And if you can’t, then me saying we should believe in little green men living in our brains is just as probable.

I am sorry, and this may offend people, but I don’t get how people can have so much faith in a God, but yet you can’t prove it. Wars are fought due to religion, and what do they have to prove for it?

I am naturalistic, meaning I use my surroundings to come up with logical ideas and conclusions …sorry "God".

Darwin 420 wrote:

It is true that from the past, evolutionary sciences were restricted and any underlying concepts about evolution were considered rebellious and heretical. And here, we are trying to think of the possibilities of origin through scientific terms that in this case, we’re exploring Charles Darwin’s concepts and applying them to explain the origin of living things. There’s nothing wrong if we use the facts out of our observations, it is because we have senses and we can not help not to use them; through our senses we became curious and therefore we started asking questions of any kind.

In the Biblical sense, there’s nothing wrong too if we are to give ourselves to think about it. Faith on God does not need any proof. It is up to you whether you would like to give a chance accepting it. Now, if you choose to be more naturalistic than being a believer, fine; I am not going to contend.
Suppose you would like to give yourself a benefit of the doubt that what if the things written in the Bible were true, there’s nothing to lose.

I agree. What good have knowledge, understanding, and wisdom ever done for us.

I love wisdom, and praise it as the highest of all virtues. That’s a large part of why I love the Bible so much; it’s so full of wisdom!

To interpret the Bible as a treatise on natural history is, I think, to grossly misunderstand its purpose, sort of like trying to read Darwin’s Origin of Species as a discussion of morality.

As far as faith, I think there are many reasons to believe that could be considered logical, and many reasons not to believe that could be considered logical. The problem with logic is that just about anything can be made to seem logical depending on how you look at it, especially concerning a matter with complete lack of evidence for or against.

Religions are about as responsible for wars in the same way that oil causes wars. It is the nature of humans to fight each other, and without religion we would just find another excuse. To blame religion for warfare is, in my opinion, a very ignorant and short-sighted view.

Who is Mith?

I have to correct something that was said. It is technically the 7 day creation theory.
and even religious people debate this theory. There is controversy on how long 7 days was back then. we do not tell time the same way as they did back then so the bible could mean 7 days or 7 million years. I also do not think that the bible is flawed. If the bible is flawed then you wouldnt be able to believe anything in it! Today the church is not christian church is not resisting. There has not been plausable proof to any theories that have been thought up. I have studied many alternatives to Creationism and have found no solid proof for any of them. In fact, I have found in many cases that there is actually proof to damn the theory as false. In the case when people say there is no proof that the bible is true, that is a false statement. If you look at some archiological studies that have been done. we Know that the kings in the bible actually existed and that the cities were real cities. If you want to argue against or for something, try studying it first!

Mith is another user (and as it happens one of the moderators).

My reaction to your post is that it is not because one part of the Bible is true that everything is true. The Bible is a collection of oral and written traditions that went through many compilations and translations. There is probably a lot of true things (reports of true events as they were lived), doubtful things (hearsay or just traditions from the region that have gone through a lot of modifications as the Noah’s story that is a common theme in the region), and simple stories (like the genesis) or interpretation of events that were not understood at that time that simply cannot be taken true word for word. So the truth of an element do not prove the truth of the rest.

As for teh rest I admire your wonderful dedication to study evolution and all alternative theory of creation, but somehow I doubt you have a real understanding of evolution. But I would be interested in your rebuttal. And what is your rebuttal for the flying spaghetti monster?

Yeah everything is true heheheheehe 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
I think Bible is history book written by the people of Israel and you cannot trust everything written by Israelites about themselves.The egyptian king Ramses 2 said that he had a glorious victory against the hitties and there are many inscriptions in his temples which say the same.But in reality he gained almost nothing execpt for a hittie princess.There are many such stories which have not been corrected due to lack of evidence[especially in the books of "Kings" & "Chronicles"].
So i don’t think everything in the Bible is correct leave alone the miracles and stories…..

I have a new favorite religion (Scientific Theory…) Thanks for the link Canalon. I’d heard of Pastafarians before but didn’t know what it was all about.

Oh yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster shall save us all!

just so you know, the best means of studing and reading the Bible is both literaly and metaphorically…it doesnt make sense to just read it in one way when there are many parables that are not literal(Matthew13Behold the sower went forth to sow. 4 And whilst he soweth some fell by the way side…other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth. 6 And when the sun was up they were scorched)just as there are many events that are not metaphorical(Matthew6:5And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men…). In the parable above, the seed or sow is the Word, and may not grow amongst others without the right conditions. In harsh ‘conditions’ the Word may not grow. Where the second quote refers to hypocrisy and encourages people to stay away from such actions. There have also been many people whithin the Bible that actually existed as their lifes actually did take place. In all actuallity, the Bible should be read more than once, it involves philosophy and other written aspects that may become understood differently or more clearly as it is read again. Similar to "Book of Five Rings" which is a martilist book written in Japan.

True your statement in some sense, but there is a reason why. Science is very much the explanation of the natural world. that being what we sense, see and hear. super natural may not always be seen or heard or sensed, therefore it can not be studied or looked at in the same way. however science may deal with many things within religion, and the Bible. archeology is a form of science and there have been plenty of cities, objects, etc. that have been unduged to place truth to events within the Bible, such as King David for one(I actually just saw a show on ’bout it, so its still fresh in my head). For you see much of this natural world is how people sense God. They see Him through what miricales there are within the natural world, like birth. women don’t have it perfect as many within the animal world, birth wieghs heavy when the kid has a big head and wide shoulders such as we do. I heard a similar quote as I took my biology class, though I rather prefer it over yours when it is better explained. "biology, science…is the explanation of the natural world around us. we will not talk religion because science does not go over the super natural, therefore we wont either." my biology teacher was a cool guy to, real nice.

what you speak of is govt. involvement in its own arranged studies. science through out its history has been private investment. most investments along with discoveries have been private, instead of your acclaimed public.

also, please add some support to the Church burning people, when history may show it was the early Church that have been target with such horror.

I would like to show a tie between science and Church, many scientists and biologists to whom have made discoveries were not only of the Church, but carried positions in the Church higher than member…such as Brother.

I think its funny how you mintion Catholics as dependant and without means of independance. why is that so funny? well simply because the Catholic religion supports uniqueness and individuality. what you are so confused about just might be the rules that you may see to ‘enforce’ actions. what is missed is the actual act of a Catholic having the distinction in resolve towards perfection. In bettering themselves in many aspects of life. As a specialty towards Catholic meaning (what it means to actually be Catholic vs. just saying it) is the step away from flesh. By that I mean away from pride, wrath, lust, gluttony, etc. There actually seven words here, actions mind you that have historicly been proven to be the fall of man. In that sense you seem, as others are, confused in the determination towards keeping true these rules in keeping moral. to stay away from what is referred to as sin (and when I say you seem, its through reading your typed words). Now there are plenty others who may have same characteristics or resolve in many things, similar things/subjects who may not even be Catholic. I nod my head. Some may look at this as chains where it is to break the chains of flesh (selfishness, etc.) that is the focus. why? not only to become closer to God, but to better ourselves in everyday life. the worlds a simplier place with out such sins. more peaceful too.

Also, as many do…you think science is in some means a curse to religion. some extra ordinary explanation of what religion missed, even when majority religions that you so mintion are not practiced any more. Yea, Catholicism actually makes no crazy claim in explanation something just to find a reason…when many scientists (biologists) are/have been Catholic as science explains the (natural)world around us and in this search, this explanation, one may be joyful of the the world around them instead of just ignorant of it. So if you want to understand the world around you, sure…science…biology…all the way. but if you want to learn about yourself and the existance and extention of Love…science will never explain it. never.

The more this thread continues, the less I understand what we’re arguing about . . . 🙄

wars have been faught to proove a personal thought…to supply and demand a personal thought(which could be explained as pride, wrath, greed, etc.). Though people say religion has been the center of war, it is the irgnorance of both supporting and opposite religion that would start such hatred to begin a war. prejudice is a good example of the normal out come. where as many religions actualy support peace rather violence. Its this missunderstanding that cause such horrors.

And what you got to be sorry about? rather sarcastic there huh? any who, many do the same as you claim. Many actually experience God within nature and through out the natural world. why, many explanations of the super natural is through the natural in means of understanding.

GOOD observation skills there. Yes, indeed I am being sarcastic.

*grabs popcorn and gets ready to watch feathers fly*

why is there a pillow fight? really crazy when that happens…you know its bad when pillows get into fights.

I wasn’t talking about a pillow fight. I was referring to a fight between pigeons.

Your right "wars have been fought to prove a personal thought"
In this case personal thought of whose religion is right or whose so called "God" is greater.And i don’t see any diamond or gold mines in the region of Israel,palestine for which the crusades were fought.It was just some "Holy land" stuff.Add the end of the day you must accept that if their had been NO religion there wouldn’t have been any such wars.

If there had been no religion, people would still have found reasons to fight each other, like race or ethnicity for example. To claim that religion causes war is just plain ignorant, like claiming that guns cause crime.

You act as if it is new that someone would hide behind something good in order to do something bad. pedophiles have been known to search for jobs that would get them close to a child. the job they pick has nothing to do with that job being bad or the normal people within that position being bad. U.S. Civil War? Race. Your mintioning of the Crusades? Middles east was a huge site of trading, the current land of Isreal was a connection between the western societies to the eastern (right through to middle east) Muslim Empire was controling that trade area, which would have cause many western societies to grow in wealth. It was not just one city they faught for, it was the entire landscape. If the King of England and others would have won that war, they would have faught eachother just to control it. Oh and Jerusalem itself was a huge trade center which many businesses payed taxes to the Muslim Empire (forgot its actual name). A little fun fact here, the side that did win that war was actually more honorable and just than the other, not just because of ’cause’ but what had happened there because of such ’cause’. By that I mean, history shows that the majority soldiers hired by the King of England and King of France were not in same comparison as to holiness. also, there was a general that forced the murders of thousands of local peoples, some of which were not even Islamic. There were a few being Christian. The cause of the ‘Holy War’ was not Holy at all. it as Wrath(hatred towards the region and race), Greed(control of trade), and Pride(ability to say one is better). these three words as one may notice is listed as vices for Christians and Islamics.

One may also note within the history of England, the King grew in ‘power’ when he sent nobiles and others to the war.

Good points. The causes of almost all wars are almost always economic, meaning greed. One side wants to profit at another’s expense. In order to gain popular support, governments almost always employ the propaganda of fighting for something good, such as religion or justice or human rights. To say that any of these things cause war is to completely misunderstand the real reasons for conflict.

Alright Alex
So you say that George Bush attacked Afganistan and Iraq for personal greed but said that God told to attack in his dream just to cover up the whole issue.
This thread is gone offcourse like most thread in this Evolution forum

When did I say that God told him to attack it in a dream? Where are you getting this nonsense?

I dont remember Bush ever stating that war was under the impression of Divine Guidence. what news article did you read?

Got to keep the fashion trend going, after all! 😉

I dont remember Bush ever stating that war was under the impression of Divine Guidence. what news article did you read?[/quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
there is your link mate

Think you got it all wrong mate.I never said you said this information.

That article doesn’t quote Bush once; it only quotes what other people claim Bush said. I’m sure I don’t need to explain to you why that makes it nonsense.

alright leave it you seem to be a strong bush supporter………

I am not even close to a Bush supporter; check my posts in the off-topic about Hurricane Katrina if you need any more proof than that. Whether or not I am for or against him is not the point. The point is that you have failed to provide us with a single example of Bush claiming that he was acting under divine guidance. I would hope that someone as big into the sciences such as yourself would see the logical fallacy of relying totally on second-hand rumors of "he said/she said" instead of actual quotes from the person in question.

Alright Alex
I accept your not a bush supporter.May your from the "Yes We can" group 😉
Anyways its hard to verify Since bush once stated "he felt like God was with him as he made big decisions, but that the decisions were his"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_ … _interview

Anyways getting back to the topic.Why did he attack Iraq???

There’s proof right there that this isn’t some sort of religious war. How did we get onto this topic again?

well i don’t know.but i think I started it 👿

Yeah, usually I’m the one getting off-topic.

Somebody has to take that nobel job and accomplish it 😆

Oh my, seems that I got headaches here. 🙄

And I don’t think it’s my hangover this time.

Alright lets get back to the "Offtopic".So many wars have been fought and won with the grace of "God" according to the bible.Do you think all of them are historically correct.
Lets leave the wars the jews[Israelities and Judeans] have lost for now.We will get back to that latter.

Historically correct? What is that supposed to mean? That they happened in history?

I mean having Archaeological evidence.

Um, yeah dude, that’s kind of a well-known fact that almost all of the wars in history actually happened; why else would we even be talking about them today? Even wars that were previously thought to be pure mythology, such as the Trojan War or the Hebrew conquest of Jericho, have been backed up with archaeological evidence. Otherwise we wouldn’t still be talking about them today.

But anyway, why do we still have to dig up archaeological evidences just to know whether the wars cited in the Bible did happen? Is it just because without them, the things written in the Bible won’t be claimed to be true? Is that how you want to see it? Do you think that the archaeologists could be also looking blindly on their evidences for they investigate only a small component of the whole truth?

Good point, mcar. Archaeology can’t really tell us much about how people lived, and it certainly can’t capture the thoughts and emotions that dominated their actions. That’s the beauty of the written word, it can tell us all those little details that make up the whole picture.

Well what i meant to say was that in most wars "god" interveined and miraculously saved the israelites.which means that the isrealites could not have suffered any damage.And the exodus of isralites,plagues and stuff.Do they have evidence.I mean they seem to major happenings so should have let atleast a trace.

The problem comes in the writing dude.You see when an egyptian writes abt his countries history he tries to modify history as much as possible.Like even if the egyptians never won a war they writer claims a major victory.The opposite party also does the same and this is where archeology comes to play its part.Although may not be a 100% correct but still better to believe it than the scripts of ancient egyptian or meroitic.

You have to understand the perspective from which Biblical history was written. "History" as we know it today simply didn’t exist in ancient times. Almost all history was told through oral tradition, and this combined with the fact that most Biblical authors were writing a generation or two (or more; some scholars have even suggested that Genesis may be post-exilic) after the fact, meant that history in the modern sense of accurate reporting of facts simply didn’t happen. Rather, most Biblical authors were more concerned with explaining a religious or moral meaning based on oral history that their intended audience already knew. This explains why, for example, Joshua paints a much more idealized story of conquest, without set-backs or failures, than probably actually happened.

If the Old Testament were to be categorized today, I would consider most of it to be historical fiction. That is, it dramatized events that actually happened in such a way to present some moral lesson. This is why Chronicles gives such an idealized portrayal of Kings David and Solomon, neglecting to mention the moral failings of the two rulers explained in the books of Samuel and Kings. The author of Chronicles wanted to show the benefit of obeying God’s law, not just for an individual (here represented as the king) but also for the entire Jewish nation.

Almost all of Biblical history starting with Abraham (which would exclude the first eleven chapters of Genesis) has been solidly verified by historical and archaeological evidence. Did these events happen exactly as portrayed in the Bible? Probably not. However, there is no doubt that Abraham existed, as did Moses, King David, Elijah, etc. Their lives were probably similar to their Biblical biographers, which the Biblical authors then dramatized to get their moral points across. Just like a Hollywood movie, which might dramatize historical events, sometimes even fictionalizing certain elements, to tell a good story.

FYI, this is not only true of Biblical history; almost all of ancient history was written the same way, as a dramatization based on actual history. Consider, for example, Homer’s tale of Troy, which was very heavily dramatized into lyrical form. Another good example is Julius Caesar’s histories of the conquest of Gaul and the civil war against Pompey, which manages to both tell the story of history while also pushing Caesar’s political agenda.

In conclusion, I think you’re making the mistake of interpreting ancient literature from a modern perspective. Like all literature, ancient writings must be understood from the perspective of the author, keeping in mind the point he wished to convey.

The Egyptians were notorious for writing history based solely on their political agenda, sort of like modern day US presidential candidates. Other cultures were a bit more true to facts.

Alright so Alex the theist,christian is saying that the bible is flawed but not a fraud.Right????
And don’t be so skeptical about the egyptians.I don’t think any ancient civilization was any different.Besides all civilizations have tried to cover up many issues.

I’m not saying any other civilization was perfect, but we know most cultures weren’t nearly as "propagand-ish" in their writings as the Egyptians. The Greeks and Romans, for example, although not completely non-biased either, were at least reasonable enough to write about their defeats as well as their victories, and wrote enough detail into their histories so that, even today, we can reconstruct ancient battles involving thousands of troops with a high degree of accuracy. The Egyptians, on the other hand, wrote almost only about their pharoah, and when it comes to reconstructing Egyptian battles, all we know about is the pharoah and the role he played. The thousands of soldiers fighting for him didn’t seem to matter at all to the Egyptian historians.

To be fair, though, much of modern history is just as biased in its writing and interpretation as anything the ancients ever wrote. Consider, for example, the differences in how World War II history is taught in schools in the US and in Japan. You almost wonder if they’re both talking about the same war.

Getting back to archaeology, it’s got its value, no doubt, but most of what we know about ancient history is based on what the ancients wrote, not on what we’ve been able to dig up.

Thankfully i am an Indian where the perspective is more neutral.Like the book never supports anyone[int he world wars].The scenario becomes different in the regional wars.
But infact one of our freedom fighters recieved aid from the japanese.But unfortunately he was not recognized like Gandhi.So the books are not biased.

Almost everything is biased, to some extent. Since we humans always have opinions, we always have baises. Some of us are just better at admitting it than others.

Very true
But if you support a Pakistani anytime,in India its not so good for your health especially if your a north indian.Thankfully i am a South Indian.
But here[My state Tamil Nadu] the news is a bit pro LTTE[so called tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka].
So each one just does not want to give up[accept the fact]………………..
And the never ending war goes on and on….

That’s the nature of humanity. We care so much about pride and vengeance that we forget how easy it is to have peace. The great tragedy of the world.

Can’t agree with you more…..

Good to see we finally agree on something. 😉

Well I was expecting you would say this. 😉
But still are stance on "Religion" is still vastly varied 😈 😈 😈

Keep in mind that most world religions preach peace.

I have kept in my mind that the reason for so much unrest in this world is also religion.
Whatever diff things they may preach…

And yet the worst killers of have been atheists. Interesting, isn’t it?

I don’t think so.Give me few examples.
I know that hitler was christian.Read that mussolini was an atheist but not quite sure.

Hitler tried to stamp out Christianity, so what you read was very mistaken.

Good examples of murderous atheists would be Stalin and Pol Pot.

Face it, people are going to kill each other no matter what, and they’ll make up any excuse to justify it.

Hahahahaha
I expected you would say this.Hitler was a christian.Well he might have not been what the bible preaches a man to be[well most people who claim to be christians are no different]
Besides hitler maintained Religious neutrality[except for the jews].He realised the powerful role the Church played so he never dared to "stamp out chirstianity".
Pol Pot bad guy———accepted.
Stalin———— too much controversy over him.But without doubt he had blood on his hands

Hitler was about as religiously neutral as Osama bin Laden. He tried to establish his own religion based on ancient teutonic mythology, and Christians (especially Catholics) accounted for the second largest group in concentration camps after the Jews.

What’s controversial about Stalin? There’s no doubt that he was an atheist, and he killed far more people than probably any other despot in history. Even Soviet historians admitted to that.

Religion is just people unifying under an ideology. People kill each other. If they want to use religion as an excuse for their killing, they’ll do so.
Religions are as complex and varied as the people that practice them.

And yes, Hitler used Christianity along with many other teachings to justify(rationalize) his actions. "Jews killed the son of God." It’s my understanding, though, that his religious stance (at least outwardly) was dubious – outwardly christian when politically expedient but not so much in policy.

wikipedia has some interesting info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl … us_beliefs

It’s amazing today that Hitler managed to keep most of Germany in the dark as to what he was really doing, cloaking his designs in a disguise of virtue. I’ve read some books by German soldiers that they didn’t even know about the German defeat in the Battle of Britain until after the war, because Nazi propaganda was so good at covering up defeats.

Still, I find that article interesting, especially where Hitler is quoted claiming to still be Catholic. Quite ironic, really, considering how far his beliefs had deviated from Christian teaching, to the point that Catholics were heavily persecuted in the Holocaust. Another related point, the Catholic Church also organized some of the most successful resistance movements against the Nazis, and also operated an effective underground railroad to smuggle Jews and other "undesirables" to safety. I’ve read various Protestant churches also did the same, but operated on a smaller scale because they weren’t as internationally large of organizations as the Catholic Church.

Stalin was an atheist no doubt abt that.

It ain’t ironic for me 😛
Besides i am happy that he "claims" to be a christian.Cos most people think he was an atheist.
Anyways you still don’t realize the fact that religion is the major cause for a lot of fight.And history proves that it ain’t a fight between atheists and theists.I am sooooooooooooo biased to atheist ain’t I?? 😈 😈 😈

Why didn’t the Catholic Church excommunicate Hitler?

Consider the Vatican’s isolated and vulnerable position inside facist (and, later, German-occupied) Italy. The Vatican would’ve been powerless had the facists every decided to take it over, Church leaders might have felt it better to stick with covert methods (underground railroad for the Jews, for example) that actually made a difference rather than public statements that wouldn’t change the situation at all except to anger Hitler into invading the Vatican and sending the Pope to Auschwitz.

And you still don’t realize that people are going to fight each other anyway and only use religion (or nationalism, or racism, or any other excuse they can find) as a way to "justify" it.

You have also ignored the fact that if what you say is true, then eliminating religion should also eliminate the majority of unrest in the world, yet the history of most atheist communist states (and also revolutionary France) seems to give the opposite impression, that eliminating religion only leads to even more violence.

You also ignore the fact that most major world religions preach peace, and most of the good that gets done in the world (charities, for example) is done by religious organizations.

You also ignore the fact that the category of "religion" covers such an extreme diversity of beliefs and practices that lumping it all together as you have is about as illogical as lumping communism in with capitalism as "all the same sort of thing."

You also ignore the fact that almost all violence in the world is condemned and opposed by most religious leaders, for example Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. Those who try to claim religious justification for violence, such as in Northern Ireland, are also very strongly condemned by those same religious leaders, and the religion they claim to represent (in this case, Protestantism and Catholicism) cannot be held responsible for their actions anymore than the United States government can be held accountable for the actions of Timothy McVeigh.

Add to that the fact that you have twisted my words around to your own benefit (by claiming I said the Bible is flawed, when I in fact said no such thing), and you have succeeded in the very difficult task of making some of the young earth creationists on this site appear logical by comparison (although, to be fair, you still haven’t topped enarees). In fact you and some of the other hateful atheists on this forum (including the guy who tried to claim that knowledge is sinful, as well as the one who labeled people of faith as "religitards") have honestly made me wonder, what ever happened to reason?

Firstly the vatican was not in a weak position.Infact it had great relation with the facists.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mu … tholic.htm

Besides i was wrong before when i posted he was an atheist.So he was probably never religious, just aligned with the pope for popular support.
And secondly all atheists are not communists.Besides eliminating religion will increase violence,i accept that and never said that religion should be eliminated.
besides who will i go and fight with if there are no theists 😆
The work of charities is respectable and i never opposed to it.Even though they always include religion as an integral part of their charity,but at the end of the day i have nothing to worry about it.
A simple condemnation will not do enough to stop a damn war.In my opinion the pope could have done much more.But as always I respect Pope John Paul II.He makes a good model for the catholics.
And i asked if the Bible was flawed, but you did not answer it.
Thank you for calling me a hateful atheist. 😛
And serious i have never ever thought of changing anyone’s mind.Besides i am only happy if a person becomes an atheist by thinking and not by any stupid atheistic preaching.

I never said that all atheists are communists (remember my statement about unsubstantiated assumptions?), and I called you hateful because you are. Saying that religion is the cause for all sorts of evil does sound pretty hateful, sort of like the KKK saying all our problems are caused by Jews and blacks.

Sorry about the "Bible is flawed" statement, I checked back and you’re right, that was a question.

As for JP2, what would you have expected him to do? He has no authority or military power to stop the US from invading anyone. All he can do is hope that his opinion will influence the Catholics in the US to oppose the invasion.

Anyway I think this whole thing is getting rather pointless, like everything anyone says goes in one ear and out the other. The sort of situation where people care more about asserting their own point of view than listening to anyone else’s, and we’re all just talking to brick walls.

you said atheist communist states.
You must come and see the Nepali communists.They have bigger hindu religious symbols on their heads than my brotherly Indians.
Yeah talking to bricks and walls.But it always comes back to you so always wanna hit it back.
I meant to say that religion was the cause of many conflicts not all.
Anyway leave it.
I give up.
As the Pharoah Ramses ll said
"Peace is better than fighting"

And abt the hateful atheist stuff,I think you ain’t seen much of atheists.There are guys 1000s of times worser than me.

A clarification: I said atheist communist states because most communist nations have also been atheist (USSR, China, Cambodia, etc.). This is not the same as saying that all atheists are communists, nor does it imply that all communists are atheists. I, for example, am a communist but not an atheist.

As for being hateful, yes, I’ve seen much worse than you, but your rhetoric still sounds hateful to me.

What about we just compromise on religion being good or bad depending on the faith in question and how it’s interpreted?

Yeah your right no religion preaches about hatred,but its the interpretation that counts.

At last, there shall be peace in the evo forum, if not on Earth!

Let’s see how long it lasts before some fanatic comes and screws it all up. 😉

The evo forum should never be silent.I think its nothing but the "controversy" that makes it a very special topic.
But my personal interest could be due to other reasons also.

Same here, personal interest, although the controversy certainly makes for good fun!

It seems like religion, and science can coexist.
But I would break it in several categories.
Category one:
A person who accepts both evolution, and faith. He (she) does not have to attend church, and sing songs, and praise deity every week (or every day)
Category two:
Accepts only faith but do not evolution. Typically, less educated, and lives in either American Bible Belt, (Christian Fundamentalists) Middle Eastern Muslim Extremist (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan)
Category three:
Does not Accept Faith, but only evolution
(atheists and agnostics). That kind can be both educated, and uneducated.
I am definetely no second category, but 80 percent third, and 20 percent first(agnostic)
Second category are more likely to be dangerous, and delusional people! (more likely then first and third)
percentages are not accurately, but I assigned them to explain the point.

you left S.america,other parts of asia and australia.
but you can simply say worldwide.

I don’t think DG is hateful. It seems like he has some bitterness, and it’s good that he’s expressing it so that it can be addressed and resolved.

I’m not sure if either of you guys ever acknowledged that there is a cultural divide here – which may be keeping you from seeing eye-to-eye. David seems to live in an area where religion has a slightly different function and effect than in the US. Christianity is huge in the US, but our politics are relatively seperated from it. In other countries where religion and politics are the same, you may see completely different effects.

Quite true got religious fanatics all over my nation.
But the fact remains that the hindus are ready to accept evolution cos they have a monkey God.Its quite stupid, but it happens.And when you say evolution the only thing that they know is "monkey to man".They don’t realise that its ape to man.

I’m quite aware of the culture divide, having seen plenty of it during my own time in the Middle East. I am reminded of one conversation I had with an Afghan who considered himself to be very well educated (by their standards, he probably was), yet he simply could not understand why myself (a Catholic) and the other two Marines on my gun team (a Baptist and an atheist) could be close friends. In his mind, different sects must fight each other, just as the Shiites and Sunnis do. May not have been completely his fault; doubtless he was raised that way, but there comes a point where adults must be held responsible for their own philosophies, regardless of their parents’ conditioning.

In any case, what irritated me most about this particular Afghan was his narrow-mindedness in refusing to believe that his philosophies do not hold true in every example. Easy for me to say, perhaps, coming as I do from a nation where open-minded thinking is arguably a little too common. However, I believe a patron of the sciences (and I will compliment David to call him such) should understand a more open-minded way of thinking because that is how science works. This is what irritated me, his refusal to admit that religious belief could have anything other than bad results, and also why I agreed to cease the argument once that agreement was reached. I suppose it depends on how you define hatred, but I live in an area where the KKK is a powerful entity, and many of his arguments against religious belief before that point did, I must confess, sound to me uncomfortably reminiscent of Klan rhetoric I’ve heard against various racial and ethnic groups.

Another point that annoyed me had very little to do with David personally, but with what I see as an unfair bias on this forum towards atheism. Perhaps it is just my own admitted soft-spot for spirituality that is giving me this impression, but it seems to me that whenever a Christian fundamentalist comes in here spouting creationist rhetoric, he is promptly shushed away; however, when an atheist fundamentalist shows up spouting his nonsense (the best recent example would be our friend who tried to claim that knowledge is sinful), he is tolerated than a much higher degree than his Christian counterpart.

In my mind, there is no difference at all between a Christian evangelical his atheist counterpart (please keep in mind I am not referring to all atheists here; only the extremist ones). Both base their beliefs primarily, if not entirely, on blind faith. Both hold illogical positions as if they were absolute truth, and both refuse to accept arguments to the contrary even when they are grounded in solid fact. Both try to shove their beliefs on others, and claim to be acting for the good of mankind in the name of logic and reason, even though their actions seem to indicate that they’ve abandoned all those causes.

Again, it may just be my own bias talking, but it seems to me that the illogic of one is tolerated much more highly than the illogic of the other, and I do not think this is fair given that both positions make a complete mockery of science. Perhaps you will disagree with me, and maybe have some thoughts of your own to add, and I think this is an issue that we ought to have a dialogue about, if we wish to uphold the logic of science in this forum.

I like the compliment. 8)
I am not quite sure of the forum being biased to anyone.It could be cos most people view science to be atheistic and anti religious.
But these days i am quite bored of this atheist pride.One year back if anyone asks me if i was christian there would be a strong reply from me, "I am an atheist".But these days i say i am a human.
Besides i think i would end up getting a christian women as my life partner.Since i very well know to get a girl who has interest in evolution in India is a big zero.And hopefully i can find someone who like evolution[but its damn ok if my girl has connection to science also],and who is not so religious.I’d better marry a christian girl cos i need to convince my dad for marrying a foreigner[my dad wants me to marry inside my caste,i hate caste system to my core] so if i tell i am going to marry an atheist he will never talk to me.[i love my dad too much to avoid him in my life].So i wanna play safe.
All this religion,ethnicity,caste,language,etc etc is a big shit for me.Guess i threw it outta my life a long time back.
but the major question remains who is going to fall for me ❓ Guess a blind girl would 😆 😆
Man I’ve gone way out of topic…………

Yeah, just a bit off topic, but on the plus side, that does explain a little better why you feel as you do, so it’s not a total waste of typing. 😉

just a bit ❗ ❗ I have gone to Madagascar saying i want to go to Polynesia…………..

What a Romeo and Juliet eh?

Not the literary reference that would’ve come to my mind, but we’ll go with that, I suppose.

😯 😯 😯
I did not get it.How did these people come here???

Don’t feel bad; I didn’t get it either.

then lets wait for mcar to explain….

Yes, very good idea! 🙂

It might be wrong choosing the Romeo and Juliet look-a-like situation for your case since you have not found the girl of your dreams yet. But of course your dad wanted you to marry someone within your caste system. If you happen to choose for yourself not necessarily following your culture and your dad won’t agree to it, the effect would end similar to R & J’s case; something like that probably. Same with some common soap stories that are watched in the prime times.

Thats why i am planning to leave India as soon as i get my Degree.I think i may return back once or twice,but wish no longer to stay in my Nation.The R and J scenario will certainly come if i marry an Indian outside my caste.Why would i ever follow a forsaken system like caste, for Indians its an integral part of life, for me its the greatest betrayal i can do for the science that i study[I only realised all this caste,language,race non sense was useless after reading about evolutionary theory].I always try to follow and use the science that i read.Indians read today,get marks the next day,forget it the day after[exceptions are always there].

Sounds like your people and mine have a bit more in common than we realize, mon ami! 🙂

I never knew that.Looks like we are really close "amis"
But here in India many parents force their children to take the course of their wish.Also the women are not given equal rights [may be by the law equal rights] but in reality the scenario is different.I think a good 80% to 95% of women just memorize and vomit it in the paper.No wonder they are not any great women scientists in India.

That is the biggest problem with modernizing a society, you can change the law but you can’t change people’s behavior. We have similar problems among our minority communities, not just racism but also, for example, the belief that almost "blacker" not to take your education seriously. As a result, many minorities end up entrapped not by the rest of society but by their own culture.

Indians talk about becoming a super power by 2020 when they cannot come out of stupid systems like caste.Dowry is banned by the law in reality you don’t expect the government to poke into family matters so its a widely followed system.Atleast its only the minority problem for your country but here everyone does it.Yes there is minority[by religion] problems also but i feel many Hindus are more tolerant to their muslim and christian counterparts.

Becoming a superpower doesn’t necessarily mean modernizing your society, depending on what rubric you use. Economically, India is already well on its way. Militarily, they’re very close, already having nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. All that’s left to gain is a good Marine Corps and the ability to project military power on a global scale, which would require either a world-wide basing network or obliging allies. I’ve read that the US government wants to form closer ties with India and play them as a counter to the rising power of China. Not sure, though, what effect this is having on your country, if any.

You would no better than　Ｉ　ｗｏｕｌｄ　ａｂｏｕｔ　Ｈｉｎｄｕｓ，　ｂｕｔ　Ｉ’ｖｅ　ｒｅａｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｓｅｃｔｓ　ｃａｎ　ｂｅ　ｊｕｓｔ　ａｓ　ｂａｄ　ａｓ　ａｎｙｏｎｅ　ｅｌｓｅ．　　Ｉｓｎ’ｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｖｉｏｌｅｎｃｅ　ｉｎ　Ｓｒｉ　Ｌａｎｋａ　ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ　Ｈｉｎｄｕｓ　ａｎｄ　Ｂｕｄｄｈｉｓｔｓ？　　Ｔｗｏ　ｆａｉｔｈｓ　ｔｈａｔ，　ｉｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｗｅｓｔ，　ｈａｖｅ　ａ　ｓｔｅｒｅｏｔｙｐｅ　ｆｏｒ　ｂｅｉｎｇ　ｅｘｃｅｓｓｉｖｅｌｙ　ｐａｃｉｆｉｓｔ．

No no the prob in sri lanka is between the two languages rather than religion.Like there are the ethnic tamils[i am an Indian tamil,atleast they call me so][minority] and the sinhalese.The problem is sinhalese is majority in sri lanka.But Tamils are majority in the world[compared to sinhalese].So each one gets funded from diff sources.There are many top christians in the tamils its not all hindu.But yes there are many bad sects in Hindus no denial about it.I don’t want India to align with anyone but be neutral.I only wish the culture gets more modern rather than being conservative.India has splendid riches and equally splendid poors.Already Sino-Indian ties are not at great heights.Besides i am planning to go China for my further studies[I think its the only major country where there are few indians compared to the others].Also there is corruption that needs to be tackled at a larger scale.I wish India and China and Pakistan stay as friends, which seems like day dreaming…..I am also exploring the possiblities of changing my citizenship to Chinese.I seriously don’t want the US to support us to counter China.I would be glad if India just trades with Russia since it has not spoiled relations with the neighbours……

India and Pakistan become friends? That sounds about as likely as the Israelis and Palestinians doing the same thing. I’m not Russia is where to look for friendly relations either, unless it offers something to gain from Russia’s perspective. I’m aware that the Russians have sold India large numbers of weapons, especially warships, so Russia might be trying to counter China as well. China does seem to be the up-and-comer that everyone’s afraid of, with good reason, considering their abysmal human rights record.

Wow, how did we get onto this topic again?

Yes thats the problem.When i say Pakistanis are our blood relatives my friends use the most indecent and horrible words on me…….

Yes i do know about the chinese human rights record.I personally felt the Chinese communists[Atheists] need to ease their grip on religion.There are many tibetian refugees in India,some times i see them bleed like anything[while protesting] I am not sure whom to support.But let me be straight I like china since there are more people like me in China[Atheists] than in India.The West looks ok to me since i donot see religious extremism and superstition to the extent it is in India.I don’t think Russia is countering China it rather wants to Counter Europe and US.Yes China can become a Super Power given that it can also tap its resources from its rural populations.It seems to concentrate too much on cities[similar to India].It does not have religion and caste problem to the extent it is in India.Mark my words Alex India cannot become developed by 2020 or even 2060.Since casteism will hamper it.Its effects cannot be understood by a foreigner until you live here and know the culture.

The topic is interesting thats why we bump into it often…..

China can already be described as a superpower, especially economically. The only ingredient they’re really lacking is the ability to project military power on a global scale, which would require a fleet of aircraft carriers backed up by amphibious assault forces (such as Marines). Economically, they’re kicking everyone else’s butt because of the way they exploit their workers means they have very low labor costs. I sort of understand your thinking but I think western Europe would be a better place for those same philosophies without all the human rights abuses. The US is similar, mostly in urban areas; rural US is the home front of Christian extremism.

david, ever consider karst in saudi arabia?

Economically there is a huge setback for China[pretty much the whole world] now with exports and imports falling[yesterday i saw the BBC reporting 3% http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7825573.stm%5D.I was expecting this to happen anyway.In India there has been a huge fraud in IT sector so that will have a bad impact in Inida.Alright so if i come to US i dare not venture outside the city :mrgreen:.Your so interested in those marines.China and India rather have a policy on "Non Intrevention" in Internal matters.Although this has been neglected several times by both countries.The Interests of US differ from that of India and China.Yeah the labour costs in Ind and China are low….thats very true…

No never heard of anything like caste in Saudi Arabia.My relatives work their.They complain of poor status given to them but never heard of caste.Caste in all its true form exists in India,Sri lanka and Nepal.As far as i know….

China can hardly be described as non-interventionist, given that almost their entire history is based on expansion and conquest in one form or another (military or economic).

yes quite true….
some of the most cunning methods are used by Chinese.May be thats why i am attracted to the Chinese[in China].
But they seem to be Unique in everything which i think could be modified.While Indians rarely assimilate into the foreign cultures,chinese are more "miscible".

The Chinese have done a good job of assimilating some foreign ideas, although much of the country remains very undeveloped. They have managed to carve a unique cultural identity all their own, which is something to be applauded. That concept of unique culture is rapidly fading, for example, in much of Europe.

Yes thats what i said rural areas need to be developed.By meaning "unique culture" what exactly do you mean.As far as i know India is the one major country that has followed its culture with few modifications.The hymns chanted in the hindu temples are pretty much the same as it was thousands of years ago.But i think this is a major setback to the nation.Although we can be proud of it,i don’t think its great.

By that standard the Vatican is just as much of a unique culture as India, for chanting hymns in Latin. Anyway I mean unique culture as the unique practices that define a particular group of people or the place they live in. China certainly has foreign influences, but it’s a very different place and culture from the west. How different it is from neighboring nations I’m not sure, but I do know for most of history, China was the dominant cultural influence in east Asia, sort of like Greece and Rome in Europe.

The Vatican is such a small place.But India is a huge country….
Yes China was dominant,but think it was smaller in size than it is today.The Mongols used to raid them often.Even came down to India and burned down some great cities.India has had Muslim,Hindu,Buddhist rulers around its history.The final touch given by the Christians—English.Even India would have been divided into 25+ countries if the British had never come.My state certainly would have remained independent if the british had not come,since we had our own rulers and culture.But its better to be a part of the Indian Union.

That is an interesting statement! It means that you have some knowledge of what the word "true" actually means. Most people do not. In fact, epistemologists have never been able to quite figure out what people mean when they say something is "true." To me, the word means" "this is what I want you to believe." Also, I consider the word to be an "old-religion word," like "sin," "glory," ‘holy," etc. In science, we deal with something more real, such as "theory," such as "the theory of evolution." We keep making it more accurate. It is already zillions of times more accurate than Creationism.

Also, I wonder just what something is if it is not consistent with science? Can it still be the absolute, total, perfect thing, "Truth"? I don’t thing so . . .

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

Charles, to say that something is "true" is to say that is factual, real, etc. To say that something lies outside the bounds of science simply means it involves a field of human knowledge that is not covered by the natural sciences. This would include most of the humanities, for example. To say that science holds all the answers is among the most foolish statements a person can make, and any responsible scientist should respect that there are limits to natural philosophy.

You are merely using the world "factual" as a substitute for "true." Thus, the first sentence says nothing.

There is no subject that is "outside of science." Every subject is able to be subjected to the scientific method. There are perhaps more than twenty sciences under the "humanities" umbrella term that you used. What social or humanaties subject are you specifically are you referring to?

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

Music, philosophy, politics, just to name a few. Each of these fields has a certain overlap with science, to be sure, but they operate under clearly different rules than natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.

I don’t see how "truth" or "false" applies to the arts. Politics is considered a social science. Philosophy, well, I don’t know what you would call it! Anyway I get your drift. I have heard many speeches filled with naive platitudes which are commonly thought of as "spiritual truths." Books are in print filled with "wisdom." And that I am now in front of my computer can all be considered, for practical purposes, as "truths," but not in the abstract, total, religious sense when applied to the world around us and us in general, things that are more important to us collectively instead of just to the individual. 😀

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

The distinguishing feature of the natural sciences, in my opinion, is the scientific method. Many academic disciplines such as humanities and social sciences do not use this method of experimentation, often for very good reasons. Thus they can be considered "outside the boundaries of science."

Or there are many different approaches or strategies applied to learning which are used in these non-science disciplines.

If that’s the case, it’s enough to say that Biblical concepts must not be taken with lots of technicalities or at least no need to undertake any experiments anymore just to know if it’s real although many are still consistent in finding pieces of evidence to prove or disprove the Bible and all its contents. In fact, all the things written in the Bible shows us the mind and nature of God. Humans created science and its systematic way. God’s ways are not the human ways and so both are exactly different. That’s how I think of it. 😉

That makes sense, mcar. If only more people tried to keep an open mind . . . 🙄

Of course this man had a VERY limited understanding of evolution. But religious doctrines aside– during evolution of the species it does seem to me logical that some very real mechanical processes happened during speciation.

Perhaps the pastor’s illustration is oversimplified, and my understanding of evolution is incomplete, but wouldn’t there have had to be some scenario like fins becoming legs, while at the same time lungs are developing, and during that same time period fish beginning to come out on land, only to die because their respiratory system is messed up and they can’t use their appendages very well?

The only other scenario I suppose would be that a fish bore an amphibian.

AFJ, you should read up on Tiktaalik:

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

FYI, lungs evolved before legs as an off-shoot from the intestine; in fact Corydoras catfish today can "breathe" through their intestinal lining as an adaptation to life in poorly-oxygenated water. Lungs were probably very common in early fish, and many acquatic fish today (such as gar) still have lungs while in other fish the lungs evolved into the swim bladder. As for limbs, the bone structure of lobe-finned fish is almost identical to that of terrestrial vertebrates, and thus a clear evolutionary ancestor. Add to this the existence of "missing links" in the fossil record (such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega), and we have a clear example of all necessary adaptations being in existence even before tetrapods began to evolve.

Science does not "hold the answers." Every science theory is an improvement over one that scientists had previously. So, how can you say that science deals with what is "true"? It deals with theory, with the most accurate theory we have for understanding ourselves and our universe.

Here are the humanities:
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Humanities fields
o 1.1 Classics
o 1.2 History
o 1.3 Languages
o 1.4 Law
o 1.5 Literature
o 1.6 Performing arts
+ 1.6.1 Music
+ 1.6.2 Theatre
+ 1.6.3 Dance
o 1.7 Philosophy
o 1.8 Religion
o 1.9 Visual arts
+ 1.9.1 History of visual arts
+ 1.9.2 Media types
+ 1.9.3 Painting
* 2 History of the humanities
* 3 Humanities today
o 3.1 Humanities in the United States
o 3.2 The digital age
o 3.3 Legitimation of the humanities
+ 3.3.1 Citizenship, self-reflection and the humanities
+ 3.3.2 Truth, meaning and the humanities

I am an admirer of the visual and performing arts including literature. Every one of the other humanities listed above in Wikapedia is both a source of data that I use in my work, and every one of them is subject to a scientific approach and assessment. We cannot predict the future of our civilization without studying its past, including the "classics."

One of the main problems in modern times, I believe, is that the "liberal education" most students take in college is so filled with the multitude of theories that the student is hard pressed to keep up much less think them through themselves well enough to make a judgement. Thus, they go through life with no deep convictions about anything. That makes them easily swayed by the talk of others and prevents anyone from taking a stand on principle.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

Charles, not one of the fields in your list falls under the definition of "science." Would you care to explain how a dance instructor would use such scientific techniques as hypothesis and experimentation?

when I read my post, I see that I had exempted the arts. Of course the arts are not science! Lets not bicker over the obvious!

Yet that was my point all along . . . 🙄

You mean the point you were making in your post was that painting, poetry, music and literature are not sciences?

Adding my opinion(because apparently evidence means nothing to the believers) on original statement.

I believe that religion was created as a means explaining the ‘unexplainable’. As our modern science explains these once unexplainable things the meaning and use of religion changes, it has changed from rock solid laws and historic accounts to symbolic meanings and ideologies with which to guide our lives. I think that early humans and even most modern humans find it hard to get their head around the fact that physical things/energy have always existed, we find it easier to imagine that a magical/non physical entity has always existed.

I have no problem with most religions, in fact most religions have very good morals, i only have problems with those religions which seek to ‘enlighten’ other religions as to the fact that theirs is the ‘real’ one. I will go no further other than saying that the bible(which was predominantly written by hallucinating people) should not be taken as scientific evidence as to the history of living creatures.(or viruses for that matter….)

AFJ, you should read up on Tiktaalik:

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

FYI, lungs evolved before legs as an off-shoot from the intestine; in fact Corydoras catfish today can "breathe" through their intestinal lining as an adaptation to life in poorly-oxygenated water. Lungs were probably very common in early fish, and many acquatic fish today (such as gar) still have lungs while in other fish the lungs evolved into the swim bladder. As for limbs, the bone structure of lobe-finned fish is almost identical to that of terrestrial vertebrates, and thus a clear evolutionary ancestor. Add to this the existence of "missing links" in the fossil record (such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega), and we have a clear example of all necessary adaptations being in existence even before tetrapods began to evolve.

Alex,

Hi, first, thank you for the link. Let me secondly say, I desire discourse and friendly debate. I do see intelligent design in things, but I do not disrespect evolutionary thinking. I can see why scientist could interpret things evolutionarily–resemblance, similarities in flora/fauna/genetic material etc., natural selection, speciation, mutation. These things are seen in a limited degree currently.

Okay, I read the link, and also researched more on lungfish. One thing I see is that lung fish stay in places where the water is still and hence a chance of low O2 content. I think we need to right off the bat say that evolution does not say that habitat causes adaptation (I’m not saying you say that either), but mutation first (independent of habitat), then speciation, and natural selection within habitats.

The hard part for me is what caused lungfish to mutate, evolve lungs, and at the same time mutate an instinct (information) to stay in potentially stagnate or low O2 areas? Somewhere in the genetics the instinct of habitat developed also through mutation FIRST–THEN speciation and natural selection. Why did it just so happen that these things developed in the GENETIC MATERIAL AT THE SAME RELATIVE PERIOD OF TIME? This is a MONUMENTAL COINCIDENCE, as many things are in the theory of evolution. Always there is the question of guiding force and mechanism in the genetics which caused so-called adaptation. What caused so many coincidences?

Again 1)Natural selection happens after mutation. 2)Habitat does not cause genetic mutation.

Therefore the development of lungs originated from mutation along with a mutation which caused an instinct (information) to stay in the lungfish habitat.

Intelligent design interprets this as evidence of design. The creation of lungs was necessary for their habitat.

A) Because it is harder for us to believe that so many coincidental upward mutations happened within the same relative periods of time.

B)Because of the complexity and the homeostasis of the organism
1)together with it’s instinct (information) for habitat
2)together with how the organism works within the habitat
3)together with how it works in relation with other organisms within that habitat

This makes more than an organism but a finely tuned and well balanced ecological system. This points to designed purpose.

AFJ, the problem with your reasoning is that we already know how lungs evolved as an off-shoot of the intestine. As I mentioned before, many fish (Corydoras catfish, for example) can swallow air from the water’s surface and absorb oxygen through their intestinal lining. Lungs evolved as a chamber of the intestine that gradually split off into its own organ.

In essence, your thinking is dependent on the organ already existing before it can be selected for; yet this is not the case. Many structures are the result of an organ or system being gradually adapted for something completely different from its original purpose. Tetrapod limbs, evolved from the paired fins of lobe-finned fish, is one such example.

The biggest problem I have with ID theory is that it seems to paint a picture of a creator who’s indecisive and flat-out incompetent. For example, many structures such as the human eye are very poorly designed. Speaking in evolutionary terms, this can be expected and explained easily when the organ’s evolutionary ancestors (in this case, the lancelet eye) are considered, yet one has to consider why a designer would intentionally create such a flawed design. Also consider the sequence in which organisms appear in the fossil record. Each one appears only for a brief period of time (perhaps a few million years) only to be replaced by another very similar species, which lasts again for only a short time before being replaced by yet another similar species. This is what would be expected if evolution were occurring, but an ID theorist has some problems with this. Consider elephants, for example. In the last twenty million years or so, we’ve seen a few dozen species of elephant come and go, and today only two remain. It’s as if the designer decided he didn’t like the first one so killed it off, then created a different but similar species, but didn’t like that one either, until he finally made up his mind and stopped creating species just as soon as humans arrive on the scene. Sounds awfully hard to believe, in my opinion.

[/quote]

Hi AFJ –
I just want to address your point about habitat. When a species has an environment-specific (read niche) adaptation they are much more likely to remain within that environment because:

a)Their adaptation increases their competitive fitness within the specific environment
b) Their adaptation (often, not always) decreases their fitness outside of the specific environment.

So if the lungfish hadn’t already instinctively stayed in low 02 water before developing lungs, their new adaptation would put selective pressure on the population to develop such an instinct.

Hi AFJ –
I just want to address your point about habitat. When a species has an environment-specific (read niche) adaptation they are much more likely to remain within that environment because:

a)Their adaptation increases their competitive fitness within the specific environment
b) Their adaptation (often, not always) decreases their fitness outside of the specific environment.

So if the lungfish hadn’t already instinctively stayed in low 02 water before developing lungs, their new adaptation would put selective pressure on the population to develop such an instinct.[/quote]

I will try to get to niche. Thank you. I understand the concept your talking about. I can see that because they had lungs they could live in water with low O2 more fitly than other fish could. I’m not sure they would be less fit in highly oxygenated waters. But having gills and lungs, they could have more habitat options than other fish.

I guess the actual question is "why does instinct arise?" I have not read on this subject much–it would rather seem self-evident to me. If one would stop and think how many instincts there are which cause organisms and eco-systems to work. One must ask "is not the cause of instinct somewhere within the actual organisms, and not in the past history of it’s ancestors and their adaptation?" Just some examples are the mating of salmon, or migratory patterns in animals. Birds flying south for the winter. Or how do animals know what is poisonous to eat in nature?

The only other comment I have about evolution theory is that it tends to speak in broad principles, and not in the specific mechanics of how something would actually take place. Even some of the illustrations are so overly-simplified compared to the mechanics of what has to take place to achieve the illustrated hypothesis. It’s hard for some people to "buy in" to systems of thought that do this.

That has to do with how a lungfish’s circulatory system works. Internal flaps in the heart help to direct blood flowing out of the heart first to the lungs where it is oxygenated. Blood flowing out of the lungs then returns immediately to the heart, where those same internal flaps direct blood returning from the lungs to the gills where it can be further oxygenated before going to the body. This isn’t quite the same as the multi-chambered heart found in tetrapods, but it’s a similar concept and a clear evolutionary ancestor. The problem with this in well-oxygenated water is that it takes longer for blood to circulate through the body, since it must first pass through the lungs before going on to the gills and body. This means that fish without lungs have an advantage in well-oxygenated water since they can circulate their blood much more quickly.

This is an interesting question that, as far as I know, has never been satisfactorily answered. It depends to a large extent on what you consider instinct, and the answers are probably different for different organisms. Some behaviors, such as migratory patterns in birds and mammals, are probably learned from birth. Others may be genetically-programmed, such as an instinct to avoid brightly-colored insects that might be poisonous. As for salmon, I know they navigate by smell, returning to the stream of their birth by its unique scent. This could even be hormonal. Perhaps their reproductive hormones make them want to find that smell, sort of like how human women appreciate the smell of roses?

You may have a point here, and that’s because we don’t have all of the pieces to the puzzle. Considering how many different species there are, it’s impossible to ever know for sure how each and every one evolved. Yet we do know from experiment and observation that evolution happens, and we know many of the general concepts that govern its progress. We also know a lot of details about how it’s worked in each case, but far from all details. We’ll probably never know everything.

…we already know how lungs evolved as an off-shoot of the intestine…In essence, your thinking is dependent on the organ already existing before it can be selected for;

First, you don’t know because you weren’t there to see it. And I have never seen an intelligent designer. All hypotheses must be testable and pass the test to become a theory and all theories must pass many tests without contradiction to become scientific law. The subject of origins is loaded with unprovable circumstantial evidence, questions, and speculation.

You said, "In essence, your thinking is dependent on the organ already existing before it can be selected for;"

No that is not my thinking at all. My thinking is that all change in species is genetically controlled and not dependent at all on an organ. It doesn’t matter what the intestine became. The origin point is not the organ but the gene in control of the organ.

Secondly, what do you mean "before it can be selected for…." Again hard mechanics in natural selection and speciation has to do with reproduction, mating, and isolation of populations over time. The genetic material which is in the fittest organisms gets passed on and becomes a dominant trait within a species.

Of course there has to be something there to be passed on to the next generation–not the organ but the info in the DNA–in order for the organ to develop. In order to have another organ there has to be new info in the DNA. The uniformintarian philosophy of evolution says that it happened slowly–not me.

SO I suppose most evolutionists would say that genetic material was added gradually over much time to have the proper alleles for the lungs. Would that be your opinion Alex?

Chemistry only causes reactions and guidance between atoms, compounds (molecules) and mixtures. It has no mechanism of intelligence or puposeful guidance toward life–OTHERWISE WE WOULD SEE ABIOGENESIS EVERYDAY.

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that organs are not important, only genes. Yet the construction of organs is controlled by genes, is it not? This is where the organs themselves become important. If an organ confers some selective advantage, then the same would be true for the genes that created that organ, and those genes would have a better chance of being passed on to the next generation. New organs can evolve when pre-existing structures find new purposes and are modified by genetic mutation and variation to better suit that purpose, such as in the development of lungs as separate organs from the intestines. Such organs that make an organism more likely to survive also make the genes that created that organ more likely to be passed on. That’s where I’m having trouble following you. The two are basically two different faces of the same concept, yet you seem to be separating them as if they’re unrelated. Are you suggesting that organs have nothing to do with genetics?

Hey I read your post on lungfish–yeah I understand what your saying–thanks.

Initial Mutation in genetic material of organism—-> Positive result realized in organism—-> Natural Selection —> positive traits passed on into species—-> speciation—-> new species

Yes organs are important. Where I have a problem is initial information within the genome that produces the organ that does not come from NatSel or SPec but from an initial mutation. The whole nature of the idea that something in the genetic material that has never been there before and is suddenly there through unguided mutation, and along with it a POSITIVE RESULT realized in the organism. Bare with me please.

In context of the INITIAL MUTATION

1) the genetic material itself has no brain or consciousness to add information to itself.

2) So a mutation which added information to the genome would have been random i.e. a mutation by nature can know nothing–where it was going–it didn’t know what lungs were and it had no blueprint or allele for lungs. Neither did the genes, they have no intrinsic knowledge, but are only information containers.

3) In other words, the new information that was produced was not guided by intelligence from the mutation itself, nor intelligence within the genetic material–because the info was not there before in the genes–it was the result of unguided, unintelligent mutation.

4) If there is no outside source (ID) of the information, and no inward source of the information (DNA)– unguided mutation is the only deduction left for the newly added information.

The fact that evolution requires so many mutations– and that they bring positive results, when the evidence shows that most mutations bring negative results makes me scratch my head.

5) Speciation and Nat sel can not come into play until the result of the mutation is realized in the organism (an allele which produces something to further evolve lungs) so it must be mutation in the genes first, then result of the mutation second (something to evolve lungs), then if the result of the mutation is realized and causes a positive trait spec and nat sel take place to pass the result into the species.

At this point one could ask when it comes to any new trait, organ, oganic material or system in the organism or population.

1)Since mutations are unguided why would there not be negative mutations with negative results (as most of them are today) that counteracted evolution or destroyed the organisms? Why would evolution even take place if the more part of mutations are negative?

It seems like saying we know lead used to float on water though it doesn’t today.

2) Why is it assumed that unguided mutations would continuously act upon the same relative codons of the genetic material over time so as to evolve a new organ never before realized? That is mechanically required to achieve evolution of new organs which had never been realized before i.e. before lungs there were no lungs.

I understand that according to evol NatSel would come into play after an initial mutation to incorporate it into the species, but then there would have to be another mutation to further the process.

Intestines—-> mutation A in genes–> new information in genes & positive result in organism—-> NatSel —> Mutation A now established trait for organ in species —> Mutation B —> N.I. in genes & Positive result in org. —-> NatSel —-> Mut B now est. trait for organ in species…Mutation BZ…—> of course times speciation= functional lungs in organism

3) Why did the mutations not correct themselves, as many non-evironmental genetic disorders are rare and are not passed onto the next generation, let alone an entire species? Otherwise we would all have cancer or down’s syndrome, or be midgets.

4) Where did all that new information and come from? New information WITH positive results continuously. Answer from evolution: Unguided mutation which today wreaks havoc on the organism (cancer, down’s syndrome, sickle cell anemia), and usually does not necessarily pass itself onto the next generation, let alone the species.

Natural selection prevents negative traits from being passed on. As for destroying organisms, the Earth’s history shows that all species go extinct eventually.

Because some mutations are beneficial. Over a sufficiently long time period (remember, we’re talking hundreds of millions of years here), simple statistics guarantees that beneficial mutations are going to happen at some point. If they didn’t, bacteria and viruses would never evolve resistance to antibiotics.

See above point on statistics.

No, we wouldn’t. There’s a very important difference between a genetic mutation and genetic disorder. A mutation is a minor alteration to a single gene; a disorder is a serious malfunction involving entire chromosomes and thousands of genes.

The enzymes responsible for DNA replication usually catch and correct an errors or mutations, but not always. Different species are better at this than others, but all species have some rate of mutation in their DNA. In fact, one that didn’t would become evolutotionarily stagnant and become incapable of adapting to changing conditions, a sure recipe for extinction.

Again, statistics.

Unguided mutation today has shown enormous ability to benefit an organism, such as my above-mentioned example of viruses and bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.

I would like to hear your response to my previous post concerning problems with ID. I’ll post it again to make it easy for you to find:

alex –

Of course "negative" traits are "passed on." Disorder is phenotypic description of a phenomenon that may involve single or multiple gene function. Mutation is genotypic.

judging the creator as "incompetent" assumes you know the motivation of the actor. You don’t and the concept is sophomoric. If there were an intelligent designer, it’s unlikely little alex at biology-online would be so wise and insightful in a universe sense as to judge his motivation.

It’s valid to question such a designer’s reasoning when you consider the implications of ID "theory" and its failure as a scientific hypothesis, which is its failure to produce experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis. For example, one could look various imperfections if the morphology of organisms and at the progression of intermediate forms in the fossil record (which seem to clearly indicate an evolutionary process) and say that this is not evolution at all. The designer simply made it this way and it’s only coincidental that it happens to resemble evolution. However, the failure of this as a scientific concept is that anything can thus be written off as simply the product of the designer’s whim, and the critical scientific requirements of testability and falsifiability are destroyed. In conclusion, I was not so much trying to question the designer’s motive as I was making a point about why ID is worthless as a scientific concept.

It isn’t a failure as a scientifc hypothesis any more than is god – it isn’t even a scientific question. Looking for (imagaing ) "scientific" evidence to the question is silly.

You’re completely correct, although sadly many people do not seem to agree. The proponents of ID believe their "theory" has even stronger scientific standing than evolution, which it does not. Though I would never call ID science, I think it should still be a topic of discussion in the scientific community, if only to raise awareness of the problem and help stop the persistent efforts of certain conservative factions to force ID to be taught in schools as if it were genuine science.

Suggest dropping the late ad hominem. They’re no worse than those who some perceive as liberals pushing the catastrophic scenarios of "global warming" or exagerating exponentially the potential benefits of stem cell research.

The social aspect of the issue is more complex and was the brief product of the democratic process – something that is more important than science.

Here’s a link to what I think is one of the better discussions on ID. It’s from Ohio where i the issue disappeared after Kitzmiller. The effort will come back – just in another form.

http://www.ohioscience.org/CommonGround.shtml

Science and religion can not be compared. Church or nothing religious are not able to talk about it. People who rejects evolution doesn’t have any logical reason.

Please, please, please. Can’t we just let this thread die a natural death?

This thread sometimes go off the track. Some may revive it, others may just forget it.

This thread is almost as bad as the "Last Person to Reply Wins."

OK probem solved. It is now locked.