Evolution

[TK-8252]

And who led the Afro-Americans to their present-day equality? Who showed them how to peacefully beat the racist pigs that were oppressing them? Who showed them how to expose segregation as the great evil it was?

 

Why, it was none other than the REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A

TRUE MAN OF GOD! What weapon did he use to beat them with? THE BIBLE!

 

Too bad though that even the New Testament condones slavery:

 

http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html

 

Not once is the abominable act of rape condoned in the Bible. And, yes, I followed the link you provided.

 

Try this link now:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

 

 

But it seems like we've both gone off-topic...

[Prime]

Once again: Keep it civil everyone. The dicussion can continue as long as there are no personal attacks. If you disagree strongly with something, debate the issues, not flame the person.

 

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)

n., pl. -ries.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

[snip]

 

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

That last definition is quite interesting...

But you disregard the rest of the definition. The part about being repeatedly tested and used as a system to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

A theory needs to be held up against repeated observations. If it is found wanting (i.e. does not answer correctly), then the theory needs to be either scrapped or altered. Any scientist worth his salt has no issue with making these changes. in this regard ideally the theory comes closer and closer to actual fact as more information and observations come to light.

 

This issue many have with using religious text to answer questions about natural phenomena is that there is no mechanism for changes/improvements in the face of discrepancies. The response to that always is, "Doesn't matter, it is this way anyway."

 

No, I just read the Bible...cover to cover...more than once...is it propaganda?

No, but it naturally has inherent bias based on the writer(s) (as in those who physically wrote it). That is just the way humans operate. It just needs to be taken into consideration.

 

I don't listen to Creationist propaganda any more than I do Evolutionist. It's origins are human, and humans are full of crap! I just read the Bible and drew my own conclusions, without someone else's "interpretation" of it.

But if you are only taking information from one source, and that source admittedly has a bias, how can to expect to have an unbiased view based on all the information?

 

Do these fossils contain DNA so they can actually document genetic progression? Are they 100% sure it isn't just mutation? Of course they're not, but you'll never hear that in a classroom, unfortunately.

But mutation is the main mechaism for evolution! Some turn out to be beneficial, and get passed on to offspring, and some don't and so eventually get "filtered" out as those what have the mutuation don't survive.

 

So you don't have an issue with mutation, but you have a problem with evolution. How can you accept one but not the other?

 

Oh, yes it does. The entire universal progression is from order to entropy-that is, EXCEPT where evolution is concerned (and the results of the Big Bang, for that matter). Evolution is in quite the opposite direction. In order for evolution to have occured in nature it would take, I don't know, what's the word...A MIRACLE!

Or just that part of the 2nd Law that you neglected to mention regarding it having to be a closed system.

 

If you're trying to disprove Creation, you're trying to disprove God...

Why is that?

 

Take a look at the flipside: We have become a meaner, more shallow society just in the relatively short time I've been alive. If anything, society is DEVOLVING-the inevitable result of the implementation of social Darwinism. Do you think that a theory that PREACHES that we all evolved from animals being crammed into our kids' brains in schools worldwide (along with all the other socio-political brainwashing crap) might have something to do with it?

I think that if you take the time to look back at the living and social conditions throughout history that you will find that it wasn't exactly a utopia that has all of a sudden disappeared in the last decade or so.

 

Granted, it is saddening that there seems to be a lot of strife in the world of late. But I take solice in the fact that none of it has anything to do with religious beliefs.

 

The whole "survival of the fittest" idealology is destroying us by destroying our human identity. It's implanting the idea that since we're little more than talking monkeys, then we may as well act like them. I'm sure that's NOT its intention, but it is the result. Look around you.

And yet where I live (in Canada), anyone can gain access to medical and social assistence, so in fact not only the strong survive. Western governments, issues aside, allow for the prosperity of citizens that are not necessarily the smartest or the strongest.

 

I suspect that if you asked a serf in mideval times they would envy such a situation.

 

It would really be funny if it turned out that God created the heavens and the Earth-via the Big Bang and Evolution. Well, with Him all things are supposed to be possible...and He does have a devine sense of humor...

Why is that so impossible? The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to disprove God (that view is purely a religion-based response to the theory). Why can science not discribe the method through which he implemented his design?

 

God is not to blame for the stupidity of mankind.

No, but man is to blame for interpreting His words.

[Mace MacLeod]

Whoa. This would have been a really cutting-edge argument around 1910...

 

Okay, here's my opinion, which I know you're all just salivating to hear. The only time this kind of rambling debate crops up is when people's religious beliefs require them to interpret their religious doctrines literally, but here we have a problem. See, the people (yes, they were actually people) who wrote the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon/whatever didn't know how old the Earth really was, okay? They didn't know just how big a place the Universe really was. They didn't have the knowledge and technology to be able to find stuff like that out. This is why Gallileo was imprisoned and executed when he said the Earth went around the Sun. Scientific inquiry was moving beyond the ancients' level of knowledge, which is what happened with the Monkey Trials. Yes, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, which is why it's called that. But over and over and over again we are seeing a vast accumulation of evidence to support it. It's not that science is trying to defeat or attack religion, it's just finding things out using the scientific method, part of which states that properly done science isn't trying to prove or disprove any particular theory or hypothesis. Objectively measured phenomena doing x or y over time may or may not support any theory anytime. Carbon14 decays at a steady, measurable rate, allowing biological specimens to be accurately dated. Molecules in rocks and minerals accumulate and metmorphose in very reliably predictible ways, allowing the layers of the Earth's crust to be dated. If the world of science actually found evidence supporting that the planet and universe just sprung into being 10000 years ago, they would go with it. Plenty of scientists are very devout, and they would want to know the truth of the matter. But that's just not what they've found. Sorry, God Squad. If your arguments didn't lean entirely on "It says so in the Bible!", science might have time for them. But if your attitude is, "I don't care about evidence, proof or theories. This is what I want to believe, so this is what I'm going to believe." then that's your right. Just don't confuse it with being right.

 

And Qliveur, 2 things.

1) There have been a lot bloodier and meaner societies than this one.

2) They're called quote tags. Those little buttons right above the text area? Last one on the right.

[TK-8252]

Granted, it is saddening that there seems to be a lot of strife in the world of late. But I take solice in the fact that none of it has anything to do with religious beliefs.

 

There is certainly LESS strife in the world now than ever before. WWII is over... Vietnam is over... the Soviet Union fell... but the strife that there is currently is ALL about religion. Chaos in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, etc. is all religiously-driven.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Senate must have gotten a little quiet lately.

Busted.

 

I just read the Bible...cover to cover...more than once...is it propaganda?

If the Bible is not propaganda, propaganda does not exist. See definition #1.

 

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)

n., pl. -ries.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

We agree, then.

 

That last definition [not quoted above] is quite interesting...

And quite irrelevant, as it's the two first we're discussing here - those that deal with science's definition of the word "theory".

 

I don't listen to Creationist propaganda any more than I do Evolutionist. It's origins are human, and humans are full of crap! I just read the Bible and drew my own conclusions, without someone else's "interpretation" of it.

And your English version of the man-written Bible is not someone's interpretation. Right.

 

You have to admit that Talk Origins is an extremely biased site.

Of course. Kinda like the Bible. That doesn't mean it's not factual.

 

Do these fossils contain DNA so they can actually document genetic progression? Are they 100% sure it isn't just mutation?

They're one and the same thing. Evolution happens through mutations of DNA.

 

Funny: I thought the two went hand in hand... in being used to try to disprove Creation...

They both disprove Creation, but that doesn't mean evolution speaks of the creation of the universe.

 

Oh, yes it does. The entire universal progression is from order to entropy-that is, EXCEPT where evolution is concerned (and the results of the Big Bang, for that matter). Evolution is in quite the opposite direction. In order for evolution to have occured in nature it would take, I don't know, what's the word...A MIRACLE!

Order forms out of disorder all the time: Disorderly vapour forms into beautiful, geometric snowflakes, for example.

 

The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics states that "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.", or, synonymously (sp.?) that "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

 

Earth is an open system and thus not bound by the second law of thermo-dynamics.

 

Take a look at the flipside: We have become a meaner, more shallow society just in the relatively short time I've been alive. If anything, society is DEVOLVING-the inevitable result of the implementation of social Darwinism. Do you think that a theory that PREACHES that we all evolved from animals being crammed into our kids' brains in schools worldwide (along with all the other socio-political brainwashing crap) might have something to do with it?

Yeah, it's sad. Look at all the suicide bombers in atheist Norway, and how the religious Middle East has been at peace since Israel's re-creation.

 

Look at how left-handed people have to eat with their right hand in God-less Sweden, while the Muslims in Nigeria can use their left hand all they want.

 

Look at all the atheists boming abortion clinics while the religious fanatics sit there twiddling their thumbs.

 

True that. Society's going down the drain and if you ask any criminal why, he'll answer "oh, evolution says I can act like a monkey". It's one of the most commonly heard arguments in the court system.

 

Or perhaps not.

[Q]

(Waves tattered white flag)

 

OK, OK:

 

Points taken.

 

My dumb a** just HAD to bite that "blows Creationism out of the water" hook, didn't it?

 

And I promised myself that I wasn't going to succumb to that urge again!

 

When am I EVER going to learn?! Probably never.

 

Hope it provided some good entertainment while it lasted, and I hope I didn't pi** too many of you off with all the ranting.

 

I still believe what I believe (I doubt a frontal lobotomy would change that), but people really don't want to hear that crap, do they?

 

I guess I'd feel the same way in your shoes.

 

This argument was doomed from the start; yet I pursued it with vigor anyway. Why is that?

[Jae Onasi]

Now that I've gotten my non-political thoughts out of the way above, I thought I'd put in my serious 2 cents' worth.

One thing I do know is we're never really going to know, since none of us were around when the world was formed. All we can do is speculate based on the information we have available, and even that's changing all the time.

I don't view Creation stories (in my case, Christianity) as inconsistent with most of the theories of evolution. The Bible, while it does address some scientific issues, is primarily a book about how people can connect with God in a meaningful way (in an ultrasimplistic description). Sure, it has some very practical things to say to us (check out Proverbs), but it's not a science book. Some things aren't going to get mentioned in the Bible. If dinosaurs were extinct by the time the Bible was being written, then what relevence does that have in a book that speaks about the relationship between God and mankind? None. There's no point in talking about them then, since they're not even around. It doesn't mean they didn't exist even though they aren't mentioned, it's just the authors of the various books decided to focus on more important topics. Not to mention it was written at a time when people did not have the scientific background to understand things like molecular genetics.

Being as familiar with anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and biology as I am, I find it so unlikely for a human being to have occured by chance that it's about as possible as picking out the right atom out of the entire galaxy. The visual system alone is so complex that I cannot imagine that it occured as a statistical blip. We have 5 layers of cornea, a lens, vitreous gel (the goo inside the eye), 10 layers of retina with their specific cells and tissues, the photorecepters themselves, an optic nerve, optic tract, visual cortex, and visual processing centers. That's not including the surrounding support structures, extraocular muscles, other cranial nerves, the specific hydration and chemical makeup of the tissues, and cell types. That's an extraordinarily simplistic discussion of the vision system, too. Anything goes wrong with any of these cells, tissues, or processing centers and you either have poor or no sight.

If God can create the entire universe, why can't God decide to guide the formation of the world and creatures in a manner that others would call 'evolution'?

[Achilles]

@Jae: With all due (considerable) respect, I'm not familiar with any scientific theory that purports that human beings occured by chance. According to the theory of evolution, modern humans (like all modern organisms) exist as they are today as the product of mutation and natural selection. Call me a hair-splitter but that seems a lot closer to order than chance.

 

Re: your eye example - yes, if any of those components don't work exactly as they're supposed to then the system fails. If the organism that possesses the "broken" system requires sight to survive, then that organism dies, and it's defective genes are not passed on the next generation. By the same token, the organism with working sight will survive and hopefully reproduce. Those beneficial genes have guaranteed safe passage to the next generation. If the organism doesn't require sight in order to survive, then it will reproduce anyway, and maybe with time (and sufficient number of mutations) that species won't even bother to grow eyes anymore.

 

According to the ToE, all those layers of nerves and lenses and goo didn't ust pop into existence one day and then not change. They started out as light-sensitive patches of cells that provided the possessing organism some advantage over its bretheren. This mutation was then passed on to offspring, mutation, mutation, lens, mutation, mutation, nerve, and so on.

 

A similar example might be the modern automobile. The Honda that I drive today did not exist 100,000 years ago. My Honda started out as rock, which became a wheel, which became a cart, then a carriage, then a bicycle, motorcycle, model A, model T, Studebaker, volkswagen, etc, etc. To look at a rock and a honda and say they are the same would be silly, but if you look at the progression, it kinda makes sense.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Jae Onasi]

@Jae: With all due (considerable) respect, I'm not familiar with any scientific theory that purports that human beings occured by chance. According to the theory of evolution, modern humans (like all modern organisms) exist as they are today as the product of mutation and natural selection. Call me a hair-splitter but that seems a lot closer to order than chance.

 

Re: your eye example - yes, if any of those components don't work exactly as they're supposed to then the system fails. If the organism that possesses the "broken" system requires sight to survive, then that organism dies, and it's defective genes are not passed on the next generation. By the same token, the organism with working sight will survive and hopefully reproduce. Those beneficial genes have guaranteed safe passage to the next generation. If the organism doesn't require sight in order to survive, then it will reproduce anyway, and maybe with time (and sufficient number of mutations) that species won't even bother to grow eyes anymore.

 

According to the ToE, all those layers of nerves and lenses and goo didn't ust pop into existence one day and then not change. They started out as light-sensitive patches of cells that provided the possessing organism some advantage over its bretheren. This mutation was then passed on to offspring, mutation, mutation, lens, mutation, mutation, nerve, and so on.

 

A similar example might be the modern automobile. The Honda that I drive today did not exist 100,000 years ago. My Honda started out as rock, which became a wheel, which became a cart, then a carriage, then a bicycle, motorcycle, model A, model T, Studebaker, volkswagen, etc, etc. To look at a rock and a honda and say they are the same would be silly, but if you look at the progression, it kinda makes sense.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 

I'm not saying mutations didn't happen. I'm just saying God could have been responsible for that.

 

Yep, I know about the light patches and so forth. My thought is that because the human being is so complex (eyes being one small part of that complexity and an easy example for me since that's my field), that I don't think enough mutations etc. could have happened by chance for the first human to even been created anywhere close to properly, much less survive. It's too much of a stretch for me to go from simple one cell organism to full-blown human via chance mutations, even with natural selection.

Extended science discussion, and forgive me if you already have encountered this, Achilles, I'm posting for the entire group on this. I'm feeling the urge to be semi-educational at the moment.

Let's take just 1 protein of the thousands (or more) the body (human and animal) needs--insulin. In humans it's made up of 51 amino acids (the protein building blocks for those who haven't hit biology yet). There are 20 different amino acids. The amino acids have to all be correct and all be in the correct order. It has to be folded in a specific way or it doesn't work. Then, you have to have the 'left-hand' version, not the right -hand version. They're mirror images, chemically identical and structurally nearly identical, but only 1 of the images is the key that unlocks the door (think of your hands. If you had a lock that fit only your left hand, you couldn't use your right hand to unlock it). If just 1 of those amino acids is incorrect, or the amino acids are not coded in the right sequence, the protein unfolds and won't be the right shape. If it's folded wrong or in the wrong shape, it won't work. The chance of that happening (if I have my stats math correct) is 1 divided by 20 to the 51st power, and then divide that by 2 since only the left-handed version works. I don't have my calculator handy at the moment, but I know that's a pretty darn small probability, and that's for just 1 protein. Hemoglobin works like that, too (the protein that carries oxygen in our blood cells). Sickle cell anemia happens because just 1 amino acid is wrong in 1 chain of 146 amino acids, and hemoglobin has 4 chains of amino acids in total.

Now, put all of that together with all the other proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and other chemicals, then add that to cells developing correctly at the single cell phase, then tissues forming correctly, then add that to organs forming correctly, and all those combining to create a creature, and the probability becomes unbelievably small that we went from a 1 cell organism to what we are today, without some kind of help somewhere along the way. It's too easy to have something kill it along the way before it makes it all the way to human level.

 

Sure, our Hondas (we have one, too) started out as a rock, but it didn't come together by chance. Someone built our Hondas.

[Prime]

There is certainly LESS strife in the world now than ever before. WWII is over... Vietnam is over... the Soviet Union fell... but the strife that there is currently is ALL about religion. Chaos in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, etc. is all religiously-driven.

I'm surprised you missed my sarcasm, since I was laying it on extremely thick.

[TK-8252]

I'm surprised you missed my sarcasm, since I was laying it on extremely thick.

 

Seemed sincere to me... oh well. >.<

[Achilles]

I'm not saying mutations didn't happen. I'm just saying God could have been responsible for that.

No doubt that it's a possibility. It's going to be exceptionally hard to prove though. If Creationists want science to take Creationism seriously, then that's going to have to happen at some point.

 

<snip>

I agree that it's all amazing and certainly awe inspiring. Considering how many billions of years these simple proteins had to mutate times all the billions of possible mutations that could have occured times the billions of opportunities for natural selection to take place...well that would also be a big number . Surely if you compared that number to your number, the odds seems at least a little more favorable.

 

The reason why those proteins exist as they do today is because that's the version that made it. There are probably trillions of prototypes that didn't but just because we can't see them today doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

 

Sure, our Hondas (we have one, too) started out as a rock, but it didn't come together by chance. Someone built our Hondas.

Hmmm. So those crazy cave men, chipping away at their first stone wheel, had my Accord in mind? Or would it be better to say that the system improved over time in small increments, each building upon the other. The analogy wasn't about who made my Honda, it was about how it got to my driveway

[stingerhs]

There are probably trillions of prototypes that didn't but just because we can't see them today doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

sounds quite similar to the God we can't see today but doesn't mean that it didn't exist or is currently existing. apparently, there is a certain measure of faith to believe in evolution just as a certain measure of faith is required to believe in creation.

[Maverick5770]

My opinion is this, Which is easier to believe,

That there is a all powerful all knowing being that created everything,just by speaking(Come on, we've all seen Q from Star Trek)

Or that we all happened by chance?

 

I think of it this way, if I leave my room messy for 20 million years, is it going to evolve into something all pretty and clean?

 

Or, consider this, if we've been evolving for several millon years already, and we started out as ameba, why aren't we still changing?

 

I'm a firm Christian, nothing will ever shake my faith in Jesus Christ, and I belive he created the Universe and the Earth and all that is contained herein, but I'm not damning anyone for beliving in Evolution.

 

And theres my 2 cents.

[TK-8252]

My opinion is this, Which is easier to believe,

That there is a all powerful all knowing being that created everything,just by speaking

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your beliefs?

 

I think of it this way, if I leave my room messy for 20 million years, is it going to evolve into something all pretty and clean?

 

No, but it will evolve into something else: dust. Your entire room would break down and decay. That's because a room doesn't go through the process of natural selection.

 

Or, consider this, if we've been evolving for several millon years already, and we started out as ameba, why aren't we still changing?

 

...We are. You didn't know that? And so is everything else. Did you get flu shots each year as a kid and remember hating it? Do you know why you had to get it every year and not just once?

 

Because the flu mutates. It evolves. It changes in order to avoid the vaccine... the new flu spreads as a result of natural selection.

[MdKnightR]

WOW! This thread exploded quickly!

 

Here is my take on it. A theory is as close to "fact" as you can get in science because "certainty" is a big word for scientists. However, Gravity is also still a "theory," but I would bet the bank that you aren't floating out of your seat right now (physically speaking). What I find remarkable is that with all the finger-pointing done by Creationists saying that Evolutionist are trying to disprove the Bible, more Scientists have read the Bible than Christian Fundamentalists have read Darwin!

 

As for me, I consider myself a Deist when this topic arises. I believe that the universal clockmaker set the pendulum in motion (created) and let the laws of nature (evolution) take care of the rest. To those of you who are foreign to this belief system, Deism is the idea that God created the universe and then took a permanent vacation without his cell phone and his beeper (in a purely metaphorical sense).

[Achilles]

sounds quite similar to the God we can't see today but doesn't mean that it didn't exist or is currently existing. apparently, there is a certain measure of faith to believe in evolution just as a certain measure of faith is required to believe in creation.

You sure do like that emoticon don't you? Interesting that you chose to respond to that message but not the other. Certainly your right to do so.

 

Anyway, some instances of these "prototypes" can be found in the fossil record. Since evolution cannot be empirically proven, there is indeed a measure of faith required. It is my opinion though that the small measure of faith required to accept evolution (which has some degree of measure or "proof") is more reasonable than the 100% dose of faith that is required to accept religion.

[TK-8252]

Faith is the process of non-thinking. Science is the complete opposite.

[Achilles]

My opinion is this, Which is easier to believe,

That there is a all powerful all knowing being that created everything,just by speaking(Come on, we've all seen Q from Star Trek)

Or that we all happened by chance?

Please see my earlier response to Jae re: chance and evolution.

 

I think of it this way, if I leave my room messy for 20 million years, is it going to evolve into something all pretty and clean?

Closed system vs. open system. Mutation and natural selection have no bearing on a messy room. This is an apples and oranges analogy.

 

Or, consider this, if we've been evolving for several millon years already, and we started out as ameba, why aren't we still changing?

Who says we aren't? You can do some basic research on the subject yourself using Google. Keep in mind that evolutionary change takes place very slowly, so just because you don't wake up one day with a 2nd thumb doesn't mean that we aren't evolving as a race.

[Q]

OK: I've done a lot of reading on the subject, took some time to cool off and come to my senses, and here's my conclusion. Brace yourselves!

 

Most of you posting here are at least open to the possibility that there is a God.

 

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

 

And lastly- Point conceded: there's just too much evidence for me to deny the possibility of evolution. Happy now?

 

Don't fall off of your chairs at once.

 

And, yeah, that was REALLY difficult to admit.

[Prime]

I think of it this way, if I leave my room messy for 20 million years, is it going to evolve into something all pretty and clean?

This example has been shown to be inaccurate for the longest time now. If the Creationist camp wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community, then they need to stop simply recycling old disproven arguments.

 

Closed system vs. open system. Mutation and natural selection have no bearing on a messy room. This is an apples and oranges analogy.

At least apples and oranges are still fruit. It's more on an apples and cars argument.

 

Or, consider this, if we've been evolving for several millon years already, and we started out as ameba, why aren't we still changing?

Why are you assuming we aren't still changing?

 

Utlimately, there will never be agreement between the two camps because they can't even agree on the method to use to arrive at a conclusion. Science wants to base its theories on what is observed, and the Creation camp wants to base everything on scriptures. The issue science has with scriptures as a source of information is that it cannot explain many things that are observed, and the issue creationism has with science is that it doesn't line up with scripture. There is no starting reference point.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

sounds quite similar to the God we can't see today but doesn't mean that it didn't exist or is currently existing.

No, because there's other evidence of evolution, too. Such as that it has been observed, is being observed, and will always be observed.

 

And lastly- Point conceded: there's just too much evidence for me to deny the possibility of evolution. Happy now?

 

Don't fall off of your chairs at once.

 

And, yeah, that was REALLY difficult to admit.

Wow, you don't see too many people daring to say they've changed their minds. Great one.

[Achilles]

At least apples and oranges are still fruit. It's more on an apples and cars argument.

I stand corrected.

 

Wow, you don't see too many people daring to say they've changed their minds. Great one.

Agreed. Kudos, Qliveur.

[Jae Onasi]

Utlimately, there will never be agreement between the two camps because they can't even agree on the method to use to arrive at a conclusion. Science wants to base its theories on what is observed, and the Creation camp wants to base everything on scriptures. The issue science has with scriptures as a source of information is that it cannot explain many things that are observed, and the issue creationism has with science is that it doesn't line up with scripture. There is no starting reference point.

 

This isn't entirely a 2-side thing unless you're talking about the literal 6-day creationists. There's actually a continuum of philosophies that span the 2 sides. Since the Bible is not a science text, and a lot of things are going to get glossed over in favor of things that are far more relevent to life. God didn't hand down an organic chemistry book 2000 years ago because the people at that point weren't even thinking about atoms--they were thinking about how to survive and interact with each other and with God. An organic chemistry book would have been completely useless to them. So, I don't expect to see significant modern scientific facts in the Bible. In those few sections that could fall under the science category, I don't see anything substantial that contradicts evolution (the language is fuzzy on "Days", so I don't take it as a literal 24 hours), and I don't see a whole lot in evolution than necessarily contradicts the Bible, except on who/what caused it in the first place. There are some minor things that there are conflicts on but I think that's just because we don't have 100% of the science yet to explain it.

I'm absolutely swamped with a crazy political situation in my volunteer group, so if this is not entirely coherent, blame it on my stress and the fact that that situation is eating up a ton of my time....

[Q]

Wow, you don't see too many people daring to say they've changed their minds. Great one.

 

 

Agreed. Kudos, Qliveur.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Faith is the process of non-thinking. Science is the complete opposite.

 

Faith is too abstract a concept for anyone who hasn't experienced it to understand. People whose viewpoint is entirely based on science understandably require concrete evidence, which is something faith just can't provide.

 

On the other hand, those who have faith can't understand the concept of any viewpoint that isn't based on it, hence the conflict.

 

@Jae: I love reading your posts!