Evolution: Your Thoughts

[Negative Sun]

I believe that we evolved from apes from millions of years ago. It is proved, thanks to science and we still have our old ape ways, when you look at it. Religion on the other hand hasn't been proved. There hasn't been proof of Adam and Eve from all those years ago.

 

Off-Topic: Religion is pointless, no offense. Most wars have been started because of Religion. Also if there was such a thing as God, there would be no disasters, unless if he liked people getting blown up in planes and poor people dying in Africa.

 

Going Off-Topic now. My views.

Religion is a way of explaining things they can't explain but they're too arrogant to admit they don't know a goddamn thing for sure...Everyone is so ****ing convinced their own religion is so righteous they don't even realize that NONE of them are, they're just a way to brainwash people into submission, there is no ****ing God, live with it and get over it, make the best of your life and be true to others and that's all that matters...

[igyman]

I rely on the scientifical explanation. The humans and all other creatures of today evolved over millions of years from a primitive lifeform. I've stated my view of religion on some other threads and I'm not going to go off-topic on this one to state it again in detail, just for short - I'm an atheist.

[lukeiamyourdad]

@LIAYD--things that have a beginning had to have a cause. Since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. If God had a beginning, then God would have to have a cause. However, since God didn't have a beginning, God does not need to have a cause.

That being said, if I can't even begin to fully comprehend embryology and biochemistry, how the heck can I fully understand God? I can't.

 

So I don't understand why Christians and other religious folks can't believe in evolution because it was all chance when they believe God poofed out of thin air.

It's in my personality to try and understand things that I do not. If humankind just sat there not trying to find out about phenomenons it knew nothing about, we'd still be harvesting fruits from little bushes.

On the other hand, a discussion about origins has no issue. One side is based on faith, not fact. The other side is the exact opposite.

Like I said before, either explanation of origins brings up more questions, very valid questions.

 

 

Science is no proof of anything. Science is a collection of *evidence* based on our perceptions.

 

Ok, dumb example. Science says a cube has 6 faces. That's it. Exact sciences like physics, chemistry or geometry do not tolerate difference in perceptions. Either it is or it is not. Like my example, either a cube has 6 faces or it does not.

On the other hand, social sciences like political science and sociology can accept differences in perceptions. If you study an event from a Marxist's point of view, it won't mean that your analysist is less "good" then a capitalist's.

 

Archaeological evidence would flatly contradict it, for one thing.

 

All archeological evidence "proving" some parts of the Bible have rational explanations or are simply errors. Like this supposed ark on a mountain in Israel. Turns out it was just a bunch of snow and ice shaped like an ark.

 

I believe in intelligent design through evolution. It allows for faith *and* reason.

 

No, it allows for faith. Period. Why? Reason would not condone claims without evidence.

 

You have to realize that it's faith, faith alone, no more, no less.

 

 

 

On one hand, you have to deny the Bible's writings by accepting the idea of evolution.

On the other hand, you have to spit on the scientific method by claiming out of thin air that God created evolution.

 

Intelligent design seems to have been created by religious people as an excuse to get out of the evolution debate. Since there is no proof that God created the world, some idiot decided to come up with his own un-scientific theory. The simple question is: Why should I believe that God had something to do with evolution?

Faith is the only answer. You have to believe in it. For rational people, simply believing in something does not make it true. I can believe in unicorns and fairies all I want, there is no evidence of any of those creature ever existing.

Do not even try the old argument:"Prove that God does not exist." I cannot, nor can anyone. However, the religious make the claim that he does exist and he did create the world. It is on their hands to prove it.

 

You want to believe that God created the world and made evolution? Be my guess. As long as you don't claim it as science or the ultimate truth.

[Bimmerman]

My main qualm with creationism/ID is that Christianity/Judaism/Islam all are founded from the same basic ideas with very similar holy books. While those are the predominant religions in the Western World, how is their view on creation any more right than a Buddhist's or a Hundu's perspective? Or for that matter, a Shinto's? Or a polytheist's? Or the Native American tribes/Maya/Inca/Aztec/African Tribes/indiginous peoples to Asia/Europe/everywhere? Every single culture and religion has a different creation myth. Yes, myth. Christianity/Judaism/Islam are no different, they just happen to be the newest of my brief list of religions. Where there is no proof, the correct term is myth or fable. This paragraph might ruffle some feathers, but I tried to be even-handed towards all religions to show that Christian ID/creationism is not the only perspective, and cannot be considered the right one.

 

Evolution is based on hard science, and is supported by a large amount of evidence. Microevolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt- just look at any experiment where an antibiotic is introduced into a culture of bacteria. Within a few hundred generations(a day or two), the bacteria have evolved to be resistant. That is the main reason Penicillin does not work nearly as effectively as it once did. Evidence for macroevolution is not as easily studied or found, as Macro(large-scale) takes thousands of years. Evolution is not a myth, but a scientifically proven fact on small scales. To claim it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in Macro-e is just plain naive, as the evidence is inconclusive at the present time. The Modern Theory of Evolution is very different from Darwin's theory- it adapts and evolves as new evidence is presented.

 

Now for my view: I am guessing that this is a larger debate than what should be taught in schools, correct? I see no problem in having both ideas co-exist. Many prominent scientists are religious and take Jae's view of a Supreme Being using Evolution as its way to create life. As a very scientifically minded person, I require proof before I make a judgement on just about anything, and Evolution has far more proof than C/ID does. Matters of faith are personal, and are by definition not scientific. Therefore, Evolution is the view I subscribe to because it is the only view that scientifically makes any sense

 

As for the school debate: what is taught in high school, middle school, and elementary school really doesn't matter, because if someone is going to become a biologist they go to college. When one takes a college biology class the prof will not(or should not) spend time on C/ID, as it is not science. Reconciling evolution with your religious beliefs is left up to you, on your own time, rather than waste the professor's time babysitting you.

 

Now one last question: as this seems to be quite the US-only debate, at least on the school issue, what do you non-American forum members think about the US's fascination with this issue? Or is there a similar debate going on in your country?

[Maverick5770]

Something I don't get, I know that you can prove both Evoloution and Creation wrong, depending on your point of view, but is not science ever changing, no thinh is infallible, so isn't it possible that Evoloution is a mininterpretation of the facts? The same for Creation, could we be wrong about both?

[Temp3rMental]

Something I don't get, I know that you can prove both Evoloution and Creation wrong, depending on your point of view, but is not science ever changing, no thinh is infallible, so isn't it possible that Evoloution is a mininterpretation of the facts? The same for Creation, could we be wrong about both?

 

True, but who likes to admit that they're wrong? I, occasionally, don't.

 

BTW, I lean more towards evolution. Maybe its because my whole family is religiously inclined (they just can't EVER admit that they're wrong!!).

[Emperor Devon]

ED: I gather that mankind was created perfect; not omnipotent, but still perfect (blameless) on its level of existence. It was in disobeying God that mankind became imperfect. Why this happened, I don't know except that mankind is stupid and ignorant while Satan is brilliant and wise. Mankind is to blame for its fall and that is why it has suffered by its own hand ever since.

 

From Dictionary.com:

 

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings

 

If something can become flawed, then it was never perfect to begin with.

[Mace MacLeod]

Anyone going too far in either direction is missing the point.

 

A while ago, I saw a show about Noah's Ark that illustrates this. They were doing this expedition to Mt Ararat to find bits and pieces of the Ark, and documenting the whole "search" like one would do the search for the Holy Grail. Half of the show was about the Biblical scholars talking about the Biblical references to Noah and all the passages that were relevant, and being all Biblical and Authoritative and Christian about everything, interviewing people who had seen bits of the Ark in the mountain and had been searching for the Ark their whole lives. Passages of the Bible were read and blown up so as to cover the whole tv screen, and various painfully sincere people talked about the significance Noah's Ark had for them. It overlaid geographic maps of where the flood would have occurred, where the Ark ended up, plotting everything and being as patronizing as was possible to do under the circumstances, then the other half of the show took over.

 

This half got real scientific, with guys in thick glasses and horrible hairdos saying that the flood didn't happen, no matter what the Bible said. There was NO evidence of any worldwide flood or disaster circa 4000~5000BC, no evidence of any mass extictions of species which would accompany this, no way at all that a species could repopulate the Earth from two specimens, and, oh yes, more people have reported sighting the Loch Ness Monster than seeing bits and pieces of Noah's Ark stuck in Mt Ararat. In no way, no how could Noah's Ark happened, as they said.

 

Then there was this one fellow interspersed with the rest, and he had a different take: Noah's Ark was meant as an allegory; no matter how bad the state of affairs may be, even if the whole world has turned to sh!t God will find the good in us and in you and save it. No matter how low and how immoral and hopeless the situation may be, there is the possibility of salvation and forgiveness. This was the meaning that was put forward by this particular fellow.

 

And even though I don't believe in God as told in the Bible/Koran/Talmud/Dianetics, Jesus, Heavan or Hell or any of that, I believe this:

If you want to argue facts and science with Evolution you'll lose. Badly.

 

If you want to prove religion and God is inconsequential, you'll lose too, becuse you're missing the whole point of lesson.

[Prime]

but is not science ever changing

[nitpick mode on]Science doesn't change, because it is simply the method used to observe something and attempt to explain it, and improve that explanation. It is the theories that are constructed using the scientific method that change.[/nitpick mode off]

 

Not picking on you, Mav.

[Darth InSidious]

As in Science-facts. Okay il put it another way. I think the Earth is round because of the rotation of the planet not because of a glowing guy dressed in white robes who was bored.

 

 

Okay, I'll put it another way: Prove that to me without limiting yourself to our senses and perceptions.

[HerbieZ]

Okay, I'll put it another way: Prove that to me without limiting yourself to our senses and perceptions.

 

To a first-order approximation the Earth is round. This is due to gravity. Gravity pulls with equal strength in all directions; therefore any variations from a spherical shape will lead to gravitational forces that bring the shape back into that of a sphere. This is without considering the rotation of the earth, however.

 

The rotation of the earth adds centrifugal effects, which cause the earth to bulge slightly at its equator and flatten slightly at its poles. (This is like twirling a rock on the end of a string and then letting go--the rock flies away from the twirler.) Because of these centrifugal effects, the distance from the center of the earth to the surface of the earth is about 0.33% shorter at the poles compared to the equator.

 

Im not trying to prove anything. It's already been proven so i don't really understand your question. I think it's crazing my mind to understand how people believe in creation instead of evolution. It appears this thread is full of people like me trying to make people like you understand and vice-versa but really we are all just offering our views and then they are challenged by other people. Please do not to take my wording as an attempt to persuade you.

[Darth InSidious]

To a first-order approximation the Earth is round. This is due to gravity. Gravity pulls with equal strength in all directions; therefore any variations from a spherical shape will lead to gravitational forces that bring the shape back into that of a sphere. This is without considering the rotation of the earth, however.

 

The rotation of the earth adds centrifugal effects, which cause the earth to bulge slightly at its equator and flatten slightly at its poles. (This is like twirling a rock on the end of a string and then letting go--the rock flies away from the twirler.) Because of these centrifugal effects, the distance from the center of the earth to the surface of the earth is about 0.33% shorter at the poles compared to the equator.

Ahh, but how do you know this? What proof is there that does not come from a human perception of the universe?

 

If a blind man has grown up on an island, alone, and he picks up a pocket-watch which has washed ashore, can he tell what it is?

 

He won't suddenly, on picking it up think "Aha! A device for measuring time! How ingenious its cog-wheel mechanism is!". He may surmise a lot from what evidence he can find through his other senses, but without sight, he cannot confirm that it is indeed for measuring time.

 

Im not trying to prove anything. It's already been proven

Has it? By whom, using what, from where, in what perspective for what purpose?

so i don't really understand your question.

My question is: Can science, when all is said and done, prove something finally and without exception to be right, when practised by beings who cannot see the whole? Can a microbe perceive the entire petrie dish?

I think it's crazing my mind to understand how people believe in creation instead of evolution.

I don't believe in creation instead of evolution. I believe in the one through the other, as I stated

It appears this thread is full of people like me trying to make people like you understand and vice-versa but really we are all just offering our views and then they are challenged by other people. Please do not to take my wording as an attempt to persuade you.

The essence of discussion, very accurately summed up, if I might add

[ET Warrior]

Okay, I'll put it another way: Prove that to me without limiting yourself to our senses and perceptions.

He doesn't have to. There is no reason to assume that anything exists outside of our perceptive abilities unless faced with direct evidence.

 

If we're going to believe things that we cannot sense, then there is no basis for belief.

[Darth InSidious]

He doesn't have to. There is no reason to assume that anything exists outside of our perceptive abilities unless faced with direct evidence.

Neither is there any evidence that the phenomenal world is as the world really is

 

If we're going to believe things that we cannot sense, then there is no basis for belief.

I didn't say we were *totally* unperceptive of the real world, just that our perceptions are quite possibly flawed...

[ET Warrior]

Neither is there any evidence that the phenomenal world is as the world really is

There is lots of evidence. The fact that everyone percieves it in mostly the same way, aside from a few disabled people who percieve it in the same way minus a few senses.

 

Nobody has ANY other evidence to prove what we percieve to be wrong, so why assume that we are?

 

My point still stands, if you want to believe that then there is no basis for your belief in anything.

[Darth InSidious]

There is lots of evidence. The fact that everyone percieves it in mostly the same way, aside from a few disabled people who percieve it in the same way minus a few senses.

The fact that our eyes, ears, noses etc all follow roughly the same design template might help there

 

Nobody has ANY other evidence to prove what we percieve to be wrong, so why assume that we are?

Nobody has enough evidence to the contrary, so why assume so?

My point still stands, if you want to believe that then there is no basis for your belief in anything.

My point is not that the world is entirely different beyond our perceptions, but that:

a) We cannot perceive the entire universe and pass judgment on it as a whole as to whether it is artificial or not from one small corner of the universe,

b) That the noumenal world may be completely different from the phenomenal world. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just that it may be, and that science is:

i) therefore not absolute, and

ii) anyway, science does not seek proof, but collects evidence to support a thesis, and is not an absolute to be taken as gospel truth (no pun intended).

[ET Warrior]

Nobody has enough evidence to the contrary, so why assume so?.

Because, as I SAID in the last two posts, assuming things that we cannot observe or detect leads us nowhere. Why assume that there are things beyond the realm of sensing? It gains us nothing, and there is no way to limit what we are then forced to accept as reasonable.

[JediMaster12]

My main qualm with creationism/ID is that Christianity/Judaism/Islam all are founded from the same basic ideas with very similar holy books. While those are the predominant religions in the Western World, how is their view on creation any more right than a Buddhist's or a Hundu's perspective? Or for that matter, a Shinto's? Or a polytheist's? Or the Native American tribes/Maya/Inca/Aztec/African Tribes/indiginous peoples to Asia/Europe/everywhere? Every single culture and religion has a different creation myth. Yes, myth.

Actually if you look at the different myths side by side, you see striking similarities between them. There is almost always a flood somewhere that wiped out the Earth. There is some apocalyptic end that will occur and there is creation itself. As an anthropologist, in training, I have entered into the realm of iconography and religion as my specific area of study. What I found just by comparing Christianity and the Aztecs and Maya is that they are very similar in terms of content. The funny thing is that the Aztec and the Maya developed here in the Western world, the New World while Christianity developed in the Middle East. How can something so similar develop on different sides of the world? My explanation is the tower of Babel.

 

Evolution is based on hard science, and is supported by a large amount of evidence. Microevolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt- just look at any experiment where an antibiotic is introduced into a culture of bacteria. Within a few hundred generations(a day or two), the bacteria have evolved to be resistant. That is the main reason Penicillin does not work nearly as effectively as it once did. Evidence for macroevolution is not as easily studied or found, as Macro(large-scale) takes thousands of years. Evolution is not a myth, but a scientifically proven fact on small scales. To claim it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in Macro-e is just plain naive, as the evidence is inconclusive at the present time. The Modern Theory of Evolution is very different from Darwin's theory- it adapts and evolves as new evidence is presented.

Yes evolution is a science. It is natural selection or differential reproductive success. It is a theory that has not yet been disproven by science. Why? It's because we have the fossil record though that is incomplete in of itself. The fossil record only documents physical changes done on bone structure. It does not document the changes in soft tissues like nose size or color. Evolution is Darwin's theory it just has been added on to with more evidence we uncover.

 

 

As for the school debate: what is taught in high school, middle school, and elementary school really doesn't matter, because if someone is going to become a biologist they go to college. When one takes a college biology class the prof will not(or should not) spend time on C/ID, as it is not science. Reconciling evolution with your religious beliefs is left up to you, on your own time, rather than waste the professor's time babysitting you.

The whole debate has been going on for decades. The Christian conservatives and the Catholics claim it heresy and the scientists argue that it's science. Religion and science have always battled each other. Look at Gallileo. The poor guy was under house arrest by the Vatican because he said that we lived in a heliocentric galaxy. Natural selection is a means to explain how we got from point A to point B. It is a secular subject meaning that it can and it is not against the law to teach in public institutions. Parents can decide if they want their child to know that stuff but banning it from public schools is illegal. Most of the debate stems from misinterpretation of the information that is given. Darwin never said that we descended from monkeys. He predicted that our earliets ancestors came out of Africa and that the hallmark of humans was our big brains. He was right on one of two: we did come out of Africa, we have the evidence. the hallmark of humans however is not the big brains but bipedalism. We are the only living creatures on this Earth that can walk on two legs. Sure we have seen apes do it but their bone structure at the hips cannot accommodate standing upright 24/7.

As to whether or not it should be taught in public schools, we already do it. Private schools I can't speak for because they can do whatever they want in compliance with state and federal education laws.

 

Evolution is a science. That much is true. As to whether or not it can live side by side with creationism, that is up to the individual. I believe they can. I have seen the fossil record and I read the Bible. I believe that God created the world in seven days, he just took thousands of years for it to happen. I mentioned in an earlier post that a day is but a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day in heaven. Science has proven things that before the Vatican attributed to God like gravity or the heliocentric galaxy we live in. I have lived with a liberal family in terms of education but that same family is also conservative in terms of religious thought so I have been stuck in the middle for a long time.

[Pavlos]

Ahh, but how do you know this? What proof is there that does not come from a human perception of the universe?

 

I can do that too. How do you know a god exists using your limited perceptions? How dare you deign to believe in something which you cannot comprehend with such limited experiences? You have started a circular argument, one that I will not get involved in and one that no one else should rise to.

 

People seem to be slightly confused as to what the nature of science is. I can't explain it very well, so I will use analogies. I create a hypothesis; this is something that has no grounding in fact but is often based on common sense. My hypothesis is that all swans are white. Fair enough... now how do I prove that? I can't go around the globe looking for white swans because we are hit with the question "What about that one?" So we go out to look for swans that are not white. We do not find any after years of searching and so formulate the theory: Thus far, no evidence suggests that swans exist in any other colour than white. As someone pointed out before, science is the process of disproving, rather than proving - something different than blind faith in a theory, which is why science is fluid.

[Bimmerman]

The hard sciences deal in facts and require proof for any theory to be accepted. The proof is called evidence. The ancient greeks proved the earth was round to within a few hundred miles in circumference, using nothing but the angle of the sun in the sky and some basic trigonometry. If the world is not spherical in shape, how do satelites stay in orbit? When you look at a picture from space of the Earth, it is more or less circular. To account for having Days and Nights, and seeing the Sun travel from east to west, rotate the circle about its north-south axis. what do you get? A sphereoid. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in nearly all respected scientists' minds that it is taken as Scientific Fact. Here are some more: The acceleration due to gravity is considered constant at 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/sec^2 at sea level. the boiling point for water is 373K, or 100 deg C, or 212 deg F. These are scientific facts. There are a wide variety of units used in science, but they all have a value for the above listings, and the value is constant.

 

Here's a simple experiment that anyone can do to see a scientific fact: grab an apple. Throw it in the air(preferably outside). You can see that the apple goes up in the air, and then comes down, ceasing to move for a split second at the maximum height, assuming straight up and down motion. The apple loses speed on the way up and gains speed every second on the way down. Just looking at this, why would the apple lose and then gain speed? Acceleration due to gravity. Air resistance can be ignored, as the apple is not moving fast enough for the effects to matter. Apply whatever units you want, the motion of the apple does not change. Acceleration is a scientific fact. You percieve acceleration differently than another person might, as you would with color, but your perception of the acceleration does not change the magnitude nor the direction of the acceleration.

 

Evidence in Science can either help proove or disproove a theory. For every theory, the opposite is also a valid theory, so while some evidence may not be proof of one it prooves the other correct.

 

Everything is based upon perceptions. The way you percieve the world, the Bible/holy book of your choosing, your god, speed, velocity, acceleration, all are based upon perceptions. Science tries to take as much perception out of the equation so to speak. Science, physics in particular, creates laws that all objects obey- F=ma, E=mc^2(just had to put it in), alpha=v^2/r, dx=vt+1/2at^2. Newton's three laws apply to physical objects, Kepler's laws(which are derived from observation, or perception, can be mathematically derived from Newton's laws) apply for large bodies of mass such as planets and stars and black holes, Einstein's laws apply for relative motion(motion at or near the speed of light), and also for atoms inside of stars, and that's just a small sample of physics laws. Chemistry has some(Ideal Gas Law, anyone?), Biology has some, every science has laws that define how object act in the real world. These laws are based off of our perceptions, yes, but apply with a great deal of effectiveness to objects in our universe.

 

Actually if you look at the different myths side by side, you see striking similarities between them. There is almost always a flood somewhere that wiped out the Earth. There is some apocalyptic end that will occur and there is creation itself. As an anthropologist, in training, I have entered into the realm of iconography and religion as my specific area of study. What I found just by comparing Christianity and the Aztecs and Maya is that they are very similar in terms of content. The funny thing is that the Aztec and the Maya developed here in the Western world, the New World while Christianity developed in the Middle East. How can something so similar develop on different sides of the world? My explanation is the tower of Babel.

 

I can't account for the similarities/differences, as I'm not an anthropologist/archaeologist. I was just stating that holding one myth as more valid than another's sheer hypocrisy. It is a fascinating subject. What's this about the tower of Babel?

 

 

Yes evolution is a science. It is natural selection or differential reproductive success. It is a theory that has not yet been disproven by science. Why? It's because we have the fossil record though that is incomplete in of itself. The fossil record only documents physical changes done on bone structure. It does not document the changes in soft tissues like nose size or color. Evolution is Darwin's theory it just has been added on to with more evidence we uncover.

 

The theory of gravity hasn't been disproven yet, as no other theory can satisfactorily explain what is going on. As for the fossil record, you are absolutely right. The lack of any soft tissue is why Macro-e is hard to prove and to find evidence for. The modern theory of Evolution is a much-improved version of Darwin's, accounting for his errors and new evidence, but the basic idea is the same- Natural selection of the fittest.

 

 

 

The whole debate has been going on for decades. (snip)

 

Religion mixing with education in public schools can never be good. It's almost as bad as the government interfering with education. Private can do whatever they want, and parents can decide what their children learn. Banning a controversial topic shows a lack of spine in the educators and administrators.

 

Galileo is a perfect example of science being censored by religion. Religious censorship was commonplace in the Dark Ages up until the Renaissance, and after in many cases. Just because there is a history of religious nutcases deciding that their way is right does not mean that it is acceptable in the modern secular world.

 

Evolution is a science. That much is true. As to whether or not it can live side by side with creationism, that is up to the individual. I believe they can. I have seen the fossil record and I read the Bible. I believe that God created the world in seven days, he just took thousands of years for it to happen. I mentioned in an earlier post that a day is but a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day in heaven. Science has proven things that before the Vatican attributed to God like gravity or the heliocentric galaxy we live in. I have lived with a liberal family in terms of education but that same family is also conservative in terms of religious thought so I have been stuck in the middle for a long time.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself- the proof is there, the individual needs to seek it out and come to terms with it.

[JediMaster12]

@ Bimmerman: The tower of Babel is another Bible story. The people were arrogant thinking that they could build a towaer all the way to heaven and they didn't want to disperse to different parts of the the world. Well as the story goes, God came down and made people forget their language. He then sent a terrible storm that sent the people scattering to different parts of the world. My supposition was that they scattered people took what they knew of say the creation story and with the different languages and the scattering of people, it developed into the myths that you see today.

 

As someone pointed out before, science is the process of disproving, rather than proving - something different than blind faith in a theory, which is why science is fluid.

I said that I think and I stand by it. I may not be a hard core scientist like a biologist or chemist but I am a scientist. Even though anthropology is a social science it is stil a science. Archaeology relies on scientific techniques like C14 dating. You have to know what a half life is and all. As we continue to add more to the body of knowledge, we are either supporting what has already been taken for granted like gravity or disproving something like planet orbits are not circular but elliptical. That's what I like about science. Even though someone may have discovered it first, there is always someone else who will say, "Wait a minute there."

[Jae Onasi]

I can do that too. How do you know a god exists using your limited perceptions? How dare you deign to believe in something which you cannot comprehend with such limited experiences? You have started a circular argument, one that I will not get involved in and one that no one else should rise to.

 

If you had used the 'I can't observe it scientifically, therefore it's not there' argument 150 years ago, you would have denied the existence of bacteria.

 

Before we had microscopes, we could not see bacteria and viri. Even though we could not perceive them before the advent of the proper technology, they were still there. Before we understood DNA, it was still there. Before we understood chemistry, water was still H2O. Science has theorized that there are a number of subatomic particles, some of which have not been 'seen' but which we 'believe' in based on some physics and math equations.

Our knowledge of science is so young we can't rule out the existence of God. It's possible that we don't have the techology to see/perceive Him yet. We can't even completely figure out how the brain processes the images from the eyes at this point, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that with our limited knowledge we haven't figured out how God works yet.

 

Nobody has ANY other evidence to prove what we percieve to be wrong, so why assume that we are?

 

Play the telephone game. That's quite an education on how perceptions can be wrong.

 

The history of science and medicine is filled with examples of times where what we thought was serious science turned out to be dead wrong. We used to think illness was caused by 'bad humors'. We used to think mercury was a medicine. We used to think the sun went around the earth (and had numerous math equations to explain the 'anomalies' that actually proved the earth went around the sun). We used to think in the 1800's that infections were caused by spontaneous generation. The treatment of glaucoma has changed rather dramatically in the last 20 years as we learned more about the eye. Some of the things we do now in medicine will probably be found to be wrong in 100 years when we have more information on how the body works and have a paradigm shift in treatment modalities.

 

@LIAYD--'The Creator must have a Creator' argument is apparently a common one. Things that had a beginning had to be created. Things that did not, e.g. God, do not require a Creator. We're not really able to think outside the 4 dimension box as humans, so I don't entirely understand it myself, but that's at least one thought. It's also an argument I'm just starting to read up on, so my arguments are likely to be woefully incomplete at this point.

 

@Emperor Devon--I would have to look this up to be 100% sure, but when God said he made us in his image, it does not necessarily mean he made us 'perfect'. What we consider 'imperfect' may be perceived differently by God. How do we know what He perceives as 'perfect?' So God decided to make man a certain way. Does that mean He's imperfect, or that He just decided to do it that way for some reason we don't understand? I can sing a piece of music (theoretically) perfectly. What if I want to change some notes? It won't be doing that piece of music perfectly. But it might make a unique difference that is equally good.

 

In terms of people, God could have created us in such a way that we never did one single thing wrong, which is what a lot of people consider 'a perfect man'. Never killed, never starved, never tortured, never lied, never stolen, never abused. However, then we'd be little robots, obeying commands without thought or question. He didn't want that, apparently. So instead, He started us out on the right track and gave us the option of making our own choices and accepting Him or not--He wanted us to turn to Him because we wanted to, not because we were compelled to, and to have the option to choose between good and evil. We're the ones who messed it up, starting with Adam and Eve and going from there. We experience the consequences of our actions. We wonder why God allows children to starve in the deserts of Africa or even in our own backyards, but instead of pouring resources into agriculture, engineering, and climatology to prevent that, we pour resources into the production of weapons. We wonder how thousands of children can be victims of pornography and the atrocious sexual appetites of some very sick people in some places around the world, but we don't want to allocate time and resources to stop it because to many people want a piece of that $40 billion pie and don't care what they have to do to get it. We could have a far healthier environment if it weren't for corporate/government greed and corruption. We could have far more resources for medical research and be light-years ahead in solving the problems of cancer and heart disease, if we didn't have to worry about financing wars (that's on a global scale, not just in the US) or filling the pockets of insurance company executives.

 

We reap what we sow and blame God for the pain instead of accepting the responsibility for our own actions, both individually and globally.

 

On the Creation/Evolution thing, they're not mutually exclusive. The Bible is not a science text, and I don't study it for its physics and biology principles. It's a book on how God and Man can relate, not a treatise on biochemistry and geology. God could have handed down a book on The Answers of the Universe (and don't say 42 ), but it would have been useless for people even a hundred years back, because they didn't have the scientific background to understant it. It's a book on how to love God and your neighbor, not an anatomy and physiology text. So, I don't expect to see the same scientific principles in a theology text written for cultures beginning several thousand years back. The order of creation events seems to generally fit in with what science has found, so I'm OK with both. God set up the science rules, got the process going, and shepherded it along. And that's coming from an evangelical.

[Darth InSidious]

@JediMaster12: The Catholic Church doesn't claim anything of the sort

[JediMaster12]

^^Claim what? It was the Vatican that sent Gallileo into house arrest. I'm not sure what you are getting at. All I am saying is that the feud between science and religion is a long one and both sides have their perks and downfalls. Evolutionary theory is merely one of those rounds that continues the flame to ignite.

[Emperor Devon]

God said he made us in his image,

 

Is not God perfect? If we were made in His image, we should have been.

 

If a someone who has unlimited power isn't perfect, I have another reason to be an atheist.

 

So instead, He started us out on the right track and gave us the option of making our own choices and accepting Him or not

 

That would have been a poor decision on His part, then.

 

We reap what we sow and blame God for the pain instead of accepting the responsibility for our own actions, both individually and globally.

 

Why should a baby in Africa who's done nothing but exist be guaranteed to a life of suffering, then? That is not justice. Someone who has not done anything wrong should not be punished. Is God corrupt?