Science and Religion

[Moose]

Believing that Satan put dinosaur fossils in the earth with verifiable carbon dating seems too ridiculous. I'm sorry, it does. Also claiming that the tower of babel actually existed and "if God meant for the races to mix, he would have kept them that way" is also not only ridiculous, it's patently offensive.

Just about as ridiculous and patently offensive when someone tries to tell me I evolved from an ape when there are still apes running around......do you see the similarities?

[blind_otter]

Just about as ridiculous and patently offensive when someone tries to tell me I evolved from an ape when there are still apes running around......do you see the similarities?

 

according to evolutionary theory, we didn't evolve from apes, so no I don't see the similarities. If you understood the theory properly this argument would be more credible.

[Moose]

according to evolutionary theory, we didn't evolve from apes, so no I don't see the similarities. If you understood the theory properly this argument would be more credible.

Then why was I taught this is School??? OH Wait a minute, that got kicked out by yet ANOTHER theory.....see how reliable this is to me?

[blind_otter]

Then why was I taught this is School??? OH Wait a minute, that got kicked out by yet ANOTHER theory.....see how reliable this is to me?

 

Actually the theory states that we descended from a common ancestor, not that apes existed through time immemorial and somehow we magicaly emerged from an ape mother.

 

I'm sure it's just that you didn't understand it properly when you were a tot.

[alphamale]

Then why was I taught this is School???

Everything you are taught in school is baised based upon the nation and culture you live in. Look at a world history text book from Japan....it will be vastly different from a world history text book from the US.

[Moose]

Actually the theory states that we descended from a common ancestor, not that apes existed through time immemorial and somehow we magicaly emerged from an ape mother.

 

I'm sure it's just that you didn't understand it properly when you were a tot.

Well I've always believed we all came from a common ancestor.

 

That's a no brainer. It's just, "who" I believed we came from that differs from a scientist's view correct?

 

And yeah, you're probably right, I probably didn't understand it when I was younger.

 

One thing I do hope about is that God will explain to me how all of this fits together. I'm sure that all of these things we ponder somehow intertwine...

[quankanne]

One set is specifically geared towards the unnameable and spiritual, the other data set is applicable towards the exploration and understanding of my phsyical realm and never the twain shall meet.

 

I agree with the first two parts of your statement, about the kinds of data, but I feel they can coexist comfortably because one doesn't necessarily have to squash the other. But that's just me!

 

re: the common ancestor comment. I think it was in a college biology class that it was pointed out that up until a certain stage of development of a zygote, the blobs that turned into a human, a fish, a monkey, a dog and some other critters highly resembled each other. Common ancestor? Maybe, but I'd need scientific proof of that to fully accept it. Remarkable similarities in development of creatures, including humans? Yeah, I'll bite because common sense tells me that there are only X amount of bases that result in a number of possibilities.

 

anybody out here read Frank Peretti? He's got a book out called "Monster," which on the outset, seems to deal with Bigfoot and Bigfoot's place in the chain of evolution, but the novel takes a darker twist when a scientist tries to genetically reproduce the missing link by mixing up human and ape genes. Pretty scary in that in order to prove his theory, the scientist manipulates data and messes with the natural order of things. Though Peretti is a Christian writer, this book deals more with the moral and ethical side of science, as opposed to flat-out spirituality.

[alphamale]

One thing I do hope about is that God will explain to me how all of this fits together.

if this ever happened then there would be no need for a God anymore...as long as things remain unexplainable there will always be a need for religion and a God.

[blind_otter]

One set is specifically geared towards the unnameable and spiritual, the other data set is applicable towards the exploration and understanding of my phsyical realm and never the twain shall meet.

 

I agree with the first two parts of your statement, about the kinds of data, but I feel they can coexist comfortably because one doesn't necessarily have to squash the other. But that's just me!

 

Ah, but I don't say one squashes the other, but they are proverbial apples and oranges. Philosophy isn't studied in the same way that science is for this reason. The onus of proof is entirely different for the two data sets.

 

re: the common ancestor comment. I think it was in a college biology class that it was pointed out that up until a certain stage of development of a zygote, the blobs that turned into a human, a fish, a monkey, a dog and some other critters highly resembled each other. Common ancestor? Maybe, but I'd need scientific proof of that to fully accept it. Remarkable similarities in development of creatures, including humans? Yeah, I'll bite because common sense tells me that there are only X amount of bases that result in a number of possibilities.

 

Embryology, see http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/

[converse02]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I don't, however, go off and call them superstitions.

And why not? I, like you, know they are false. I just have the balls to says it.

 

I also don't call the followers irrational.

And why not? Why not call upon the obvious. I have clearly stated why your beliefs are irrational. You have yet to defend them. As far as I am concerned, I am justified in calling your beliefs irrational because we both know they are.

 

And I'm telling you, that NO, I repeat, NO Prominent University knows these findings, or works to be absolutes.If it's so perfect, then why is it that scientist continually find flaws in their original conclusions in biology, and genetics?? This happens ALL THE TIME!!

I absolutely agree with you. These findings are not absolutes, but findings in science are based on evidence. When more evidence is gathered, new conclusions can be drawn.

However, you religion is based on no evidence whatsoever. It's completely made up like Odin, Ra, Allah, and Zeus. It is completely irrational to believe a virgin gave birth to the ultimate creator of the universe who once bomb Saddom because gays lived there. Or that Noah fitted every animals on a wooden boat while God flooded and killed every living being of Earth.

Evolution gave us understanding of bacterial antibiotic resistance and how avian flu is deadly. What the heck did creationism give us?

 

YOU'RE BEING DUPED MAN!! You're being deceived......wake up!

Right, I'm being duped my thousands of fossils, stratas of rock, and repeatable experiments in and radiometrics and genetics. How DUMB is that?

You are basing your conclusion on what you are told, on a book that no one knows who wrote, filled with irrational stories, and are told not to question or challenge it because it supposely created by some pan-dimensional uber being that's watching you even when you poop. You're the one being duped.

 

Oh yes it can be denied. I'm doing that right now. Just because you've manged to convince YOURSELF, doesn't make it so!!!

If you are aware of the evidence (visited a museum or tried getting a decent understanding of biology once in you life), you would realize that by denying evolution, you deny REALITY and all the natural evidence surrounding us. You indulge in an irrational fantasy based on blind faith.

 

I refuse to stoop to your level.....

You refuse you call a white elephant a white elephant? You refuse to call irrational religious stories irrational when they are? I see. For you, stating the obvious, being direct, is considered stooping. Rather unfortunate, if you ask me.

[Moose]

You'll eventually get over it I'm sure.

[converse02]

Just about as ridiculous and patently offensive when someone tries to tell me I evolved from an ape when there are still apes running around......do you see the similarities?

 

This can only be said by someone ignorant of what evolution is or how it works.

Humans ARE apes. We are african apes. And there is EVIDENCE for this.

Read a biology textbook. Learn about evolution, Be fascinated.

 

"the family Hominidae consisting of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes". "

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15198703&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15198701&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12942772&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum

 

These are scientific articles from universities across the planet from various country gathering evidence we evolved from apes. However, we can't build a time machine. Let's say evolution is wrong, but then how do YOU explain these fossils. Do you a better explanation for the scientific community besides "God poofed these gradually changing fossils there." Give me a break.

 

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

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html - the Smithsonian

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

[Moose]

OR.....maybe not.....yawn.....

[converse02]

OR.....maybe not.....yawn.....

 

Perhaps you are correct.

By its way better than the irrationally, emptiness, and utter lack of evidence of your religion.

[HokeyReligions]

Science is no more perfect an answer than is religion. One has to have faith in the 'answers' that science provides to them. Many people accept whatever proof science offers them as final. Others question it and still others unprove scientific conclusions. Same with religion. Many Bible scholars have found all the proof they need to believe in God and all the holes in scientific answers to not believe in the scientific conclusions. It's perspective.

 

Have you ever heard the saying that Nature Abhors a Void? Does faith in a diety fill in the voids left by science? Or does science fill in the voids left by religion?

[quankanne]

If you are aware of the evidence (visited a museum or tried getting a decent understanding of biology once in you life), you would realize that by denying evolution, you deny REALITY and all the natural evidence surrounding us. You indulge in an irrational fantasy based on blind faith.

 

why are you so threatened by someone's decision to believe in a Supernatural Being? Just because faith doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, period ~ the values pertain only to that individual, and really has nothing to do with you or what you chose to accept and reject.

 

you're also being more than a little full of yourself by suggesting in a blanket statement that because all believers chose to open their minds to something of a spiritual nature, they therefore must reject that which is scientific. Moose is merely saying that there is more to his life than just looking at everything empirically, that he's also using that extra sense to consider things from a spiritual perspective. If he choses to believe that God created all of this, it doesn't mean that he completely rejects evolution, and he most likely sees it falling into the natural scheme of things. What you suggest is that there is only room for one, and just the one, school of thought, rather than allowing people to figure it out for themselves based on how what they believe.

[HokeyReligions]

I wonder how many people who follow science to the exclusion of religion believe that there may be life on other planets? Maybe intelligent life? Or who believe that there are "ghosts" -- maybe energy signals from the dead, or some manifestation of personalities? Its interesting to talk with people who believe these things are possible, but who adamently deny that a God could, would, does, or did exist. What's the difference?

[Moose]

Moose is merely saying that there is more to his life than just looking at everything empirically, that he's also using that extra sense to consider things from a spiritual perspective. If he choses to believe that God created all of this, it doesn't mean that he completely rejects evolution, and he most likely sees it falling into the natural scheme of things.

Do you know me IRL? You sure know how to explain where I'm coming from Quank. Thanks!!

[bluetuesday]

After reading the Bible, it is clear that it contained rules and dogma about how one should live their life. Often, politicans quote the Bible when passing new laws that govern the lives of many, whether it be about divorce, the rights of gays, the death penalty or some forth. Isn't it important to know if the claims of a particular religion are legitimate, even if the existance of God X is legitmate?

 

Before the crusades or the terrorists of 9/11 crashed, wouldn't you say it's rather important they tried to find good reasons and question whether their God, or any other God for that matter, really exists?

 

no, i don't. since you and i know that the existence of god cannot be proved, why would you send people on such a journey? you are an atheist. that is your faith. but you cannot prove god doesn't exist. if you were practicing what you preach, you would claim to be an agnostic. no?

 

There is little reason to suspect Santa or elves are real. I doubt the lack of reason is in fact MORE reason to believe in such nonsense.

 

the point you missed here was that in as far as we understand the concept of a deity, evidence for the existence of god MUST be necessarily inconclusive. if it were not, there would be no free will.

 

and since being free to choose or not to choose whether god exists, plainly exists, isn't it possible that the argument god MIGHT exist is strengthened by the fact that no evidence exists to prove it? don't answer that. it's a rhetorical question. it's also a pointless question, because it cannot be answered. i just mean to illustrate that lack of evidence is not necessarily ONLY an indication that there ISN'T a deity. it could be quite the opposite.

[Outcast]

Even simpler; that we mere mortals haven't found evidence yet doesn't mean there isn't any. Every day we make many new discoveries; we're hardly at the zenith of all knowledge. I doubt we will achieve that while any of us is alive and likely not for a millennium or two more.

[quankanne]

Do you know me IRL? You sure know how to explain where I'm coming from Quank. Thanks!!

 

it's not me, Moose ... it's Him. Otherwise I'd be deaf to the meaning of the message you are trying share.

[HokeyReligions]

The whole thing reminds me of an old Sherlock Holmes story - there was a line in the story "..a curious thing about the dog that night." It did not bark.

 

Science and God are simply two ways to explain the same thing - existence. Inclusive of all the why's and how's. Neither rules out the other, unless you believe it does. Its not that difficult to accept parts (or all) of both God and Science. We are all human - we 'wear' what fits us as individuals and as societies and communities.

[Moose]

Do you know me IRL? You sure know how to explain where I'm coming from Quank. Thanks!!

 

it's not me, Moose ... it's Him. Otherwise I'd be deaf to the meaning of the message you are trying share.

NOW, That is REAL! That is PROOF! And that is very deep......

[blind_otter]

The whole thing reminds me of an old Sherlock Holmes story - there was a line in the story "..a curious thing about the dog that night." It did not bark.

 

Science and God are simply two ways to explain the same thing - existence. Inclusive of all the why's and how's. Neither rules out the other, unless you believe it does. Its not that difficult to accept parts (or all) of both God and Science. We are all human - we 'wear' what fits us as individuals and as societies and communities.

 

I disagree, strongly. I don't think either cancels the other out. But I think that they are two TOTALLY different disciplines that require totally different academic processes and that put the burden of proof on entirely different types of things.

 

I object to this impetus to make two mutually exclusive data sets somehow equitable, as if saying that they discuss different things is somehow an insult? As if to say that scientific rigour and philosophical exploration are different somehow makes one less than?

 

IMO religion(s) explore inner space with a depth and vigor that science does not allow, and science explores the outer spaces of the physical world. There are equations and experiments that through the scientific process require repetition to be credible. Sprituality requires no proof, only faith.

 

One is NOT better than the other. One does NOT quash the other. They simply center on different sets of principles.

 

To me, that's cool. Everybody wins.

[Moai]

I wonder how many people who follow science to the exclusion of religion believe that there may be life on other planets? Maybe intelligent life? Or who believe that there are "ghosts" -- maybe energy signals from the dead, or some manifestation of personalities? Its interesting to talk with people who believe these things are possible, but who adamently deny that a God could, would, does, or did exist. What's the difference?

 

I am someone you describe above. And yes, I do think that there is life on other planets. Given the vastness of the Universe, there would have to be.

 

Whether it is intelligent life or not is an open question. It is certainly possible. I am certain that if there is another intelligent life form out there, they are not visiting us, however. From what I understand about physics such a thing is impossible. The distances are too great for one thing.

 

I don't believe in ghosts. Or psychics. Or energy signals from the dead. I don't believe in Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. I don't believe in remote viewing. I have never met another atheist who believes these things, either. Most people I have met who do believe these things aren't Christians, though. But, I have met some Christians who do, which I find odd myself.