Cakes said:Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.
If the Bible consists of metaphors, what is God a metaphor for?cuddly_tomato said:So you don't know what allegory means? From wiki:-Lexodus said:What I mean is, the whole story links together God creating the world, and God creating the plants, animals and humans. If you believe the story, it says God did all that, and all in 6 days, yadda yadda yadda. Point is, 'creation' is lumped into one story. However, If God didn't create the plants, animals, and humans, maybe he may not have created the world either (see: big bang theory. If evolution can be accepted, why not the big bang as the next logical step?), which means he may not either a) have the power, and then not be the god that Christians, Jews and Muslims etc. believe in, or b) exist in any way, shape or form.cuddly_tomato said:You don't need faith. You do need belief. Not belief in god, but belief in concepts of good and evil. Science has nothing to say about morality, ethics, justice, or anything else like that. So yes, if someone relies only on science and logic they are amoral. Not evil or bad, but simply completely without morality. Note: That is DIFFERENT from being an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, not someone who doesn't believe in morality.Lexodus said:
Why do you think that evolution contradicts religion? Surely you have the word "allegory" in your vocabulary? That is all one needs to understand that religion and evolution really don't have anything all to do with each other.Lexodus said:OT: The big thing about evolution vs creation is that, whilst not disproving God, evolution being correct would take away his massive claim to fame (and, if God didn't create the world, who's to say he did all that other stuff? And if he didn't do that, who's to say that there even is a God?). That is why, I think, there is the schism.
Also, what do you mean "create the world"?
"Allegory (from Greek: αλλος, allos, "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: it may be addressed to the eye, and is often found in realistic painting, sculpture or some other form of mimetic, or representative art."
This means that texts such as the Bible are not considered literal truth even by people who "believe" them. They are allegorical, metaphoric, symbolic, not literal. 'Art' rather than 'science'. Mythos, not Logos.
If not evolution, then why not the big bang as the next logical step? Well it could be that there is absolutely no logical connection between the big bang and evolution? This is rather like saying "If someone likes climbing mountains, won't they like raspberry pie as the next logical step?" It is a complete non sequitur.
Also, the Big Bang theory does not disagree with religion. Not at all. In fact the theory was created by a Catholic priest.
So trying to say that religious people don't believe in stuff like the big bang and evolution is as empirically false as creation itself, which is extremely ironic.
What people believe doesn't especially bother me one way or the other, so long as those beliefs don't end up affecting other people. Belief in creationism / intelligent design, however, is hardly kept personal. In America, and other highly religious countries around the world, there is a powerful movement to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, or to have it taught side by side with non-scientific alternatives.MA7743W said:The real question here is why does it bother you so much that other people believe something you don't ?Snack Cake said:There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.
I just wanted to mention that snack cakes are good, cakes are better, and cheese is the ultimate in food.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I think this thread represents a pretty strong refutation of that statement. While there have been some childish responses by both religious and non-religious folks, both sides have also managed to respond thoughtfully and civilly in the majority of posts.mokes310 said:I would agree...let's all avoid controversial topics like this, it only leads to childish fighting.
In fact originally, when science started to gain some ground with examples such as Sir Isaac Newton it was often seen as a way of understanding god's works. Newton himself was a pious Christian and that is what drove him to scientific pursuits. That's also where the idea of god as a "watchmaker" came from, but that's another story.sneakypenguin said:I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well, but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.
Welcome to the escapist and congratulations on making your first post such a magnificent piece of work! Thousands of years of human theology, endeavour, and philosophy... Centuries of theologians contributing more to scientific understanding than anyone on this forum can possibly realize... all reduced to "a rock in front of them." Well done!bakutero said:Religion is silly. Its the equivalent of if there was a huge group of people, and they all believed that there was a rock in front of them but there wasn't. And while they were all believing that, everyone else isn't allowed to tell them that there just is no rock because it will offend them.
But what are the alternatives? Creationism, and religion, should be kept out of the science class. I won't just state that I agree with this, I would actually fight against people trying to treat creationism as science, or attempting to claim that evolution is nothing more than opinion.Snack Cake said:What people believe doesn't especially bother me one way or the other, so long as those beliefs don't end up affecting other people. Belief in creationism / intelligent design, however, is hardly kept personal. In America, and other highly religious countries around the world, there is a powerful movement to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, or to have it taught side by side with non-scientific alternatives.MA7743W said:The real question here is why does it bother you so much that other people believe something you don't ?Snack Cake said:There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.
cartzo said:their is a biology teacher in my school who himself doesnt believe in the evolutionary theory, he has only ever spoken of it once because he is of course abliged to teach it, he doesnt directly believe in god, he is actually an agnostic, he just sees life as something to complicated to originate from that particular theory.
heres a good question, can all the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and lengthy studies accumulate to conclusive proof?
i better just clarify that i do think evolution is fact, but do you think that evidence is solid enough to hold up in court for example.thepj said:cartzo said:their is a biology teacher in my school who himself doesnt believe in the evolutionary theory, he has only ever spoken of it once because he is of course abliged to teach it, he doesnt directly believe in god, he is actually an agnostic, he just sees life as something to complicated to originate from that particular theory.
heres a good question, can all the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and lengthy studies accumulate to conclusive proof?
because the way we know evolution is true is because of the way we can predict the oast with it, and by that i mean fossils, if the first fossil amphibians were older than the first fossil fish then that would be a major hit for evolution, as yet though all the evidence points to the fact that evolution is true. at that is why i know, i don't belive i know, that evolution is real
Huh, and I was under the impression that evolution was the idea that species changed over time, not how they first began. Also, I'm pretty sure that it was a little more complicated then this:The Big Eye said:1. Starting with the primordial ooze: even in the most ideal conditions, complex molecules do not form spontaneously. Miller's experiments generated a handful of amino acids; even a basic life form would require hundreds of proteins to properly function. Keep in mind that this being would have to be significantly more complex than the typical virus, because viruses only survive by exploiting higher forms of life that already exist. In short, you would need thousands of amino acids automatically assembling into proteins, and hundreds of proteins spontaneously assembling into a working cell. This working cell would then have to survive in an unspeakably hostile environment long enough to multiply, assuming it had replicative DNA at all. To understate it simply, it's a highly unlikely scenario, billions of years or otherwise.
I'm liking how you stated that dinosaurs inhabit the Earth today. Also, I don't think you understand what happens to organic material under pressure. Oil, coal?The Big Eye said:2. According to the fossil record, the transitional forms of the various species on the evolutionary tree do not exist. One would expect them to be in the majority; in fact, given the time frames involved, one would expect it to be highly unlikely to find more than a scant handful of fossil specimens that provably belong to exactly the same species. The paleontological community presents finds such as the Archaeopteryx as the coveted missing links that make the theory hold together. In fact, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. One can only assume either that the fossilization process is somehow selective in that it only fossilizes animals that exist on the Earth today, or that there are no missing links and species simply mutagenically jump from one evolutionary stage to the next - an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. Both assumptions have the scientific credibility of space helicopters. (Awesome, but impossible.)
I don't think you understand the difference between problems you don't understand, and problems science can't understand. A simple google search will clear up the difference.The Big Eye said:3. The variation of the genders? The development of multicellular organisms? The evolution of the brain? By and large, popular science doesn't even wanna touch those problems.
One has to wonder why a theory so incomplete has achieved such widespread acceptance. Say what you will about the credibility of Creationism, or religion in general, but one has to admit that there are some very good reasons not to believe in evolution as we know it. And don't even get me started on the Big Bang.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.htmlRomblen said:I have two big problems with Evolution.
1. The missing link. Some have claimed that they found the missing link fossilised somewhere. My thinking is that shouldn't we still have half human, half ape animals walking around?
2. Evolution states that life randomly appeared, and billions of years later, here we are. According to scientist's claims however, the chances of random life appearing is 1 in 10^250 (thats a 1 with 250 zeros). You have a better chance of winning the lottery 25 times in a row.
No, viruses and bacteria are primary examples of mutation (not to mention that they're single-celled organisms). They don't prove much in the way of evolution; at least, you can't convince a sceptic by presenting those facts.Alexnader said:I don't see why you can't... viruses and bacteria are prime examples of evolution or at least adaption. Bloody drug resistant little buggers...
We share something like 97% of our DNA with dogs, so we're pretty much related to everything.Alexnader said:Anyway it gets much worse than Baboons... thanks to the whole common ancestor thing you'd be surprised what we're closely related too.
Clearly that's not what I understood from Christians, I've heard the difficulty curve for getting into heaven is pretty steep, that faith has alot to do with it (would explain why they all try and kill each other, even though I agree that these are just the nutjobs who want to score something off of it you can see how that would fit into my "stop changing your shit" argument towards religion), also apparently its popular belief that if you don't do whats in your power to 'set others on the right path' you'll go to hell, to be honest I've even heard that either heaven or hell run a pretty exclusive club, so after they reach their quota they just redirect you to the other. No shit, I've heard this. And since its all been passed down or come from a 'priest' or whatever you call the guy who I should think has the rule book, I'd expect it to stay constant.Chipperz said:I've always been told that you don't have to consciously follow the beliefs to get into Heaven, just be a good person. A problem that many Christians have is that the Old Testament was later superceded* by the whole "love one another, as I have loved you" thing - there's no mention of belief, just being good, so, yeah, Atheists are allowed in, along with eeeeeeeveryone else so long as they haven't been an arsehole. I fail to see how "not being an arsehole" is "spending a life time living in mediocrity".
[very much enjoyed that portion of your quote, =]]Chipperz said:*A fact that many Christians miss. Along with many Atheists trying their hardest to slam Christianity to get a few more converts so that their brand of science will get them nicer soil to rot in when they die.