Evolution... a theory?

[zDan]

Hi Zedrush

 

What I meant by relative truth is just what you mean as well - everyone sees things differently and what appears true to one person may appear wrong to another. That's why I think nobody in their right mind should or can claim something to be 100% proven or true, be that about evolution, creation, etc.

 

What I was saying though is that for evolution there is actually a lot of evidence and research available for scrutiny, which does build up a fairly consistent picture and a bit more than "just another theory". Of course it doesn't mean it is an absolute answer for everyone - it doesn't have to be, and people can look at the evidence and make up their own minds about it.

 

So I absolutely agree with you that one is entitled to its own opinion - that is fundamentally more important for us as a society than whatever appears to be some kind of truth, and it's wrong for someone to refuse dialogue or discussion just because they don't agree with a point of view. Discussion and debate should be something to enjoy and learn from

 

We should have been by now

[maz0]

I've been religious since I was born

 

er.......no you haven't.

 

You've been religious since an adult (usually your parents) indoctinated you in to their faith, haven't you? I doubt you are a Muslim and your parents RC or a Baptist and your parents Jewish? Am I wrong?

 

Organised religion is indeed the opium of the masses and the cause of more death and misery for the last 2,000 years than any disease. And let's not get started on those RC priests and their fondness for young boys or the RC Church's tacit support for the killing of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. "Oh, we were whittling some crucifix and didn't notice"

 

Evolution is of course a theory but one that is generally accepted as close to "truth" as any scientific theory. Indeed all theories are "true" until proven otherwise.

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death (if he ever existed) It was written by a disparate group of individuals transcribing "events" relayed to them verbally. Think of Chinese whispers at a party X infinity and you'll see how "true" the accounts are. Yet 2,000 years later, a small % of the world's population "follow" these scribblings.

 

There is great merit in loving your brother and caring for others but why anybody needs an organisation to tell them how to do this is beyond me.

 

Not really Captain, you don't have to be a mature adult to understand religion or a belief funny enough. I was discussing religion with people on their door steps at the age of five and giving public talks to a congregation by nine, I had a good grasp on my religion back then and I have an even better one now. I wasn't baptised until I was 21. So yeah I was religious since I was born, give or take a few years

 

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but the scandals surrounding any religion and their relation to paedophilia is a weak attack. These men found to be doing such things are evil people, and have taken advantage of a position of trust.

 

The quote of organised religion being the cause of more death and misery over the past 2000 years is pap. There's been more death caused by secular wars in the past few centuries than all the wars of history combined. WW1 & WW2 non-religious. American civil war non-religious. Vietnam war non-religious. The list goes on. To quote Stephen Carter, 'if we are to ban religious sentiment from public life because it has been responsible for so much horror, let us not forget to ban advocacy of freedom or justice as well.'

 

In relation to your last paragraph, have you read the bible before, I mean, more than just a handful of verses? I've never met anyone who attacks the bible to have ever really read it, or studied the bible cannon, or its prophecies or really understood what they were saying, other than just repeating something they heard on Discovery Channel or from a friend. Which of these books are you referring to that are Chinese whispers? Is it the accounts of Mathew Mark Luke & John? Is it the books about Paul's ministry? Timothy's ministry? or is it the letters which Paul wrote to the congregations? Let me know.

 

There is great merit in loving your brother and caring for others I agree, and I think religion has taken a pounding over the last few hundred years because of certain religions abusing the power they have, or teaching false doctrines about fire and hell, its pushed people away and given it a bad name, given God a bad name even, which is ultimately worse than not being a believer at all.

[maz0]

id say even a religion, it has its followers, and it has its bibles (its scientific literatures). Believe it or not, it even has its 'faith'. For instance, we can stand around all day and discuss the bone structure of a whale and why it has a fin bone that's almost a leg bone, but ultimately when you go right back to the big bang, and beyond, evolutions flaw is that nothing can come from nothing (same to creation for a degree, yes).

 

The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence.

 

 

So really, what is it your saying? I mean never mind all the fancy words and Dawking's stuff your reciting, lets just look at the foundation of your theory, something which I feel every theory should have solid before even continuing...I mean come on, look at how much has stemmed from the theory of evolution and its foundation is a mess, it's not like its even got a decent answer, there is none.

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed? so what are you saying, energy isn't physical? its not real? Of course it had to be created at some point to exist. And ultimately you say the big bang theory will be speculation forever, so your going to go into the next hundred years toting evolution as fact, when your foundation is speculation and has no proof, or even idea how it came about. Doesn't that worry you?

 

Europe's best scientists are using the large hadron collider to understand what happened back in the beginning, but their still using 5 billion euros worth of machinery and there's still hundreds of scientists trying to produce this energy.....your theory is saying it came from nothing?

 

Evolution has far too much research into reptiles legs and the transformation of apes, when really it needs to have a solid foundation before even considering these ideas.

[Zedrush]

Hi Zedrush

 

What I meant by relative truth is just what you mean as well - everyone sees things differently and what appears true to one person may appear wrong to another. That's why I think nobody in their right mind should or can claim something to be 100% proven or true, be that about evolution, creation, etc.

 

What I was saying though is that for evolution there is actually a lot of evidence and research available for scrutiny, which does build up a fairly consistent picture and a bit more than "just another theory". Of course it doesn't mean it is an absolute answer for everyone - it doesn't have to be, and people can look at the evidence and make up their own minds about it.

 

So I absolutely agree with you that one is entitled to its own opinion - that is fundamentally more important for us as a society than whatever appears to be some kind of truth, and it's wrong for someone to refuse dialogue or discussion just because they don't agree with a point of view. Discussion and debate should be something to enjoy and learn from

 

We should have been by now

 

couldnt agree more to disagree,

[AK350Z]

id say even a religion, it has its followers, and it has its bibles (its scientific literatures). Believe it or not, it even has its 'faith'. For instance, we can stand around all day and discuss the bone structure of a whale and why it has a fin bone that's almost a leg bone, but ultimately when you go right back to the big bang, and beyond, evolutions flaw is that nothing can come from nothing (same to creation for a degree, yes).

 

The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence.

 

 

So really, what is it your saying? I mean never mind all the fancy words and Dawking's stuff your reciting, lets just look at the foundation of your theory, something which I feel every theory should have solid before even continuing...I mean come on, look at how much has stemmed from the theory of evolution and its foundation is a mess, it's not like its even got a decent answer, there is none.

 

 

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed? so what are you saying, energy isn't physical? its not real? Of course it had to be created at some point to exist. And ultimately you say the big bang theory will be speculation forever, so your going to go into the next hundred years toting evolution as fact, when your foundation is speculation and has no proof, or even idea how it came about. Doesn't that worry you?

 

Europe's best scientists are using the large hadron collider to understand what happened back in the beginning, but their still using 5 billion euros worth of machinery and there's still hundreds of scientists trying to produce this energy.....your theory is saying it came from nothing?

 

Evolution has far too much research into reptiles legs and the transformation of apes, when really it needs to have a solid foundation before even considering these ideas.

 

Perhaps I should have used the full sentence: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. All forms of energy are ultimately derived from the unimaginable high temperatures of the Big Bang. Beyond that, science cannot say, only speculate at the moment. I am not saying the LHC will be violating the laws of physics.

 

Speculation on what happened before the Bang doesn't really figure on evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics or anything, its just a natural process. So, no. It doesn't worry me.

 

And as for "fancy words" and "Dawkins stuff", I've never read a Dawkins book, I find his style too combative. I do however have an interest in general science, and its somewhat hard to articulate that to an audience without a liberal sprinkling of fancy words to describe the hugely complicated topics available.

 

In the end you either accept the scientific method wholesale or not at all. You can't go cherry picking particular theorys to rage against just because you don't happen to like or agree with them. All scientific theorys were arrived at the same way, wether they underpin nuclear power or mobile phones.

[tmJak]

Some interesting stuff being wrote here, and it's clear there's a few people on the forum who are knowledgable re evolution. I was brought up religious, and don't follow any religion now. My Mum is still religious, and refutes evolution, one argument being because of the missing link(s).

 

I readily accept that species adapt, which I don't view as evolution per se as they adapt within species. Even the bible says this can happen. Is there actually a gap in the fossil record? If so, how do evolutionists argue this?

 

And Zedrush, if they seriously left because they didn't belive in your views then they are strokers. People should be able to belive whatever they want, for whatever reasons. As long as your beliefs are not harming others, who cares.

[Zedrush]

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death (if he ever existed) It was written by a disparate group of individuals transcribing "events" relayed to them verbally. Think of Chinese whispers at a party X infinity and you'll see how "true" the accounts are. Yet 2,000 years later, a small % of the world's population "follow" these scribblings.

 

hi mate hope you dont mind me asking but where did you hear this?

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death

 

it's not fact there are hundreds of authenticated historians who were non believers who at the time recorded writings of Jesus's time during his life and immediately after. Even in the muslim faith they can account for this too as well as in pagan writings, all external sources from the christian belief. The only thing I can think of that happened around 300ad was the meeting at the Council of Nicaea 325ad, when they decided what books were going to be included in the new testament as there were a plethora of books written about Christ that they had to narrow it down to what they thought were relevant, and what weren't. But Pauls letters were during and after time of Christ, as well as many other sources.

 

Sorry not trying to have an argument just didnt want something stated as 'fact' about the biblical scripture when there are strong evidence for an alternate view ok am done with this thread now, wow, this really is a hot topic thanks all for such a colourful intellectual debate

[nixy]

 

And Zedrush, if they seriously left because they didn't belive in your views then they are strokers. People should be able to belive whatever they want, for whatever reasons. As long as your beliefs are not harming others, who cares.

 

Couldn't agree more! I can't even be arsed to read the rest of the debate as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs - i won't even bore you with mine but one things for sure its nobody else's concern! The main thing i picked up out of this whole thread was what a rude and ignorant woman Jay's mate's new GF is - whatever she believes in she should get some social skills - the person who is really thick here is the one that doesn't know how to behave in company! Wonder if she goes to church to attend weddings and christenings etc or if she tells the vicar he's a thicko for having his christian beliefs and then walks out of church!

[rtbiscuit]

an interesting read, must admit jay you surprised me; didn't have you pegged as the religious type. I grew up in a religious family, I'm the only member that doesn't go to church. i am a fence sitter and class myself as agnostic. sort of hedging my bets I suppose.

 

i'd like to think i see both sides of the fence.

 

as an engineer i have to deal in solid facts; but there is also an element of faith involved ; you build things based on theory and only once tested can it be proved that it works.

 

i struggle to take the evolutionary theory as 100% fact i believe in micro evolution as there is the evidence for that. the Galapagos islands are proof in its self. but there is a big jump to full on evolution.

 

i have the same issues with the big bang theory, that form a large collision the complexities of life evolved.

 

All science is theory; gravity is a theory, yes its based on science that works but its argument is only strong until the next person improves on that understanding of it.

 

science and religion should go hand in hand; science has been used to prove elements of religion and the other way round.

 

it takes a very arrogant person to pi$$ on someones belief.

[Greekman]

very interesting thread...

 

unfortunately we tried to find out a bit more about the first few milliseconds after the big bang somewhere deep under Switzerland...only that we didnt as the experiment failed...or is failing so far...

 

for the ones who believe this is god's will

 

for the ones who dont believe something was missed out of the equation

 

i say we are lucky we didnt collapse into a nice black hole

 

in any case i have read a lot of carl sagan, hawkins and the lot and i am lucky to understand most of it as i wanted to be a nuclear physicist and only by a mistake in the equation of my life i became a dentist

 

so what was before and at the time of the big bang is very complicated and involves a totally different conception of time...and time beyond time which means i cant fully and properly understand and explain.

 

2 things.

 

1. Newtons theory was a fact until mr einstein decided to dig into the photoelectric effect...and now his theory is a fact

 

2. I am 30 already which means that according to the statistics and taking into account my bad habits, i v lived about half my life....god save me i dont wanna die that soon!!!

then again i dont know my life's equation as i said, this may be my last post

 

I dont believe in facts (god or science) but its so nice to listen to other other people's opinions!

[AK350Z]

I'm just slightly worried that quite a few people think that the hard facts of the world are somehow subject to personal opinion over whether they are right or not! The point in science is that these truths/theories/rules would be observed the same by anyone performing the appropriate experiment.

 

Religion was a human contruct from an age before we had the tools to understand the world around us. I would say it's a safe bet that all its texts were written by man, and as such any assertation that any one (indeed many times only one) person had some blinding special knowledge to kick them off should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. If other people cannot test the assertations, why belive it? Why creationism has turned out to be such a special battleground I'm not sure, evolution is still a young science.

 

I guess it's just a continuation of the trials of Copernicus and Galileo!

 

 

p.s. Greekman:

 

[ Newtons theory was a fact until mr einstein decided to dig into the photoelectric effect...and now his theory is a fact ]

 

The photoelectric effect has nothing to do with Newtons theories of gravity. Sorry, couldn't resist!

[sasha@lazytrips]

One thing that baffles me is that almost every single person with a strong view on this issue is of the opinion that there has to be a Creationism vs Evolution split and that there is no common ground. While I am a believer in evolutionary principles as we have been witnessing some forms of evolution actually happening to certain species over the past few hundred years, I do not see why it has to be incompatible with religious creationism views.

 

In fact I have known many a religious academic who would hold similar views. Fact is that our knowledge of the origins of the universe, matter and whatever is pretty much non-existent. What precisely is so hard to imagine about a world where some deity has created the world with evolution as one part of said world's natural processes? Different arguments could be put forward as to exactly at which point the creation happened, but given the omniscience and transcience principles, at any point from creating an infinitely small amount of matter for the Big Bang to creating Earth with creatures, etc, etc, the events that followed including evolution would have been foreseen.

 

What I'm trying to say is although I am not particularly religious, I do not see any discontinuity between creationist and evolutionist theories. God could have created the conditions necessary for the Big Bang, could have created Earth and initial conditions or even a load of species. For all I know, the world could have been created 1 second ago with all conditions as they are today and my memory implanted. To be honest, I don't really care one way or another because I live in my own reality within the space and time restrictions associated with it.

 

Whichever way you call things, something was around before me, something is likely to be around after me. Creatures which cannot adjust to their habitat die out. Other creatures in some way different to the ones which die out survive because they are in some way better equipped. That's fact. What name you attribute to this fact is something I don't really care about.

[Greekman]

p.s. Greekman:

 

[ Newtons theory was a fact until mr einstein decided to dig into the photoelectric effect...and now his theory is a fact ]

 

The photoelectric effect has nothing to do with Newtons theories of gravity. Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

 

Haha you think? It was the fact that he couldnt explain it with Newtonian physics that led him to the general theory of relativity. and explaining the photoelectric effect gave him the nobel prize. not the general theory of relativity itself

 

sorry couldnt let it go

[Zedrush]

"hard facts" of the world are somehow subject to personal opinion over whether they are right or not! The point in science is that these truths/theories/rules would be observed the same by anyone performing the appropriate experiment.

I have no doubt that some experiments would reveal the same results whether conducted by a priest, nun or buddhist. But very often we find ourselves fitting results within the paradigm of a theory without exploring it further. The same is done within religion, in theology its called eisegesis, interpreting biblical scripture to fit our own beliefs and our own wants without reading it in the contexts it is written (exegesus) When you say 'hard facts," again this is subject to your own personal opinion, as I have said the water is still very murky regarding evolution, its not an absolute and Im not prepared to drink it.

 

Religion was a human contruct from an age before we had the tools to understand the world around us. I would say it's a safe bet that all its texts were written by man, and as such any assertation that any one (indeed many times only one) person had some blinding special knowledge to kick them off should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. If other people cannot test the assertations, why belive it? Why creationism has turned out to be such a special battleground I'm not sure, evolution is still a young science.

 

Religion is a human construct inspired by historical and spiritual events and experiences, even though the latter may not be empirical enough for the non believers the historical part is evident enough for us to organise our beliefs upon and live our lives by for those wanting to believe. Now this may be hard to accept for anyone who does not believe but i think the biggest frustration for non believers come when they apply their own formulae to every question, some answers cannot be solved by sticking it under a microscope to review, mine involves faith, but that does not mean Im using it as a cop out to the debate of evolution, I am open to learning and coming from a previous atheistic position my rationalisation of any argument would be fair to say the least.

 

You just need to accept that some people will accept evolution and some wont thats life, if it was a 100% proven then maybe people would be more open to accept it, but until then you have to accept that there is room for alternative views. The only time it becomes a battleground is when one side tries to impose their views onto the other side. I believe in creationism, and right now nothing will change that. You believe in evolution, that is your take on how you came into being and I respect that. Can we leave it at that now?

[maz0]

How are you guys brains even working at this time in the morning? Far too early to discuss evolution an creationism!

[Greekman]

"hard facts" of the world are somehow subject to personal opinion over whether they are right or not! The point in science is that these truths/theories/rules would be observed the same by anyone performing the appropriate experiment.

I have no doubt that some experiments would reveal the same results whether conducted by a priest, nun or buddhist. But very often we find ourselves fitting results within the paradigm of a theory without exploring it further. The same is done within religion, in theology its called eisegesis, interpreting biblical scripture to fit our own beliefs and our own wants without reading it in the contexts it is written (exegesus) When you say 'hard facts," again this is subject to your own personal opinion, as I have said the water is still very murky regarding evolution, its not an absolute and Im not prepared to drink it.

 

Religion was a human contruct from an age before we had the tools to understand the world around us. I would say it's a safe bet that all its texts were written by man, and as such any assertation that any one (indeed many times only one) person had some blinding special knowledge to kick them off should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. If other people cannot test the assertations, why belive it? Why creationism has turned out to be such a special battleground I'm not sure, evolution is still a young science.

 

Religion is a human construct inspired by historical and spiritual events and experiences, even though the latter may not be empirical enough for the non believers the historical part is evident enough for us to organise our beliefs upon and live our lives by for those wanting to believe. Now this may be hard to accept for anyone who does not believe but i think the biggest frustration for non believers come when they apply their own formulae to every question, some answers cannot be solved by sticking it under a microscope to review, mine involves faith, but that does not mean Im using it as a cop out to the debate of evolution, I am open to learning and coming from a previous atheistic position my rationalisation of any argument would be fair to say the least.

 

You just need to accept that some people will accept evolution and some wont thats life, if it was a 100% proven then maybe people would be more open to accept it, but until then you have to accept that there is room for alternative views. The only time it becomes a battleground is when one side tries to impose their views onto the other side. I believe in creationism, and right now nothing will change that. You believe in evolution, that is your take on how you came into being and I respect that. Can we leave it at that now?

 

 

 

"The voices are telling me I'm not crazy...."

 

now i know what you mean dude!

 

only messing btw....

[rtbiscuit]

science can be used to back up evidence of religion.

 

if we're talking about an after life. the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another.

 

i would say that we have a certain amount of energy, our body is a collection of electrical pulses that control the body.

 

could this energy be classed as your soul; if it is; where does it go; it doesn't just disperse as phsyical theory stats that it can't.

 

one belief would be that it is your soul and goes else where.

 

i'm not saying i believe in the after life, but the possibility is there.

 

religion requires faith, without faith there is no hope.

[Greekman]

if we're talking about an after life. the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another.

 

i would say that we have a certain amount of energy, our body is a collection of electrical pulses that control the body.

 

could this energy be classed as your soul; if it is; where does it go; it doesn't just disperse as phsyical theory stats that it can't.

 

the theory of energy preservation or whatever the english term is, says exactly that. true and fact in everyday life. nobody has ever managed to unify all 4 energies tho in one whole equation....which means that this may not be exactly a fact in kwantomechanics

 

there are several theories about soul and aura and all sorts that bring barytones into play...who knows....

 

the truth is out there .... the X files!

[Zedrush]

if we're talking about an after life. the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another.

 

i would say that we have a certain amount of energy, our body is a collection of electrical pulses that control the body.

 

could this energy be classed as your soul; if it is; where does it go; it doesn't just disperse as phsyical theory stats that it can't.

 

the theory of energy preservation or whatever the english term is, says exactly that. true and fact in everyday life. nobody has ever managed to unify all 4 energies tho in one whole equation....which means that this may not be exactly a fact in kwantomechanics

 

there are several theories about soul and aura and all sorts that bring barytones into play...who knows....

 

the truth is out there .... the X files!

 

if only you were scully

[AK350Z]

Hello Folks, time for another round? Don't worry, it's not compulsory!

 

One thing that baffles me is that almost every single person with a strong view on this issue is of the opinion that there has to be a Creationism vs Evolution split and that there is no common ground. While I am a believer in evolutionary principles as we have been witnessing some forms of evolution actually happening to certain species over the past few hundred years, I do not see why it has to be incompatible with religious creationism views.

 

In fact I have known many a religious academic who would hold similar views. Fact is that our knowledge of the origins of the universe, matter and whatever is pretty much non-existent. What precisely is so hard to imagine about a world where some deity has created the world with evolution as one part of said world's natural processes? Different arguments could be put forward as to exactly at which point the creation happened, but given the omniscience and transcience principles, at any point from creating an infinitely small amount of matter for the Big Bang to creating Earth with creatures, etc, etc, the events that followed including evolution would have been foreseen.

 

Well yes, I can imagine it, but if we are going for the God-set-the-universe-spinning theory, I want to know how we can test that. As physics itself breaks down before that point, we can speculate on the "before" till the cows come home. My money's on the possible creator being the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

 

What I'm trying to say is although I am not particularly religious, I do not see any discontinuity between creationist and evolutionist theories. God could have created the conditions necessary for the Big Bang, could have created Earth and initial conditions or even a load of species. For all I know, the world could have been created 1 second ago with all conditions as they are today and my memory implanted. To be honest, I don't really care one way or another because I live in my own reality within the space and time restrictions associated with it.

Whichever way you call things, something was around before me, something is likely to be around after me. Creatures which cannot adjust to their habitat die out. Other creatures in some way different to the ones which die out survive because they are in some way better equipped. That's fact. What name you attribute to this fact is something I don't really care about.

 

Hey, no harm no foul! This is just a debate you know. We're unlikely to set the world to rights within the confines of this thread, but we can try dammit

 

p.s. Greekman:

 

[ Newtons theory was a fact until mr einstein decided to dig into the photoelectric effect...and now his theory is a fact ]

 

The photoelectric effect has nothing to do with Newtons theories of gravity. Sorry, couldn't resist!

Haha you think? It was the fact that he couldnt explain it with Newtonian physics that led him to the general theory of relativity. and explaining the photoelectric effect gave him the nobel prize. not the general theory of relativity itself

sorry couldnt let it go

 

If you say so mate, just Newton not quoted in my book (and I'm loath to check with Lord Wikipedia), just mentions Einstein building on the work of Bequerel and Hertz. I concede the point.

 

Religion is a human construct inspired by historical and spiritual events and experiences, even though the latter may not be empirical enough for the non believers the historical part is evident enough for us to organise our beliefs upon and live our lives by for those wanting to believe. Now this may be hard to accept for anyone who does not believe but i think the biggest frustration for non believers come when they apply their own formulae to every question, some answers cannot be solved by sticking it under a microscope to review, mine involves faith, but that does not mean Im using it as a cop out to the debate of evolution, I am open to learning and coming from a previous atheistic position my rationalisation of any argument would be fair to say the least.

 

Jay, you came back! I knew you would!

Look, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just can't go for an question that is not testable. It's making order from chaos, and I don't particuarly think you need to look beyond the borders of the universe to find beauty in the rules that make it sensible.

 

I'm not a Dawkins type who thinks religion is some kind of illness, It's certainly caused it's share of problems for science though, through fundamentalism and puritanism.

Wouldn't it have been great had Islamic science not imploded through the middle ages, and as previously mentioned, Copernicus and Galileo hadn't been so worried about attracting attention of the church?

 

You just need to accept that some people will accept evolution and some wont thats life, if it was a 100% proven then maybe people would be more open to accept it, but until then you have to accept that there is room for alternative views. The only time it becomes a battleground is when one side tries to impose their views onto the other side. I believe in creationism, and right now nothing will change that. You believe in evolution, that is your take on how you came into being and I respect that. Can we leave it at that now?

 

I'm more than happy to carry on annoying anyone else who wants to take your place in the debate though

[MattMe]

Can I just say, I got half way through page three and gave up. I will read this all another day when I'm in the mood, but for now I just wanted to say I had almost exactly the same conversation with someone at lunch the other day and her response was pretty much 'you can prove anything with facts'. The thread feels (at page three) it's going this way.

At least in science (the religion of science?) has some kind of logic, reason, rationality and evidence behind it. She also said to me 'you can't prove god isn't real.' So Santa AND the toothfairy are real after all?

 

Mega!

 

 

(No disrespect meant to anyone, by the way, just I personally get quite frustrated at some people when the blindly follow a religioon without consideration or ever taking time to consider any other explanation or alternate religions.)

 

Peace and love, peace and love.

[AK350Z]

Can I just say, I got half way through page three and gave up. I will read this all another day when I'm in the mood, but for now I just wanted to say I had almost exactly the same conversation with someone at lunch the other day and her response was pretty much 'you can prove anything with facts'. The thread feels (at page three) it's going this way.

At least in science (the religion of science?) has some kind of logic, reason, rationality and evidence behind it. She also said to me 'you can't prove god isn't real.' So Santa AND the toothfairy are real after all?

 

Mega!

 

 

(No disrespect meant to anyone, by the way, just I personally get quite frustrated at some people when the blindly follow a religioon without consideration or ever taking time to consider any other explanation or alternate religions.)

 

Peace and love, peace and love.

 

Ah well see, you missed next weeks lottery numbers that were conjured up by the self-annihilating clash of science and religion. Dont bother going back to look now, it's been deleted.

[rtbiscuit]

science is good; but it can't disprove the exsistance of god or prove it.

 

same as with the tooth fairy and santa claus.

 

you may not like the fact that they might exist, but you'll just have to deal with it.

 

we seem to be moving from the theory of evolution to the exsistance of god. and the validity of the bible.

 

now this gets quiet interesting.

 

if you look at the main religions like Christianity and islam there is cross over, and they actually refer to the same people. if you do your research and you know your stuff you'll also realise they come from the same family. i believe abraham had 2 sons 1 which the jewish faith came from the other the Islamic faith (i might have my brothers mixed up or the dad as its been a long time since i had this kind of conversation)

 

thats a lot of people all following the same thing

 

there are also lots of references in stone carvings from extinct civilisations like the inca's, mesoptamians and some others that all point towards a god like figure.

 

now some believe this points to the exsistance of aliens- an advanced civilisation/visitors.

 

now depending on how you look at this that could be your god like figure. my reasoning

 

if you look at our own science we are still in the early stages of robotics, but the next step is building with organic material. we already dabble in dna, stem cells etc. the human body in essence is a very complex organic robotic structure.

 

human pursuit for knowledge will eventually lead to some kind of creation project, and replication of life. who's to say someone hasn't already been down this path and this/us are the results of that?

 

regardless of beliefs god if he exsists is extra terrestrial by definition.

 

so maybe religion isn't an if but actually a who

[maz0]

science is good; but it can't disprove the exsistance of god or prove it.

 

same as with the tooth fairy and santa claus.

 

you may not like the fact that they might exist, but you'll just have to deal with it.

 

we seem to be moving from the theory of evolution to the exsistance of god. and the validity of the bible.

 

now this gets quiet interesting.

 

if you look at the main religions like Christianity and islam there is cross over, and they actually refer to the same people. if you do your research and you know your stuff you'll also realise they come from the same family. i believe abraham had 2 sons 1 which the jewish faith came from the other the Islamic faith (i might have my brothers mixed up or the dad as its been a long time since i had this kind of conversation)

 

thats a lot of people all following the same thing

 

there are also lots of references in stone carvings from extinct civilisations like the inca's, mesoptamians and some others that all point towards a god like figure.

 

now some believe this points to the exsistance of aliens- an advanced civilisation/visitors.

 

now depending on how you look at this that could be your god like figure. my reasoning

 

if you look at our own science we are still in the early stages of robotics, but the next step is building with organic material. we already dabble in dna, stem cells etc. the human body in essence is a very complex organic robotic structure.

 

human pursuit for knowledge will eventually lead to some kind of creation project, and replication of life. who's to say someone hasn't already been down this path and this/us are the results of that?

 

regardless of beliefs god if he exsists is extra terrestrial by definition.

 

so maybe religion isn't an if but actually a who

 

Man inherently has a sense of spirituality. Like you say about the Incas, the Egyptians, the oldest civilizations in the world. All of them seemed to have been drawn towards a religion at some point or a system of higher belief. It's because we ask questions. And its in our nature to question, where did I come from? Why am I here? This has typically led most nations to construct a sense of religion to fit those questions, which is what the Incas and similar civilizations did with the worshipping of the sun etc.

 

By the principles of evolution theory, survival of the fittest. We should be leaving disabled people to die, promoting eugenics, something which Hitler tried by the sterilization of thousands of homosexuals, un-educated and handicapped people. To the rest of the world, this was seen as abhorrent. But why? Survival of the fittest promotes removing the weak from the gene pool. It's abhorrent because we are born with the ability to show compassion, love, mercy. Intangible forces of the world which evolution cannot put a scientific finger on.

 

There's too much logic for me in believing in God. I experience so many amazing things, taste fine food and drink, enjoy breathtaking scenery, I've got hands that can put parts of the smallest watch together, or smash down a brick wall. Coincidence, or Intelligent design? By asking my self the questions Why am I here, Where did I come from, with religion I can at least answer that I have a purpose, I'm designed with a purpose physically, and designed with a purpose spiritually.

 

An evolutionist would answer to these that you are simply an organic substance, organic matter with electric pulses and chemicals flowing through you. The organic matter will experience positive or negative impulses based on actions throughout growth such as touching fire, ouch, don't touch fire again. I was happy when I ate a yellow melon once, so I like the colour yellow now. Learning through actions. But this could not answer the intangible forces mentioned earlier such as love, mercy, compassion. Evolution neither answers why I'm here, or where I came from. It gives me no logical answers for my existence and I just can't choose to accept it personally.

 

Stephen fry once said, why is it everything man made is depressing eventually. In the 80's you got the brown wall paper and the orange carpets, at the time they were the coolest of the cool. Man made and you felt good, hip and happy. Fast forward 20 years and the browns now depressing looking, even old furniture looks weathered and depressing. But interestingly enough, no matter what time of your life if you look out of the window, a sunset or a tree in full bloom in summer amidst a lovely garden, will never be depressing.

 

Coincidence? or an inbuilt appreciation?

 

Food for thought

[Chesterfield]

The problem with the theory of evolution is the Missing Link remains, well, err missing. Find that and it may become close to proven.