dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 And they'd better have proof too. Yup need absolute proof for the theory of evolution. But the talking snake thing? Well... someone wrote that shit down thousands of years ago so thats good enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yup need absolute proof for the theory of evolution. But the talking snake thing? Well... someone wrote that shit down thousands of years ago so thats good enough Haha well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsa Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator. Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time. Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity. Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I got a question. What is the main reason why people hate the idea of religion. Is it because it leads to a lot of wars and violence? The reason I don't like it is because it is a form of control and manipulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator. Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time. Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity. Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling. I agree. And in fact, periodic resurgences in extreme religiosity notwithstanding, they aren't likely to succeed even by their own standards. They'd be better to listen to the humanist religious authorities, the Dalai Lama, the Bishop Tutu: people who accept scientific knowledge, who accept the subsequent changes necessary for religion to flourish as a positive in people's lives...and whose authority is derived from a mixture of grand humility and compassion and tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 What about the talking snake part? What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Say hello to your uncle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator. During the development of religion, it seems that distinction between natural and supernatural doesn't occur until natural forces are discovered that govern how things happen in the natural world. I agree that there is no conflict to having a supernatural creator, as long as it doesn't step in to the natural world....god in the gaps etc. Most people who are able to harmonize accepting scientific evidence with a personal God, do it by separating the two, like using a mystical or non-objective way of understanding God. After my own long, acrimonious break from traditional religion, I have no desire to incorporate God or divinity in my life, but I'm all for it if others feel they just have some intuition that God is there guiding the Universe. Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time. According to some smart philosophers who've pondered over how God would interact with the physical a lot more than I have, the problem with a supernatural God who is beyond space-time, is how he would be capable of interacting with creatures like us, who are bound by constraints of space and time. How would God even be aware of the passage of time inside his universe? Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity. Evolution doesn't posit how living creatures started from organic chemistry, but inserting creation here at the beginning could create the need for future backtracking if and when the processes of abiogenesis are better understood through science. Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling. I mentioned previously.....may have been on the other god thread, that early Christian scientists like Newton, Kepler and Descartes, get the blame for unintentionally starting the fight between science and religion, when they turned their growing understanding of the Cosmos and its physical laws, to looking for scientific proof of God....and ever since then, whenever another domino falls and a mystery is explained by new scientific theories, the god of science retreats further into the gaps. There were many churchmen of the time who objected to scientists proving God because they seen faith as something that doesn't exist without some degree of uncertainty. If the early scientists were successful, they would have eliminated the need to believe in God based on faith rather than empirical evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Say hello to your uncle. The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that. Betsy's uncle was a pile of dirt; her aunt was a piece of bone. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that. Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding. Dre was just being humorous. He knows we aren't descended from chimps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 According to some smart philosophers who've pondered over how God would interact with the physical a lot more than I have, the problem with a supernatural God who is beyond space-time, is how he would be capable of interacting with creatures like us, who are bound by constraints of space and time. How would God even be aware of the passage of time inside his universe? An unaswerable question since we cannot conceive of an existance outside of space/time. Evolution doesn't posit how living creatures started from organic chemistry, but inserting creation here at the beginning could create the need for future backtracking if and when the processes of abiogenesis are better understood through science. As this thread demonstrates "backtracking" by those of faith is almost impossible, since scientific evidence is not required to support their faith. I'm personally inclined to beleive in abiogenesis. However this also does not negate a "creator". It just created the universe thru an unknown process/mechanism that produced the big bang and thereby "created" all of the ingredients and conditions for life to begin. Kinda like a Cosmic seeding program. Granted it eliminates the human conceit of "in his own image" and all that twaddle, but its still compatible with a creator belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 An unaswerable question since we cannot conceive of an existance outside of space/time. I came across something awhile back from physicist and science educator Paul Davies, who ponders questions that most physicists wouldn't bother with. Anyway, he came up with a simple model to demonstrate that, in theory, a supernatural existence outside of space and time would be possible, but such a creature would not be able to just drop in to the physical universe and interact with time-constrained creatures like us. It would either have no awareness of our universe and the goings on in it; or if it did manage to drop through, it would no longer be supernatural. As this thread demonstrates "backtracking" by those of faith is almost impossible, since scientific evidence is not required to support their faith. I'm personally inclined to beleive in abiogenesis. However this also does not negate a "creator". It just created the universe thru an unknown process/mechanism that produced the big bang and thereby "created" all of the ingredients and conditions for life to begin. Kinda like a Cosmic seeding program. Granted it eliminates the human conceit of "in his own image" and all that twaddle, but its still compatible with a creator belief. One of the gaps that has been used for ages by creationists is the astronomical odds of creating a DNA molecule from naturally occurring organic chemistry. But, although little money and time goes to research on how life could have been sparked, there is a growing consensus that the highly perishable RNA, which is easier to make, was the origin of self-replicating lifeforms. DNA is so sturdy, that it likely took over the job of gene replication because it could survive the harsh environmental conditions. Long story short, is that during the primordial Earth, there may have been zillions of possible combinations of simple RNA life forms that could only exist for short durations. But when the jump to DNA occurred, whoever was first to start DNA-based gene transfer, would have flourished and diversified. The researchers in abiogenesis today believe that they will likely find multitudes of possible avenues for life, rather than one pathway to what we have today. Looking at the big picture, creationists aren't wise to plant their flag over this gap any more than the "human eye","bacteria flagella",the "blood-clotting cascade", or any other of a host of gaps that disappear once "irreconcilable complexity" vanishes as soon as rungs are found on the ladder between the starting point and the finished product. Most of the real scientists who are Christians, like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, advise their fellow Christians to refrain from trying to blend science and religion together. Science may not provide a good way to find meaning and decide ethics (I'm not convinced by Sam Harris's latest effort), but it does do a good job of piecing together the facts of what goes on in the natural world. And if the religious really have as much confidence in their faiths as claimed, they shouldn't feel such a need to try to prove them through science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 What about the talking snake part? What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Everyone here noticed you dodged the issue, probably because it would make those believing in biblical creation look rather foolish. The issue is consistency. If you are using the bible as any sort of guideline for how earth/life was created, then you should either: A: Accept all parts of the bible (even the silly talking-snake portion) B: Provide a rational why one part of the bible is valid, but other parts can be ignored So, what do you think of the whole talking snake thingy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much. Actually, thanks should come to YOU, for the way you ignore a truth almost as certain as the turth of the existence of God - that the knowledge of His existence comes through faith. As I said beofre, feel free anytime to show the mathematic formula that proves the existence of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 In older topics I somehow came across to others as someone who don't believe in science....or have this dis-respect for science in general (with some posters, in their defense of science stated the good that came from science)...because of my stance against evolution and my strong opinion on scientists like Dawkins who support it. Unfortunately (for you, that is), evolution (as in life on Earth having evolved from primitive life forms to the current life forms is a proven FACT. That some will use it as a futile attempt to disporve - or prove - the existence of God does not change that FACT. Fortunately, most Christians know that there is no contradiction between evolution and the existence of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Are you serious? Your objections to the notion of the Big Bang are one thing; this is an entirely different kettle of fish. She is serious. Unfortunately, there is still people of faith with this kind of seriousness. Hopefully, there are more and more people of faith who KNOW that there is no contradiction between their faith and evolution. What I found interesting is the notion that evolution is a flawed theory or has been disproven because it does not addresses the issue of how life first appeared on Earth. This position just plains ignore the fact that evolution is not about how life appeared, but about how it has changed over time. Two different things. And if evolution is not fact, then how does one explain scientifc evidence of life forms that predates the apparition of human beings? It is one thing (which I believe) to say that all life and all Creation ultimately comes from God. It is quite a different thing to deny the FACT of evolution because it contradict allegories used to say that God created the Universe (i.e. the Genesis story), or to develop pseudo-scientific theories (i.e. intelligent design). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 And if evolution is not fact, then how does one explain scientifc evidence of life forms that predates the apparition of human beings? It is one thing (which I believe) to say that all life and all Creation ultimately comes from God. It is quite a different thing to deny the FACT of evolution because it contradict allegories used to say that God created the Universe (i.e. the Genesis story), or to develop pseudo-scientific theories (i.e. intelligent design). Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything! What they really care about is the truth of their Bible. They act as if the existence of God is just an afterthought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything! What they really care about is the truth of their Bible. They act as if the existence of God is just an afterthought. The Bible says the truth. The issue is the incapacity of some to understand how the truth is being said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Someone suggested that I am “dodging the issue,” and by the context of his post, the issue to him has something to do with a snake and consistency. The snake was a jocular issue initiated by Dre.... my response was very funny even if I do say so myself (although probably not to someone who takes himself a little too seriously).... and the reply of Dre was pretty funny too. If there was an issue there..... it was one of humour, or lack of it. It was a crafty convergence of the very Divine theory of creation and the very mundane one of evolution. That’s all. Most posters got it (I hope). As for the all or nothing theory of Biblical interpretation and the requirement of the reader to explain inconsistent bits, it betrays an ignorance based on atheistic assumptions. Those assumptions include the belief that the Bible is just another ancient text which we are free to ignore and, ad hominem (Locke), dumb to accept. Why would you expect me, considering that it is the Word of God, to either fully understand or infallibly interpret the Bible, much less assume that if I don’t understand, then God must be wrong? Of course, you’re free to see it that way whether or not you have ever studied the Bible and biblical interpretation. As you must too, I accept most of what I’ve read concerning science and cosmology in spite of the various authors/scientists’ relatively inferior intelligence, but even with my limited knowledge.....I don’t feel compelled to accept everything; for example, the M-theory, baby universes, panspermia, the Origin of the Species, and on and on, most of which can be reasonably seen as desperate atheist attempts to avoid the reality of a superior intelligence. The Bible, from a theist’s point of view, is a different kettle of truth – it is absolute Truth, absolute Knowledge. But I repeat, I am not anti-science, for lack of a better term. In fact I’m delighted at the scientific evidence concerning the beginning of the universe and the validity of the argument for evolution which profoundly support the biblical contention that God is the First-Cause. Now that science has conclusively determined, notwithstanding the counterproductive attempts to sweep intelligent design under the rug, that the universe had a beginning, the real issue is how the universe began. How did the universe begin? What caused the so-called Big Bang? It’s no secret what I believe. The preponderance of evidence is very much on the side of an intelligent designer. It’s up to those who disagree to provide an alternative. Edited February 5, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 How did the universe begin? What caused the so-called Big Bang? It’s no secret what I believe. The preponderance of evidence is very much on the side of an intelligent designer. It’s up to those who disagree to provide an alternative. Short answer, none of us know, not the scientists not the religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This position just plains ignore the fact that evolution is not about how life appeared, but about how it has changed over time. Two different things. You're absolutely right. Darwin himself stated that he has no intention of trying to explain the origin of life. It would be like trying to explain the origin of matter. Of course in Darwin's time, the very idea of explaining the origin of matter was not even in the mind of science. But evolutionary theory post-Darwin has proposed inumerable theories attempting to explain the origin of life, some ridiculous and some more ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Short answer, none of us know, not the scientists not the religious. This isn't a true-false test. Short answers won't do. Nobody's suggesting you know or I know....the question is what does the available evidence indicate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This isn't a true-false test. Short answers won't do. Nobody's suggesting you know or I know....the question is what does the available evidence indicate? Anyone who uses the bible as a scientific text is deluding themselves. If you wanted to consider that evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything! No. Actually, He told us. Now we're trying to tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.