top gun

Hey, I'm far from being a theologian ... and I don't know if there was a big bang. I just attack the question from a probability standpoint.

Evolution: A lot of hard science there. We've proven a lot by studying things like the fossilized record and the geological record and carbon dating. You get certain time-lines from things like this. Could this have happened at this time on earth sort of stuff.

Creationism: So much is obviously inserted after the fact. No scripture, no persons personal writings, no pictures, no word of mouth, nothing to explain things like dinosaurs.

Same thing with the world being flat.

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. You are told to believe in it as just that and verbatim.

But the huge gaps of things that man didn't know about at the time, but God would have... tells that the story was made up. Many of the rules to live by are still good rules though... just not sent down by God.

Seer

One thing that everyone here should watch is the Imax film, “Cosmic Universe”. I picked up a copy from blockbuster. It is simply amazing.

__________________

rwchadwick

I cannot claim to be a scientist, though the love of science has been with me all my life. My amateur pursuit of scientific knowledge has, surprisingly, led me to an ever growing faith in a universe, and a creator, not only greater than we imagine, but greater than we CAN imagine. A too literal interpretation of Gen. 1 can only interfere with our feeble attempts to understand that greatness.
To follow the creationist argument to it's conclusion is to conclude that God did not create a universe in which life arises spontaneously wherever conditions are suitable, and then adapts to changing circumstances in large and small ways; even though the evidence seems to show that that is exactly what He did. A God that creates a universe like that seems so much greater than the petulant gardener/tyrant in Genesis. That God is simply to small to exist. The study of His creation reveals traces of a far greater deity that the ancient scribes could even begin to comprehend.

libertarian123

Hey. This is my first post in weeks.
At least that is intelligent religious thought. It is open to ideas. The problem is that religion usually stands for stubbornness and blind faith, rather than logic and an open mind. Of course the same can come out of atheism. The idea of pressing your opinions on others and killing those who don't believe the same is probably the worst consequence of religion. I believe in evolution and I guess I'm agnostic. I don't accept that God exists but there's no way I'd pretend to know. I'm just against religion because of the historical evidence of the inevitable violence that usually comes out of religion.

emptypepsi

@ Libertarian,

Religion does not cause the violence - your beef seems most directly with people (the ones actually doing the violence), not religion (the name in which the violence is carried out). In other words, religion is just a tool in this regard. I'm sort of misanthropic in that regard as well. But to say violence comes out of religion is the same as a Libertarian telling me he's against guns because of the death that comes from them. Guns do not commit the murders.

I too, am an agnostic, though.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

http://www.politicsforumpoliticalwor...ion-forum-rule

emptypepsi

WRT whether a God exists, I think this would be better debated on another thread. The topic here is whether Religion and Evolution are compatable.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

http://www.politicsforumpoliticalwor...ion-forum-rule

Pax-RFS

but it is said that the bible is the word of god , is it not?? it was meant to be the Word as given to the chappies who wrote it. and if you do believe that then it is indeed the word of god, and remember god is infallible so therefore the bible is 100% fact.
now in genesis 1, god creates adam and eve at the same time, in the second chapter he creates adam, then eve from his rib. these are two different creation stories.
now the creationist like to call their theory "intelligent design" thus attempting to remove a religous element to it. no offence but that is just bad sementics indeed.
now theory doesn't mean guess , now do we all agree that the earth goes round the sun???? hope so, wel that's a theory too and is also contradicted by the bible. but i'd say it was right.
theory in a scientific context doesn't mean guess. what about the geological evidence like transitional fossils, biological evidence including genetics,astronomical evidence indicating the ages of the earth adn the universe, all of which supports evolution.
however Dwayne Gish( head of the institute of creation research) stated " it is often said that creationism is religion while evolution is science. As a matter of fact neither creation or evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creationism and creationism or no more religious than evolution. creationist scientists have no intention is bringing biblical material into schools
what we want to do is bring into schools the scientific evidence that supports a theistic supernatural origin as opposed to the theory of evolution"
erm... that a real quote from the guy! i shit you not. now the big bug bear here is this.... since when was "supernatural" a scientific principle?
he also believes that the grand canyon was a result of the flood and that every animal species was saved on the ark. and stating that creationists aren't briinging religion into schools , well... i don't get that at all. simply because what he says is again a semantic approach and it is a religious view point.
i must state here, i am not mocking, i am simply stating what this chap has said over and over again.
also again, he claims that fossils found deep in the earth are only deep enough to be thousands of years old and not millions. he says if evolution is correct then there have to be much older fossils buried much deeper.
Science is not a democratic process, what scientists do is find what explanation work, they don't think " well this is a funky idea let's all go for this"
the idea that living organisms have common ancestors works and evolution works. and that's why it is the accepted theory.
i do realise that in this forum there are those who are religious and do accept the evolusion. this is very funky indeed. i am not, as i said, poking fun at anyone or mocking their beliefs, i am only pointing out the facts as i know them.
now to say that evolutioon is based on chance isn't quite so.
evolution is based on natural selection and this is the opposite of chance.
religion is indeed a matter of faith and it isn't scientific, can we agree on that?
science is the collection of data and facts to be tested . measured and in tangible,which form the backbone of the theories~(see above definition of theory)
As i said the bible is a matter of faith and faith is an unmeasurable and intangible thing(i do not mean the word "thing" to be offensive). the bible cannot be used to be the basis of scientific theories or scietific postulations.
now let's compare science and creationist theory.
Science is based on observation, hypothesis, testing and debate...
creationist faith, asserting, insiting, working it's way round scientifically proven facts.
as someone else stated a belief in god can be a fine thing indeed if it makes you happy and content. and if you have that faith then nothing i relate here will touch or change that.
i don't think that creationism and evolution are compatible. this is NOT to say religion and evolution are not compatible.
this applies to all the Abraham based faiths as they are the main creationist religions.
again i must stress i am NOT mocking your faith, i am just pointing out the truth as i see it( and many others) based on tried and tested scientific principles.
Pax-RFS

__________________

Pat_88

In Dan Brown's "Angel's and Demons" a preist/scientist finds a way to scientifically explain and even recreate genesis without refuting the evolution theory. It all sounds plausible in the book. But it's all just fiction and psycho babble. Imagine that though, No one would know what to do! All the religious people would be like...:"Oh...so...Evolution, was like....put in play by god? we spent alot of money trying to say it was a lie!" and all the atheists would be like "Oh...So there is a god ,eh? back to church for me!"

>_>

Or something....

Pax-RFS

thank you foer resognising the it's fiction and psychobabble that dan Brown wriotes.
I took part in a radio show in Scotland and he was there to back up his claims that the "davinci code" was based on historical fact.
i was there as i to talk about the actual history of the templars and Rosslyn as was another guy called Maxi. now dan's book is 98% based on rumour,speculation, myth and just plain old bollocks really. his persistant claims abot the priory of sion being alive and kicking are more than laughable as the guy Pierre plantard de sinclair admitted along with with co consiprator Philippe de Cherisey both actually admitted as such. i can give you a wiki entry as a starting point to further check from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
Dan Brown.. writes a decent story as long as people recpgnise it is in the fiction section and not in the history or factual sections..lol
i would not take his postulations very seriously.
mind you at least one of my favourite places has financially benefited and that is Rosslyn chapel, a fascinating place indeed and well worth a visit.

__________________

presluc

So you are against religion because some of the people who are religious are stubborn and have blind faith?
Hum, if you have faith in yourself and are to stubbon to just lay down and die when hard times hits you what is that?
I beleive in God I also beleive that nobody has to beleive the same way I do to be a good person.
Tell me is that too "pressing" for other people?
"killing those who don't beleive the same"
Charles Manson is an atheist and there's more who fit that profile.
{Inevitable violence that usually comes out of religion}
It would seem it is you who are the predetor here sir seeking to put out the beleif in God.
True, religion does has it's drawbacks, but to have faith in God, and have faith in religion is two entirely differant venues.
Tell me where does your beleif lie, pure intellectual thought,logic, perhaps an explosion?