Evolution/ Evilution vs. God's big plans

[Jebus]

That's already the fourth time in this thread someone said the Theory of evolution has flaws.
Might someone now actually say what they are, instead of assuming I'd believe anything if you say it often enough?

i assume that they mean the original brainfart of our lil' planet earth & thereby creating one celled life, that would then grow on into us.

That's not a question that attacks the foundations of evolutionary sience, though. Granted, evolutionary science does not answer where or, espiecially why (which is probably why a lot of fundamentalists still follow creationism - they can't handle it to ask themselves that question) that first cell started existing in the primary soup; yet the very fact that there were one-cell life forms and that there was a primary soup already proves creationism wrong.

So why don`t they prove it? One could help many people with one million dollar....

Hehe, I guess he gave a lecture at your university too recently, eh? He was here in Belgium three months ago

 

[Sander]

Damn, Jebus, I'd think you'd be a little more open-minded than this.
Religion is not and will never be based on anything resembling facts, it is based on beliefs, the belief that God exists does not need to be a rational belief, it is just a belief. Which is exactly why no arguments will ever convince certain people that they are wrong, and you'll never be able to prove that they are wrong either.

Also, you're being a bit silly with the science part, the very point of science is to question everything, and while several of these theories have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there are still several that are being scientifically questioned, such as the "Big Bang" theory.

 

[Ashmo]

Uhm... there wasn't just nothing and then a single-cell organism.

If you think of single-cell organisms as complex continuous chemical reactions (or rather the product of that), there's not much of a difference between random gloop and those basic cells.
We're all just heaps of gloop anyway. We consist of cells which are all "alive" by the same definition by which those single-celled organisms are alive. We're huge blobs of interacting symbionts.

If you insist on it, you can claim that we're more than that because we got souls. Alright, but apart from that we're still just heaps of gloop.

And yes, I like the term "gloop".

As for that bollocks thread about "Evilution" -- GAH.
I won't even reply anything to that. Anyone who claims to be Christian and still tries to be an asshole and tell people they're going to hell rather than actually HELP anyone in their current life to convert them by giving a GOOD example can come to my place and get in line for a swift kick in the face. Hypocrits.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I am not religious, but I have spoken with people who are both religious and very well educated and intelligent. As far as I can tell, evolution does not run afoul of christianity; it only runs afoul of those who feel threatened by it; and feel that their position of power is threatened by it. They view themselves as gods (or extensions of gods) and simply cannot accept it to be viewed as wrong. They'd argue anything, no matter how ridiculous, if it would make them look bad to be proven wrong. There are also people who are so closed-minded that theories of things like evolution just challenge their fragile little realities so much that they fear change to an unhealthy degree. We can take some joy in the fact that people who cannot handle change tend to live shorter lives and are at a greater risk of psychiatric disorders.

Thank you...I dont know how to thank you.

You just put into words what I could not and so desperately wanted to say.

Their's no reason why evolution is a threat to those who think it is. It DOES NOT disprove of God's existence and the existence of well-educated religious people is proof of it.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[John Uskglass]

Also, you're being a bit silly with the science part, the very point of science is to question everything, and while several of these theories have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there are still several that are being scientifically questioned, such as the "Big Bang" theory.

But primarily by Atheists. Why? Big Bang was first proposed by most excellent Catholic Priest. Same goes for Atomic theroy; Bertrand Russell talks of atomic theroy being bullshit attempt by Christians to try and make the Universe more mysterious then it is.

This cuts both ways. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

 

[welsh]

I think Creation scientist people are a bit nuts, even if it's a popular belief. Sorry, but from what fossils can tell us, the world is more than 10,000 years old.

But I agree that the naturalistic evolution folks also have some questions that still need to answer, basically- what started it all.

In that sense I can give some respect to the theistic evolution folks, not as a scientific theory but as a matter of faith. Accepting that evolution happens essentially as science tells us, I am willing to discount the idea that it's all just random chance, but perhaps has the hand of God in there somewhere. Of course this is just being Catholic about it, but while I think science is better for pushing the bounds of our notions of the known world, and the scientific method is a pretty good tool, religion is still a matter of faith. I can believe in a God that is consistent with evolution.

 

[Brother None]

Or are all these scientists just really stupid, because they are well educated and it is their life work? Maybe it is God's big joke? This stubborn stupidity can be very scary if you are imaginative enough.

I...can't believe my ears (eyes).

This is one of the reasons I like Sikhs, Jews and muslims better than Christians. At least they kept their faith.

What the hell is this? Do you people have no concept of the word "faith"?

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Faith is very rarely supposed to be based on logic. Of course not, logic, science, dialectics, philosophy, etc. are all based upon questioning something, which is the diametrical opposite of having faith in something.

"To have faith" directly implies believing something without questioning. The Christians used to understand this, Sikhs, muslims and Jews for the most part still do.

Christianity somewhere along the road, during the Reformation to be exact, had to take a good look at itself. With modern scientific notion cropping up, it decided it could no longer survive as a dogmatic belief. Essentially nearly all forms of Christianity, with the possible major exception of the Orthodox faith (very debatable), became compromised in its faith by science.

Like it or not, if you say "I'm a Christian" nowadays you are not following the belief system they did during the so-called Dark Ages, let alone following the belief system as set out by Jesus, no more than the extremist part of islam referred to in ways as "Fundamental muslims" is right in pretending that it stems directly from Muhammed, whereas it is actually an invention made in the early 20th century.

These people are closer to Christianity as it was as a form for a thousand years, they are closer to the Bible the faith is based on by taking it in a literal sense. You should admire them for that.

Like it or not, twist your ass around it or not, but if you're a Christian that says "I can unify my faith with evolution", think about where you get that teaching from. It's not Old Testament. It's not Jesus. It's a safepoint Christianity had to grab hold of when science threatened it with such things as facts and evidence, which are again different from actual faith. This is the same as "the Bible should not be taken literally". Bullshit. The Bible is the word of God, hell yeah it should be taken literally. This is a revisionist view of Bible History that was invented for no other purpose than to keep Christianity alive.

You should either have actual faith and count the Word of God above the bible or shut the hell up and believe in science.

Jesus H. Christ. Bloody Christians.

PS: that's why Jack Chick is an asshole too. A Christian with true faith wouldn't try to "disprove" evolution by a scientist's own lgoic, he would understand that proof and faith are seperate things and live with it. The only reply to "Evolution is a proven fact" would be "Doesn't matter, I have faith".

His "evidence " is bullshit anyway

 

[Sander]

`

What the hell is this? Do you people have no concept of the word "faith"?

Damn, Jebus, I'd think you'd be a little more open-minded than this.
Religion is not and will never be based on anything resembling facts, it is based on beliefs, the belief that God exists does not need to be a rational belief, it is just a belief. Which is exactly why no arguments will ever convince certain people that they are wrong, and you'll never be able to prove that they are wrong either.

Also, you're being a bit silly with the science part, the very point of science is to question everything, and while several of these theories have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there are still several that are being scientifically questioned, such as the "Big Bang" theory.

I didn't know you didn't read my posts, Kharn.

But primarily by Atheists. Why? Big Bang was first proposed by most excellent Catholic Priest. Same goes for Atomic theroy; Bertrand Russell talks of atomic theroy being bullshit attempt by Christians to try and make the Universe more mysterious then it is.

This cuts both ways. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

In part, yes. Most scientists believe in logic, but they don't say they 'believe' in it, but only that this is logical and hence the truth. Many scientists then go off on rants against religion and its consequences, more often than not involving some form of 'religion has caused many deaths' (which has nothing to do with its truth value, and isn't even necessarily true). But I don't think you're right that it was mainly atheists that go off against certain theories, but that it's scientists who do, and that scientists are largely atheists (or agnostics).
However, even today there are scientists who don't think the Big Bang theory makes sense, and the same goes for several other theories, and they're scientists just as much as every other scientist. They, however, believe that they've found enough evidence to disbelieve.

People have a tendency to discard anything that doesn't fall within their belief system, and whether that belief system is called logic, Christianity, Islam or whatever else doesn't matter, most people are convicned that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. This is not something anyone will ever change, and hey, perhaps that's a good thing.

 

[calculon000]

Evilution* is actually a real concept taken with all seriousness by the works of Jack Chick and those who pass on his messages.

The Bible-debunking by the guy with the big-breasted Canadian Mountie for an avatar makes me feel vindicated after reading that comic.

Also:

 

[bob_the_rambler]

In that sense I can give some respect to the theistic evolution folks, not as a scientific theory but as a matter of faith. Accepting that evolution happens essentially as science tells us, I am willing to discount the idea that it's all just random chance, but perhaps has the hand of God in there somewhere. Of course this is just being Catholic about it, but while I think science is better for pushing the bounds of our notions of the known world, and the scientific method is a pretty good tool, religion is still a matter of faith. I can believe in a God that is consistent with evolution.

I like to think around these lines, God uses science to bring forth humanity. The story of Adam and Eve as some know it, goes like this: God creates Adam, then God takes one of Adams ribs and creates Eve (evolution?). this event "took place" in my opinion to help the first generations of man "understand" where they came from.

 

[John Uskglass]

This is one of the reasons I like Sikhs, Jews and muslims better than Christians. At least they kept their faith.

Can I quote Huxley?

The antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely factitious–fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.

You are largely right. I don't think anyone who needs this bullshit to prove thier faith can truly have that strong of faith. But patience is required Kharn. This is not how all Christians think.

In part, yes. Most scientists believe in logic, but they don't say they 'believe' in it, but only that this is logical and hence the truth. Many scientists then go off on rants against religion and its consequences, more often than not involving some form of 'religion has caused many deaths' (which has nothing to do with its truth value, and isn't even necessarily true). But I don't think you're right that it was mainly atheists that go off against certain theories, but that it's scientists who do, and that scientists are largely atheists (or agnostics).

Logic and rationality are as much religions as religions, as they are applications of human logic to something that is'nt logical or rational (in this case the universe).

Yes, it WAS mainly athiests who go against certain theroies Sander. Course it was. Ever wonder why Einstien is better known then Lemaître? Why Fred Hoyle and fuckbuddies jumped on Big Bang theroy in the first place? Why the inital hostility to Hindu-Inspired Quantum Theroy of Schrödinger?

 

[Lost Metal]

If religious fanatics start burning down libaries of science and its labs.

Then they can expect the same to happen to them. It will just have to be more covertly organized, since the religious types seem to get away with more bullshit.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yeah. Only the same thing is, almost the entire world would defend the Churches and Mosques before the labs and the libraries. This is a religious world.

 

[Lost Metal]

When it comes to the masses, then yes. But the masses aren't armed to the nines.

When it comes to the government and their military, then it might be a different story.

How many governments are going to let their current technology and future technology be destroyed? No government is going to send their military to protect Religious buildings before Science buildings, in a civil war between Religious Fanatics and Technology.

For a government to let its technology be destroyed, is to let itself, in the long run, be taken over by another country.

In a hundred to five hundred years, Guns and Tanks might mean NOTHING in a war. Technology might be the winner of wars.

I don't see religion winning over science in the long run of humanity. People are becoming less and less religious as time goes on.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yeah, people said that in 1900. The opposite happened. The last 10 years have seen a triumph of religion in Eastern Europe, and a religious revival in the Mid East. The most powerful nation in history is the most religious, and of the top three (America, China, India), two are massive and going through religious revivals.

You are living in a fantasy world. Politicians would side with the populace over the scientists. Ever read The Haindmaiden's Tale?

Science is not at war with religion, nor vice versa, but if one where to occur, there should be NO doubt who would win.

 

[Lost Metal]

If what you say is true, than the aftermath would leave that nation in a situation, where it would be taken over.

The more technological the nation, the more powerful it is. 100 million people with guns defending a nation with religious faith in their hearts, will do nothing when it is nuclear bombed.

 

[John Uskglass]

If what you say is true, than the aftermath would leave that nation in a situation, where it would be taken over.

No, actually, it would explode like the Nazis in series of Neo-Crusades.

The more technological the nation, the more powerful it is. 100 million people with guns defending a nation with religious faith in their hearts, will do nothing when it is nuclear bombed.

You jackass. Why would the scientists have control over the nukes? Where do you think the highest concentration of nuclear wepons in the world is? HINT: It's not in NYC.


ANSWER: It's in Wyoming.

 

[Lost Metal]

Why would scientists have control of the nukes?

Umm... maybe because a farmer wouldn't know what to do with one?

It's most likely not as simple as getting in a plane, setting a timer and dropping the fucking thing.

 

[calculon000]

I have to agree with Lost Metal. In the long run, religion will slowly die out.

 

[John Uskglass]

I have to agree with Lost Metal. In the long run, religion will slowly die out.

People have been saying that sense the Bavarian Illuminati. It's never happened, and guess what? It never will. Matter of fact, the number of non-religious people in the world is going down.

Umm... maybe because a farmer wouldn't know what to do with one?

Idiot. Who controls the bombs? THE PILOTS AND THE MILITARY! Who are the pilots and the military? GOD FEARING CHRISTIANS.