Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:33 AM
18 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4406 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 1 of 89 (388700)
03-07-2007 11:00 AM


Hi,

I'm new to this debate & this is my first posting, however I've been looking around and the first question that really strikes me about the evolution v creationism topic is this.

Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

I do not mean to cause offence, but there is very little mention of other religions in this debate and as it's a religion verse science debate, this strikes me as odd.

Thanks for reading.

Edited by MadaManga, : Grammer.


Nothing is perfect.

Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-08-2007 7:56 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2007 6:01 PM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 11:23 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

  
AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 89 (388838)
03-08-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MadaManga
03-07-2007 11:00 AM


Welcome to EvCForum
Hi MM,

Normally, we encourage new posters to participate in other threads before proposing their own topics. This usually lets people get a "feel" for the place before jumping in with both feet. However, I haven't seen this particular topic/approach discussed very often, so I'm inclined to promote it, even though you haven't presented your own opinion. My suggestion would be to present your view (and why) by editing the first post (or directly replying to this one), and then I'd be happy to promote the topic.

Fair warning: opening a thread pre-supposes that the thread author will actively participate in any ensuing discussion. I hope you get my drift.

I'll hold this open for today as is. Looking forward to your re-write.

Again, welcome to EvCForum. Stay within the Forum Guidelines, and enjoy!


"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by MadaManga, posted 03-07-2007 11:00 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
  • MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4406 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 3 of 89 (388844)
    03-08-2007 9:29 AM


    My pleasure, AQ!

    My opinion on this matter is that Creationism could ultimately be seen as just an attempt by Christians to justify that Christianity is "the One True Faith". It is hard to ignore that the arguements Creationists use against Evolution are in turn used to prove other religions are false.

    I say this simply because their arguement largely resolves around proving their religious text to be irrafutable, hence making other religious scriptures wrong in all matters which contradict the Bible.

    Evolutionists theories go against all religions equally, so how do Creationists get away with their bias against other religions?

    I wouldn't normally open a debate straight away, but I've seen little evidence that this topic is addressed. I mean, this is one of the big reasons why Creationism is not taught in schools under the reason of "religious bias", I would have thought this topic would be better coverred by both sides.

    Again, thanks for reading.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Forgot to includ a point. Sorry

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2007 12:11 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM MadaManga has responded

      
    AdminQuetzal
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 89 (388892)
    03-08-2007 4:01 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
      
    Jazzns
    Member (Idle past 2108 days)
    Posts: 2657
    From: A Better America
    Joined: 07-23-2004


    Message 5 of 89 (388916)
    03-08-2007 6:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by MadaManga
    03-07-2007 11:00 AM


    Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

    By Creationism here I am talking about Biblical Fundamentalist Creationism. I sure there are other kinds of creationism out there that do not fit this model.

    To your quesiton I would say no. Rather, creationism is a defense of the supposed reality of certain religious mythology in the face of scientific facts that prove the myths to be false. Creationism is also a movement to reject the scientific dedication to naturalism which does not regard religion when answering questions about the universe. This is especially fueled in secular societies where prosthelizing a certain religion in public schools is forbidden.

    I do not mean to cause offence, but there is very little mention of other religions in this debate and as it's a religion verse science debate, this strikes me as odd.

    Other religions are not mentioned because there is no context of religious incursion into science in the culture of most who post here execpt from the Abrahamic faiths. I am sure though, that if there was a majority trying to push Karma and reincarnation into Health Science education that you would see similar criticism from the folk around here.

    Science really only has a problem with religion when religion is the one sticking its nose where it does not belong. The concept of methodological naturalism can only be misunderstood by those who are truly in a position of at best ignorance or at worst cognitive dissonance.

    Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


    Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by MadaManga, posted 03-07-2007 11:00 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 4150 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 6 of 89 (388932)
    03-08-2007 11:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by MadaManga
    03-07-2007 11:00 AM


    Madamanga writes:

    Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

    The other scriptures are just not relevent to the debate because the creationists already believe that their scritpure is correct. No one tries to prove others wrong, per se, but they are trying desperately to prove their own.

    I do not mean to cause offence, but there is very little mention of other religions in this debate and as it's a religion verse science debate, this strikes me as odd.

    There are two things here; one is that this forum does not have many practicing members of non-Abrahamic faiths. We do not have for instance many if any Hindus, few Muslims, a few Toaists, but mainly Judeo-christians or christians. Not that this forum is mainly christian, but of those who ascribe to a faith, it is .

    So, you have to take that into account, and also question whether other faiths have any truth claims when it comes to science. They may, but they are unknown to me.

    Let's just say that many religions have a theory about the origins of the universe. Some of these are not dealing with any manuscript which is thought to be infallible. Some are. But for whatever reason, in this particular forum, those who are opposed to evolution fall into the Christian category by and large.

    What would be interesting to me is to discover what if anything other religions have to say about science, and to find out why it is mainly christianity involved in the debate.

    It is worth noting that Christianity is not truly incompatible with science, but only in certain groups who have a specific interpretation of Scritpure. There must be parallel cases in other religions, but again I don't know of them off-hand.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by MadaManga, posted 03-07-2007 11:00 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by nator, posted 03-09-2007 7:31 AM anastasia has not yet responded

        
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16097
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 7 of 89 (388936)
    03-09-2007 4:27 AM


    Islamic creationist is pretty much the same as Christian creationism.

    quote:
    Another striking aspect of Yahya's material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some "Intelligent Design" figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.

    Yahya also promotes other beliefs far from mainstream science and scholarship, besides creationism. These tend to be his versions of conspiratorial ideas popular in the Muslim world, such as Masonic plots and holocaust denial. But even when indulging these politically-colored fantasies, Yahya has a way of getting back to denouncing evolution. Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002) begins with a "To The Reader" section, where Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

    The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone. Some of our readers may find the chance to read only one of our books. Therefore, we think it appropriate to spare a chapter for a summary of this subject. *


    Same ol' same ol'.

    Jewish creationism apparently looks exactly like Christian creationism. The Discovery Institute has Jewish members.

    Hindu creationism is much the same, but with a twist. Hindu creationists believe that everything is much older than it actually is. So, for example, they use the "Paluxy tracks" as proof that the human race is millions of years older than those atheist scientists are admitting.

    Here are some excerpts from the writings of a Hindu creationist:

    quote:
    Another idea was the theory of the BIG BANG, that all creation started from a single point or particle. This particle had unlimited depth and weight that somehow exploded to produce the universe. This, however, is mathematically indescribable. It is called a singularity, which means it is impossible. Nonetheless, this theory, as with the theory of evolution, is often taken to be a fact, upon which many other theories become based. However, they do not explain from where or how the original particle appeared.

    The theories of the primordial soup and BIG BANG depend on the idea that inert matter can randomly organize itself into complex structures and various species of life. That is the fundamental trouble with both of these theories: How can inert matter by itself develop the incredible molecular arrangements to produce even the simplest cell? Matter does not organize itself that way. In fact, it can be seen that matter, once put into some form of construction and then left alone, always deteriorates. As scientists develop newer instruments to take a closer look at cells, they understand how truly miraculous such a random occurrence could be. Thus, it becomes obvious that nature needs to be directed by some higher force or intelligence for such combinations of material ingredients to come together to produce life. This immediately nullifies Darwin's theory of evolution. Even Darwin admitted that there were problems with his theory.

    ...

    The problem is that even if something like the BIG BANG did occur without the supervision of a higher authority, what you would really end up having is a universe filled with dust. Why would such solid planets, suns, stars, and galaxies form out of this floating dust? And there certainly has been no scientific explanation why there is consciousness that inhabits the millions of species of beings. How could a BIG BANG bring about consciousness? From where did it come? These things are not explained by science. So it is not unreasonable to consider other theories about how this universe came into being, and how there was a development of so many species of life that have consciousness.

    Another problem is that trying to apply simple physical laws on complex phenomenon like the creation requires the use of assumptions and guesswork which make such scientific theories no better than superstitions, even if such ideas are supported by other scientists or mathematicians. Their conclusions are misleading. This is why scientists are always changing or updating their conclusions as they make new discoveries. If they did not have it right the first time, why should we think they may have it right later on? And they will never get it right if they have only one theory and simply try to make all of their evidence fit that theory. They need to look at other possibilities.

    Furthermore, the whole idea of a random reorganization of matter directly opposes the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that as time goes on, there is an increase in entropy, which is an increase in the state of random disorder or deterioration. This means that without a higher intelligence to intercede in the steady disorganization of elements, the universe is in a constant state of gradual decline. This is directly opposite to the idea that matter could organize itself into increasingly complex systems of stars, planets, and galaxies, or even cells, bodies, and various species. So such an organization of matter after a BIG BANG could never have taken place, nor could a BIG BANG have occurred. How could there have been a single particle of unlimited depth and weight floating around in the void universe waiting to explode? Someone had to have put it there. And how could it have exploded into unlimited atoms that formed the universe? Such theories are simply more scientific myths. So how else could the universe have been formed and from where does consciousness come?

    First of all, consciousness does not come from a combination of chemicals. Consciousness is a non-material energy. Thus, consciousness exists before, during, and after the material creation. This means that the origin of the material cosmos and all life within it must also be consciousness, a Supreme Consciousness from whom come all other forms of consciousness that take up residence in the varieties of material bodies or species found in this material creation. This origin must also have intelligence and the ability to design in order to make the various combinations of elements come together to form even the simplest of cells. A single cell is formed by a combination of 300 amino acids that come together in a certain chain or pattern. Even scientists cannot figure out how that happened. And nature cannot do it by itself, as explained above. So there had to have been a guiding Creator to put this all together.

    ...

    Our premise, on the other hand, is that all life comes from God. Almost every religion accepts this. Unfortunately, the problem is that most religions and traditions provide only a short and unscientific story or allegory of the universal creation. However, the Vedic literature, such as the Srimad-Bhagavatam, explains that the universal creation is but an expansion or a development from the original spiritual elements. These exist prior to, during, and after the material creation. By understanding the Supreme Creator and the spiritual nature, the cause of the material manifestation can be understood. Not the other way around. *


    Same old lies, same old nonsense, same old ignorance (I found it by looking for a website mentioning both the Vedas and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) --- but this time it proves the truth of a completely different religion.

    The reason all creationists sound alike is that of course they never put up any positive evidence for their myths, 'cos there isn't any. As a substitute, they whine about the aspects of science they don't understand; and muddle, bewilderment, and blank incomprehension of science can be shared by Hindu, Muslim, and Christian non-scientists alike.

    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 367 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 8 of 89 (388940)
    03-09-2007 7:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by anastasia
    03-08-2007 11:23 PM


    quote:
    What would be interesting to me is to discover what if anything other religions have to say about science, and to find out why it is mainly christianity involved in the debate.

    Here's a good place to start on that question, ana:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 11:23 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2007 7:10 PM nator has responded

        
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4406 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 9 of 89 (388942)
    03-09-2007 7:53 AM


    Dr Adequate writes:

    Hindu creationists believe that everything is much older than it actually is. So, for example, they use the "Paluxy tracks" as proof that the human race is millions of years older than those atheist scientists are admitting.

    This raises the interesting question that if was proved that humans existed many millions of years over 11 million, (as per evolution theory) in support of the Hindu theory, would the majority of Christian Creationists support this evidence against Evolution. For such hypothetical proof would go against Young Earth theory, one of the major arguement of Creationists.

    Are Christian Creationists willing to support "evidence" against Evolution that also contradicts the Bible? Or conversely any other religionist Creationist against their holy text.

    If so, this there any evidence that they have ever done so to prove they feel this way?

    If not, how can they claim they lack bias in their interpretation of any "evidence" they find, if they are not open to evidence which supports other religions above their own. You can not draw a correct theory from biasd data.

    In short, the main debate against Evolution should be that it's an incorrect theory, not that a religion needs to prove itself right.

    If you conceed that there is a bias, Creationism becomes a fight to prove popular science and other religions wrong and one religion correct (regardless of the religion). Though the discrediting of other religions and creation of a "One True Faith" may not be intention - it could be perceived as the goal.


    Thankyou nator for the link about other religious views.

    It illustrates how many religions are neutral on this debate, as Evolution does not affect their beliefs. Evolution can slip into a number of creation theologies, though its purpose is divine rather than selfish. Of course, there are many that Evolution contradicts.

    I like the Buddist version, the Universe is an illusion of awareness. You just can't argue against that one. Is what you see really there, when sight is just signals in your brain (if the mind is even hosted in a brain)? Mind bobbling.

    Also interesting is that Jainism is a religion that goes against all Creationist theories, while not particually supporting Evolution.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Saying thankyou.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Grammer


    Nothing is perfect.

    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.

    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"


    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2007 7:31 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 03-11-2007 5:56 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    Quetzal
    Member (Idle past 4069 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 10 of 89 (389022)
    03-10-2007 7:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by MadaManga
    03-09-2007 7:53 AM


    This raises the interesting question that if was proved that humans existed many millions of years over 11 million, (as per evolution theory) in support of the Hindu theory, would the majority of Christian Creationists support this evidence against Evolution. For such hypothetical proof would go against Young Earth theory, one of the major arguement of Creationists.

    Are Christian Creationists willing to support "evidence" against Evolution that also contradicts the Bible? Or conversely any other religionist Creationist against their holy text.

    I think you'll find that most YEC's adopt a "Big Tent" strategy. To wit, if a belief is anti-evolution - no matter how bizarre, outre, or even counter to their own tenets - they will provide at least a modicum of overt or tacit support for it. The objective, of course, is to discredit modern science as much as possible, especially biology. Then, and only then, will they turn on each other and rend the non-YEC viewpoints. It's a kind of "any port in a storm" and "the enemy of my enemy" strategy. An excellent book describing this strategy in more detail is Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel. Although geared more toward ID than YEC, it is still a good expose of the way the different anti-science movements see the issue. For them, it's a culture war, not a scientific one.

    In short, the main debate against Evolution should be that it's an incorrect theory, not that a religion needs to prove itself right.

    You're right, of course. If there is going to be any possibility of legitimately arguing against evolution then it must be framed in terms of the invalidity of the theory (or at least major fractions of it). However, that would presuppose there is evidence supporting such a contention (or conversely, evidence falsifying or at least calling into question the mechanisms grouped under the ToE). To date, such evidence has not been produced. Secondarily, and equally important, a new theory that better explains the evidence must be put forward. My personal opinion is that this is an impossibility for YECs, since all they have is "Goddidit".


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by MadaManga, posted 03-09-2007 7:53 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 2313 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 11 of 89 (389142)
    03-11-2007 5:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by MadaManga
    03-09-2007 7:53 AM


    quote:
    Are Christian Creationists willing to support "evidence" against Evolution that also contradicts the Bible? Or conversely any other religionist Creationist against their holy text.

    You need to make a distinction here. There are various types of creationists. Some believe in a old year evolution by God approach, some in a literal YEC, the rest fall somewhere in between. I assume you're asking if a literal YEC is willing to support evidence aganist the theory that is also agnaist the Bible? Depends. Some YECs I have encountered are more bible worshippers then they are God worshippers and it seems they'd just ignore the evidence. It really depends on the person.

    quote:
    In short, the main debate against Evolution should be that it's an incorrect theory, not that a religion needs to prove itself right.

    Not quite. Most YECs argue implicitly that if evolution is wrong, then Literal creation is true. When asked to prove the merits of their own belief they litterally turn and run never to be seen in that thread again. Most if not all books out there aganist evolution do not argue the merits of Creationism but claim it is correct, either implcitly or explicity because the alternative is false. Given how fundementally weak Literal Creationism is, it is seems this is only path they have avaliable.

    quote:
    Also interesting is that Jainism is a religion that goes against all Creationist theories, while not particually supporting Evolution.

    It's not the only one. Manichaeism, Mandaeism, Yazidi as well. many of the ancient religions go aganist Abrahmaic beliefs yet don't support evolution.

    In my humble opinion, Literal Creationism seems rather arrogant. To assume that one could entirely understand how God created everything from a relative few passages is to undermine the divine creativity of God. Science seems far more respectful in that it keeps finding out new and more complex occurances, just what one would expect from a divinic being or set of beings.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by MadaManga, posted 03-09-2007 7:53 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4406 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 12 of 89 (389408)
    03-13-2007 1:05 PM


    quote:
    Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

    So far I'm getting the impressions from Evolutionists that;

  • Creationism is a general indicator of the tension some religions have with modern science.
  • The Creationist agruement for a particuliar religion depends strongly on the country involved. (Hence as the USA dominate the internet, it dominates this US based website)
  • The most vocal religions are not overtly anxious about the Creationist arguements of other religions which may/may not oppose their religion.
  • That Creationism is not considered to be an attack on other religions, as Creationist can not "prove" their theories correct (hence it is not of detriment to other religions).


    I thought to see if there was any available evidence to indicate whether or not that religious based hate crimes occur more often in states where Creationism is most actively back.

    I tried looking at the USA hate crime stats from the FBI reports at
    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

    However, those figures where pretty useless and I couldn't compare states at all.

    You see the numbers are really skewed! Some states appear to be reporting alot more faithfully than other, and Alabama apparently doesn't seem inclined to ever give a report (they alway report 0).
    Example - 2005;
    - 17.1 percent of hate crime were motivated by religious bias.
    -California is made out to be the hate center of the USA - having 1,379 incidents of hate crime
    -Alabama & Mississippi have an unbelievable 0 incidents
    -New Mexico & Wyoming had a saintly report of only 3 incidents.
    -The average number of per state is (7163 reports/50 states reporting =) around 143 hate inspired crimes a year.
    (Does anyone else think, yeah right! As if!)

    Lacking reliable evidence, do Creationist and Evolutions consider whether Creationism (as an expression of Fundamentalism) should/could be considered a contributor to the causes of hate crime in society.

    And also, are Creationists concerned this may be the case?


    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2007 6:36 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
  • AZPaul3
    Member
    Posts: 4268
    From: Phoenix
    Joined: 11-06-2006
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 13 of 89 (389468)
    03-13-2007 6:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by MadaManga
    03-13-2007 1:05 PM


    Creo vs Evo Hate Crime?
    Lacking reliable evidence, do Creationist and Evolutions consider whether Creationism (as an expression of Fundamentalism) should/could be considered a contributor to the causes of hate crime in society.

    Without a whole lot more evidence, no.

    The stats you did find were not well defined.

    My gut feeling is that we may find a lot of those hate crimes are directed against Jews and gays, and not necessarily for "creationist" or "evolutionist" reasons.

    I can imagine skinheads spaying swastikas on temples and young punks beating up queers using some weak religious excuse as large parts of that 17%

    In this country, as far as I can see, we do not experience religious violence to the extent of Ireland or India. I do not believe the Creo-Evo debate is any motivator for the relatively small amount of religious-motivated crime we see here.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by MadaManga, posted 03-13-2007 1:05 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    ICANT
    Member (Idle past 25 days)
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 14 of 89 (389474)
    03-13-2007 7:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by nator
    03-09-2007 7:31 AM


    Here's a good place to start on that question,

    I visited the site and I did not get anything that I had not read on this site. Except it was in one place there.

    I just don't understand this religion Vs evolution thing. I guess I am too dumb or too old (67).

    I am a farm boy so I understand evolution, I think. You can improve livestock by selective breeding. You can improve seeds by selective pollination. I have evolved from a strong agile youth to a dotting old fool. But I have never seen nor has anyone ever been able to show me one piece of evidence of macro evolution (one species becoming another species).

    I have asked the question many time where the singularitry came from that the universe supposedly started from? The best answer I have got so far is, I don't know.

    The young earth bunch is just as wrong.

    They can tell me about when Gen. 1:2 occurred. But no one has ever proved to me when Gen. 1:1 took place.

    As I have understood Gen. 1:1 to say for the last 50 years that In the realm or sphere of the beginnings God literally tore from himself the universe, speaking it into existence.

    That could have possibly taken place a few hundred million billion years ago, or longer I have no way of knowing.

    A few years from now we may have a better system of dating that will prove my point, then maybe not.

    Now I will really open myself up to get bashed. I am a child of the King. I believe that in the distant past God spoke the universe into being. In that same day he made man, animals, vegetation, and everything. Later it was destroyed. I don't know how but I have read where science says it happened that life forms disappeared. Then some time ago God moved to correct this situation and we find the earth in the condition it is in Gen. 1:2. Thus the seven days of Moses as I like to refer to them, because it was not creation.

    Now since I am so far off base from what I can find that others believe I don't know what this would make me.

    I believe that true science is true. I believe that theories are just that, whether it is one man's opinion or millions. I believe that there are many religions. I believe that there are many theories of how the Universe and mankind came about. I believe that there is one God.

    I also believe that does it not make any difference what I believe. Just because I believe it does not make it true.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by nator, posted 03-09-2007 7:31 AM nator has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2007 8:38 PM ICANT has responded
     Message 17 by nator, posted 03-14-2007 10:50 AM ICANT has not yet responded
     Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2007 7:04 AM ICANT has not yet responded

        
    AZPaul3
    Member
    Posts: 4268
    From: Phoenix
    Joined: 11-06-2006
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 15 of 89 (389486)
    03-13-2007 8:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
    03-13-2007 7:10 PM


    This may not help you any, ICANT, but let me at least give you something to chew on.

    In that same day he made man, animals, vegetation, and everything. Later it was destroyed. I don't know how but I have read where science says it happened that life forms disappeared.

    This destruction of life is called an “extinction event.” There have been many of them throughout life’s stay on this planet. Luckily not all life succumbed during these events but in a few cases we came very close.

    The last big one occurred some 65+ million years ago when a big honking space rock smashed into the Yucatan in Mexico. We see in the fossil record and in the geology of the planet the scars this event left behind. We have the “smoking gun” if you will. There is something called the K-T Boundary in the geology of this planet. We use it as a convenient marker in the history of the planet. We know the K-T Boundary (a thin layer of rock and sediment) formed all over the planet from the fallout created by this mother of a mountain crashing into Mexico. We see from the fossil record on one side of this boundary (the older side) a big bunch of animals, fish, plants, even Dinosaurs buried in the rocks. On the other side of the boundary (the younger side) we find very few of these, some obviously different or new ones and no Dinosaurs at all. The people who study these things for a lifetime all agree this was a major extinction event that killed off the dino’s but left some small furry critters, mammals, alive. Over the last 65 million years these mammals (along with a few other surviving life forms) evolved into everything we see in nature today, including ourselves.

    What these scientists know is that these extinction events happened periodically throughout history. There have been dozens. Considering what life has been through on this planet we’re quite lucky to be here at all.

    I have asked the question many time where the singularitry came from that the universe supposedly started from? The best answer I have got so far is, I don't know.

    As for “The Big Question” of how the universe started, the singularity is one hypothesis yet to be shown. I could give you a big bunch of mumbo jumbo about quantum jitter and borrowed energy but the real answer is mumble, mumble, mumble.

    I could get into details of why we don’t know…yet…but those are not important. We have a superb understanding of what happened in the growth of this universe going back further and further until BANG (and not the big one either) we come to a dead end. All those equations that have worked so well for us everywhere else in the universe just cannot tell us what happened before .0000000000000000000000000000000001 second after whatever it was that did happen, happened. We don’t know. I fear you and I and a whole bunch of people on this planet will never see the answer to this question. But some day we will find it. And that is all we can give to you right now.

    At least science is being honest in our ignorance. Religions are so sure of their answers (whether they be Yahweh speaking the Universe into existence, or Vishnu growing the universe from his navel or Osiris ejaculating the universe into being) that they are willing to fight wars over it. Such is life.

    Edited by AZPaul3, : Fixing typos...or covering stupidity...take your pick.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2007 7:10 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by ICANT, posted 03-27-2007 4:02 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019