| Nov 23, 2008 @ 6:51 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,100
|
If we evolved from fish or apes, why are there still fish and apes
Because not ALL the fish or apes evolved? We're talking about incremental changes, speciation, et cetera, et cetera...
There are flaws with the theory of evolution. That's a part of science, the replacing of one flawed theory with one less flawed. But the ridiculous arguments put forth by the creationists are simply laughable.
|
|
  |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 6:53 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
horizon000
Posts: 1,264
|
I will attempt to answer your question from my perspective Youbetcha. Before I start, Tarzan is correct in what he says about these sort of discussions having a tendency to go around in circles. I have been in a few similar discussions and found that's where they lead.
To my understanding of evolution, we didn't evolve from apes, we evolved with them. It is a common mistake to say "from". There was no from, only a with. About 6 million years ago, we shared a common ancestor and the Human/monkey/Ape species all evolved from it.
A common misconception is that we "morphed".This apparently was not the case. Over time, Hominids (Humans) and Pongids (Monkeys and Apes) took different paths in the evolutionary trip and developed specific differences. Although we are from the same family, differences are obvious.Another way of looking at it is like this, take a look at a square and a rectangle. A square is still a rectangle, however it possesses unique properties that make different.
How did this happen you may ask? To my understanding of the Theory of Evolution, these changes from the common ancestor to what we are today took a bit at a time over time.
The stronger Pongids evolved into Gorillas. Another group developed into chimpanzees through the need of preservation. Another prospered through higher brain function and it's ability to use it.They were our ancestors. The way the changes occurred can be likened to playing cards. When you lay a single playing card on a surface, the one card is hardly noticeable looking horizontally. However, when you stack the remaining 51 cards on top, you can see a block. It stands out.
I understand that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has holes in it, much is being discovered by science to support it or modify it.
On closing, I find it interesting to note that a Chimpanzees DNA structure is closer to a humans than a Gorillas. Interesting... As Tarzan (aptly named the Ape Man) said before, there are millions of places where this information can be sourced..
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:12 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
Tarzan
Posts: 499
|
We came from aliens! 
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:15 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
BandTMom
Posts: 39,521
|
Awesome post, Horizon.
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:16 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 10,218
|
Why is it so rediculous to believe man was created from dirt when that's what our bodies eventually become after we die? Dirt is what plants grow out of...DUH Why God chose a rib to create Eve is up for theological debate, but scientifically, it's not a stretch for the Creator to be able to do that for "whatever reason". Then why aren't creationist scientists (?) concentrating on finding DNA in dirt. If they can find it then and man's DNA can be traced back to it, you may have an agrument.
The only problem is that many bodies of men, animals and plant life have decomposed in the dirt of the earth. They would have to somehow find earth dirt that is not contaminated with these remains.
Don't get me wrong, I for one believe in a creator but not the bible fable that supposedly documents it along with the downfall of man.
The Superman comic, BTW is actually an allegory of Christ, so that was a bad example to use. Bad example? That is exactly why I chose it! 
Evolution does NOT meet that requirement. There is NOT sufficient evidence to support the Theory of Evolution when you look at ALL of the evidence. Do you teach science at Liberty University? or Are you a graduate?
It's at best a straw man theory, a fantasy, a fable and it is a lie if taught as anything more. This from a man that believes that the bible is the word of god and cannot verify that fact.
Listen to yourself. Talk about ignorance!
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:23 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
Ok, SGN and Horizon, thanks for at least making an attempt at answering the question. Do you believe your answers are direct reasoning or can you see there is a pretty large leap of faith needed? There are many "possible" answersl, but they all lack substance or suffiucient evidence to make them credible. They are no better than semi educated guesses.
The truth is, many sciencists have a vested interest in trying to disprove the Bible, for various reasons, rather than tryining to find the truth by getting as much evidence as possible and refusing to draw a conclusion until they have considered all of the evidence and it is imposible not to draw a conclusin.
Taking evolution to the extreme at either end shows where it is terribly weak and very hard to prove. Taking it to the beginning of time creates far more problems than there are for creationism. Taking it to the end of time creates far more problems than there are for creationism. That is based on pure science.
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:28 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
We came from aliens!
Thanks for injecting some humor
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:30 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
Tarzan
Posts: 499
|
We could argue if it is the greys or the blues and any others to mix into the pot.
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 7:37 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
Color blind people would never understand, but there is true science behind color - art and music as well
BTW a square by definition is NOT a rectangle though and a rectangle by definition is NOT a square.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 8:13 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,100
|
BTW a square by definition is NOT a rectangle though and a rectangle by definition is NOT a square
Incorrect. A square is just a rectangle with additional requirements. A rectangle is a four-sided figure with four right angles. A square adds the requirement that the four sides must be all of equal length.
Both squares and rectangles are members of the parallelogram family. Within the parallelogram family, you have:
Rhombus: all four sides of equal length, but angles not necessarily right
Rectangle: all four angles are right, but sides are not necessarily same length
Square: all four sides are of equal length and all four angles are right
Then you go out one level, and you get quadrilaterals, which include all of the above, plus trapezoids and kites.
So yes, all squares are rectangles, and some rectangles are squares. (It's like saying "All St. Bernards are dogs, but not all dogs are St. Bernards," for instance.)
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 8:14 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
horizon000
Posts: 1,264
|
I had tried to discuss this conundrum before and it seems like hitting your head against a brick wall.
Do you believe your answers are direct reasoning or can you see there is a pretty large leap of faith needed?
I think Wilbur and Oliver Wright showed a pretty big leap of faith when they took their first flight. How many people, (including Scientists) do you think would have believed it was possible for a plane to fly 20 years before that historic moment? My guess is not many at all.
Science doesn't have all the answers, however, that's what science is all about. Finding answers. Answers will change over time as more and more information becomes available. Wasn't that long ago when a major medical breakthrough was made that increased the survival of injured soldiers during WW1. Doctors washed their hands.
I believe that the church has far more to lose than science. Over the course of history, Religions have tried to suppress information that they found damaging to their beliefs. Galileo springs to mind. In today's world, information suppression from the science community is near impossible and the church has to combat it with other methods. When the discovery of dinosaurs was first taking on steam, the church tried to debunk the information. Now that the evidence is inadmissible, the church modified their beliefs to accept them but put them within a timeline that wouldn't interfere with Genesis.Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible. A creature as majestic and as massive as Diplodocus isn't even mentioned. Why weren't Christians thrown to Raptors instead of lions? They would have pissed all over lions in efficiency.
True science isn't about shutting down institutions and disproving the Bible. True science is about discovery. True science is about finding answers. To find the truth, all avenues must be pursued. Modern science is in it's infancy and we are far from knowing all.
BTW a square by definition is NOT a rectangle though and a rectangle by definition is NOT a square.
That statement is incorrect. FYI, a rectangle is defined as a parallelogram, all of whose angles are right angles.A parallelogram is a quadrilateral with both pairs of opposite sides parallel. By definition, a square meets that criteria for being a rectangle. The definition of a square is a shape with 4 equal sides and four 90 degree angles. By definition, a rectangle can meet this criteia also.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 8:18 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
horizon000
Posts: 1,264
|
(It's like saying "All St. Bernards are dogs, but not all dogs are St. Bernards," for instance.)
Or it's like saying, all men are people, but not all people are men...
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 8:45 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
Rectangle
: a parallelogram all of whose angles are right angles ; especially : one with adjacent sides of unequal length
OK so the Rectangle is the head of the family or category - that I agree with
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:00 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,100
|
See? A little research cleared up one of your confusions...
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:02 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
Horizon and others, to believe that the church as a whole is responsible for supressing information is just as ludicrous as believing that scientists are objective as a whole. It's completely reasonable to rethink something when the evidence overwhelmingly requires it, both in the scientific community and the church community. To say it's reasonable for one and not the other is bizarre thinking. Understanding the Bible is an ongoing process for anyone who cares enough to try to get it right and the church is a fractured mess because of selfish agenda based theology. The scientific community is no better off. It's carnal human nature to be selfish. True believers and true scientists are actually the exception to the norm. That's what makes these kinds of things so difficult to discuss rationally. I do, however, believe it's well worth the effort to try to get it right, eventually and the truth, whatever it is, is what I care about more than anything in life as long as it is an important enough truth to "fight" for. I believe this one happens to be a matter of life and death, so it is worth the "fight".
I hope we can keep it civil and keep the insults and personal attacks to a minimum. That is what I will strive to do. If I fail, please let me know as kindly as you can. Thanks
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:14 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
iam01
Posts: 7,573
|
Just dropped in on this bizarre discussion. What exactly is there to understand about the Bible? What part? OT or NT? We know plenty already. Lots of fables, lots of myth, some facts like the use of town names. Not really a book about facts at all. They don't even get the math right. The bible is completely wrong in its value of Pi giving it the value of 3. This is a big error even in those times but if God says Pi is 3 then its 3 goddamit!!! lol
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:20 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
pamdemonium
Posts: 17,347
|
Horizon...  Excellent posts.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:30 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 19,371
|
to believe that the church as a whole is responsible for supressing information is just as ludicrous as believing that scientists are objective as a whole.
YB, all you have to do is look at history to see that religion has indeed tried to suppress information - as Horizon pointed out, Galileo paid the price for his intellectual honesty - he spent his last years under house arrest because he wouldn't recant his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. Are all scientists objective? All the real ones are, by definition. No argument there are plenty of pseudoscientists who pose a theory as a fact and pick their evidence to support it.
~If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit~
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:31 PM |
Religion attacks science....again
|
|
youbetcha
Posts: 14,834
|
It's not what the Bible says and means that is wrong, it's what people think it says and means that is wrong. I have plenty of experience with that within the church community so I cannot deny it. What I also cannot deny is that Jesus did walk the earth as real as you and I, but He also claimed to be the Chosen One, the Son of God and because of that claim He validated the OT and commisioned the NT. So, the question really has to be, is Jesus who He says He is or is he the biggest lie ever told?
The eyewitness accounts of his life, Josephus and various other historical documents are some of the key evidence that should be considered by anyone trying to look at this as objectively as possible. That evidence is very strong and cannot be ignored by anyone who calls themselves a true scientist and is one.
|
|
| |
|
| Nov 23, 2008 @ 9:43 PM |
Religion attacks science....again |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 19,371
|
The eyewitness accounts of his life, Josephus and various other historical documents are some of the key evidence that should be considered by anyone trying to look at this as objectively as possible. That evidence is very strong and cannot be ignored by anyone who calls themselves a true scientist and is one.
Actually, there ARE no eyewitness accounts of his life, only stories written down over a century after his death by people who were trying to record the tales they'd been told. Even the gospels don't match in all their details. In trying to do a 'reality check' on any book claiming to be the infallible word of God, to determine its truth, you'd have to at least have consistency within the document, which is why I rejected the bible as being the word of God as soon as I started thinking about it critically, and not just accepting it without question.
Of course that's still beside the point - isn't the thread about whether religion is attacking science?
|
| |
|
|
|
|