Religion, what's the point?

[Revan]

do social sciences count as science? Teaching critical thinking and ethics could be a more efficient way of spreading morality.

Generally the term 'science' is used for natural sciences. But, it is and has always been a subject of the debate. Especially in the first half of twentieth century when there were a lot of new theories, a lot of philosophers b=debated what can be counted as science. I think it was at the Vienna circle when came a somehow definition: that science is a theory which is based on facts and more importantly, gives room to getting disproven, if the facts are wrong. All other stuff, is pseudo-science.

In that aspect, evolution or relativity are science. On the other side, intelligent design or even psycho-analysis are pseudo-science.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Science acknowledges the possibility of it being wrong. Religion revels in absolutism.

Nothing wrong with that since they are two completely different beasts. My take on this is that science cannot prove or disprove God nor is it its job to do that. On the other hand people are entitled to explore the origins and be curious about the purpose of anything, and that is often where inference to intelligence comes into play as people almost naturally deduce i.e that information and complexity of micro and macro systems cannot arise naturally but has been put in place/developed/engineered by an supernatural intelligent agent. That's not a cop-out or whatever, it's pure and simple logic.

 

[Santiago_KinderBueno]

Because science isn't based on belief. It usually is a theory which leaves the possibility to be disproven (if it is incorrect), and it is based on facts, not feelings.

The religion is completely on the other side. It isn't based on facts, and doesn't leave the possibility of getting disproven, even if in reality there are a ton of scientific mistakes in that religion's holy book.

Ultimatelly, I think that the debate can be simplified in being rational or not being rational. If you are rational, you will do/believe science and be cynic when it comes to religion. If you are not rational, you'll be the other way around. Maybe there is some place in the middle, but really it is mutually exclusive to be rational and believe in God, at the same time. As it is mutually exclsusive to not be rational, and do science.


Not really. It really shows that you have no clue at all for the theory of evolution.

Seriously? Explain to me then? Again, it's this cemented root in belief over something that matters shit all to scientists but means more to religous people who have to consider which religion if any is true and believable.

"Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?"

 

[Revan]

Seriously? Explain to me then? Again, it's this cemented root in belief over something that matters shit all to scientists but means more to religous people who have to consider which religion if any is true and believable.

"Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?"

I was talking about your 'The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems.' which isn't how evolution works. The fact that you also mention 'monkeys' as if they were a species, it convinces me even more that you know feck all about evolution.

Anyway, the evidence pro theory of evolution is very strong. While it started as a theory based on a few unproven axioms and then got built on them, nowadays it looks much more trustworthy. Ultimatelly, I think that the new researches in bioinformatics have almost completely removed any doubt in the Darwinian theory. Or, if you want even more simple, nowadays it is easy to see how bacteria evolve (because of their short life cycle).

 

[Revan]

Nothing wrong with that since they are two completely different beasts. My take on this is that science cannot prove or disprove God nor is it its job to do that. On the other hand people are entitled to explore the origins and be curious about the purpose of anything, and that is often where inference to intelligence comes into play as people almost naturally deduce i.e that information and complexity of micro and macro systems cannot arise naturally but has been put in place/developed/engineered by an supernatural intelligent agent. That's not a cop-out or whatever, it's pure and simple logic.

Obviously. On the other hand, religion should be able to prove the existence of God, considering that they claim it. Similarily, if I claim something, I should be able to prove it, not to ask other people to disprove it.

In reality, this is how science works. A researcher proves something (or comes close), but a single counter-example is enough to disprove his theory (or at least reduce it, what is happens in practice). And if his theory is wrong, then that counter-example will be found, sooner or later.

The second bolded line is very simplistic. Not being able to understand it doesn't neccesary requires the need of an supernatural intelligent agent. Similarily, how in old Greece, thefact that they didn't understand lightning, doesn't make the existence of Zeus more likely.

Ultimatelly, I can understand people who need a God. Having a God makes the poor life a bit easier. And, I also can understand people who leave the possibility of one or mroe superintelligent agents right there. Considering that we really don't have much information or knowledge for the universe (multiverse) it would be a bit arrogant-ish to say that there is no chance that some 'God' exists. But the Gods of holy Abrahamic religions *, that are pure nonsense, isn't that easy to understand. Not that there is a ton of scientific evidence against them, but a simple common sense is enough to understand that they are pure politics. And the Gods of these religions, are the most evil characters ever made in fantasy.

* I don't have much knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions, so I cannot talk for them.

 

[Santiago_KinderBueno]

I was talking about your 'The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems.' which isn't how evolution works. The fact that you also mention 'monkeys' as if they were a species, it convinces me even more that you know feck all about evolution.

Anyway, the evidence pro theory of evolution is very strong. While it started as a theory based on a few unproven axioms and then got built on them, nowadays it looks much more trustworthy. Ultimatelly, I think that the new researches in bioinformatics have almost completely removed any doubt in the Darwinian theory. Or, if you want even more simple, nowadays it is easy to see how bacteria evolve (because of their short life cycle).

Evolution is right and understandable; whats wrong is the theory of life; if you had opened the link from before.

Again, your aggression in believing in science comes from the disagreement over religion. Otherwise what is there to believe in rather than to understand without it having any direct influence in your life?

Im buddhist and we dont believe in god that help us like some of the other religions do. It is science that stamped that belief in me and ultimately there is nothing for you to belive or stamp in purely believeing in science alone.

Likewise, scientists only will soon shout out over the magic of quanntum physics even though this religion has talked about it from over 2000 years ago.

There; another reason why i believe my religion through the impact of both religion and science. While science is only used to reject religion as a pre-planned method of avoiding religion from the start.

 

[Revan]

Evolution is right and understandable; whats wrong is the theory of life; if you had opened the link from before.

Again, your aggression in believing in science comes from the disagreement over religion. Otherwise what is there to believe in rather than to understand without it having any direct influence in your life?

Im buddhist and we dont believe in god that help us like some of the other religions do. It is science that stamped that belief in me and ultimately there is nothing for you to belive or stamp in purely believeing in science alone.

Likewise, scientists only will soon shout out over the magic of quanntum physics even though this religion has talked about it from over 2000 years ago.

There; another reason why i believe my religion through the impact of both religion and science. While science is only used to reject religion as a pre-planned method of avoiding religion from the start.

I am not sure what it is the theory of life, to be fair. Cannot say that I've heard about it.

I also am now very knowledgable in buddhism, though by default I am a bit sceptic that you might have had knowledge in quantum mechanics 2000 years ago. Mainly because I have heard before this accurate scientific predictions from Abrahamic religions, and ehen I read them, they were complete junk.

However, feel free to post them. If they are really as you say they are, then obviously I will need to change my opinion. After all, that is the beauty of science, changing opinions/theory when new evidence * is published.

By evidence, I don't mean ambigious sentences that can be interpreted however you want.

 

[RexHamilton]

Again, as a scientist & a buddhist; i can understand why science is highly rated; however i can't find a reason to actually believe in science itself. Just because some religions might have bad habits or rituals; doesn't mean all religions make people bad.

You don't believe in science. You use science to ascertain the truth, to the best of your knowledge/ ability. Science is not a belief system.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Obviously. On the other hand, religion should be able to prove the existence of God, considering that they claim it. Similarily, if I claim something, I should be able to prove it, not to ask other people to disprove it.

In reality, this is how science works. A researcher proves something (or comes close), but a single counter-example is enough to disprove his theory (or at least reduce it, what is happens in practice). And if his theory is wrong, then that counter-example will be found, sooner or later.

The second bolded line is very simplistic. Not being able to understand it doesn't neccesary requires the need of an supernatural intelligent agent. Similarily, how in old Greece, thefact that they didn't understand lightning, doesn't make the existence of Zeus more likely.

Ultimatelly, I can understand people who need a God. Having a God makes the poor life a bit easier. And, I also can understand people who leave the possibility of one or mroe superintelligent agents right there. Considering that we really don't have much information or knowledge for the universe (multiverse) it would be a bit arrogant-ish to say that there is no chance that some 'God' exists. But the Gods of holy Abrahamic religions *, that are pure nonsense, isn't that easy to understand. Not that there is a ton of scientific evidence against them, but a simple common sense is enough to understand that they are pure politics. And the Gods of these religions, are the most evil characters ever made in fantasy.

* I don't have much knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions, so I cannot talk for them.

That's a lot of cliched thinking you're outlining there, Revan. I'm antiquated with people who are not slightly religious, who literally have no belief in God whatsoever and some of which despise religion but do support the idea of the existence of an intelligent agency based on the points I mentioned previously. Supporting the idea of an supernatural intelligence does not necessarily come from a point of not-understanding something and becoming desperate for an explanation. It arises because and in spite of understanding something and concluding that the best possible explanation for its existence is the input of an intelligent agency. It's almost a pretty dry, straightforward conclusion.

You're also mistaken on another point. Religion does not have to 'prove' the existence of God at all, otherwise you'd make the concept of FAITH completely redundant. Yes, according to Jewish/Christian theology God makes an absolute claim and reveals his existence and declares his purpose etc, but his creation is no way obliged to follow. Ultimately religious people need not to prove God's existence but simply explain the reasons for their belief and why it works for them personally.

 

[Amethyst]

Thats your opinion on science being reliable.

Science gets things pleanty wrong as it does gets things right.

Recently watched something on TV where they found a human fossil that may break darwins theory of evolution. If that turns out to be true, science will find a way to correct itself. Wont it? Ultimately; within an 80 year lifespan you could follow something your whole life that wouldn't mean jack sh*t the years after your gone.

What is there to believe in science anyway? Religion is more than gods and heavens & i'd say that religious people from all variations will think of science more regularly than anyone else.

The others on here have answered your point pretty much as I would have. You still haven't answered my original question though. If science isn't reliable, then what other method do you think we should use to find out about what it is true in our universe?

 

[Mihajlovic]

You don't believe in science. You use science to ascertain the truth, to the best of your knowledge/ ability. Science is not a belief system.

This.

 

[Revan]

That's a lot of cliched thinking you're outlining there, Revan. I'm antiquated with people who are not slightly religious, who literally have no belief in God whatsoever and some of which despise religion but do support the idea of the existence of an intelligent agency based on the points I mentioned previously. Supporting the idea of an supernatural intelligence does not necessarily come from a point of not-understanding something and becoming desperate for an explanation. It arises because and in spite of understanding something and concluding that the best possible explanation for its existence is the input of an intelligent agency. It's almost a pretty dry, straightforward conclusion.

Indeed it is cliche, because it has been mentioned a lot of times, but still, I don't think that there is anything wrong in what I said.

Anyway, I don't mind people who believe in God (or for that matter, religion people who stick to religion as more of a bunch of ethic laws rather than the ultimate truth - Sultan or penna in this forum for example) although I find the idea of God a bit unneede. Still, it is fine for me as long as religion doesn't intervene with the other aspects of life (obviously, at the moment, the most extreme cases are wahhabism).

I disagree a bit with your last point. If for example, we know exactly the laws of the universe (or where does the universe come from) than the idea of God doesn't make sense anymore and people wouldn't believe on it (unless the God gets proven as creator of those laws). Similarily how after we undestood what are the stars, Sun wasn't anymore a God.

You're also mistaken on another point. Religion does not have to 'prove' the existence of God at all, otherwise you'd make the concept of FAITH completely redundant. Yes, according to Jewish/Christian theology God makes an absolute claim and reveals his existence and declares his purpose etc, but his creation is no way obliged to follow. Ultimately religious people need not to prove God's existence but simply explain the reasons for their belief and why it works for them personally.

To be fair, I always thought that the idea of faith is a defense-system against the argument of 'proving the existence of God'. Basically, God has decided that who beliefs in something that is completely unproven will go to heaven, and all others who are sceptistic on something unproven (which is completely fine in all other aspects of life) will go to hell. Or something like that. Judaism started it and then Christianity and Islam blatently copied it and so it became dogmatic, despite that it never got understood 'what is faith'. A completely ignorant person can have faith in God because his parents said so, and a very educated one can have faith because he studied a lot and came to conclusions. Similarily the other way around assuming that the person was in wrong religion, or came to the conclusions that the existence of a specific God is very unlikely.

On other words, the heaven-hell system is mostly predetermined on conception date. If you had the misfortune of being in the wrong religion, almost certainly you are doomed to hell (while a lot of people get converted to other religions, if you look at the percentage rate, it is a very small percentage). And even if you get borned in the right religion, there is still some good chance of leaving that religion because the existence of that God looks scientifically unlikely (hear hear creationists, God put the fossils of dinosaurs in Earth in order to test our faith and tempt us by giving 'wrong' facts that Earth is older than in the Bible *). A bit of a cruel and sadistic God, I would say.

* Being more pedantic, older than in the interpretation of the Bible.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[VidaRed]

Judaism started it...

Them jews at fault again or was it from the zoroastrians that they nicked it ? So basically iranians started the whole feckery

 

[Trigg]

I' m also studying dhamma. Infact, i couldn't see a more scientific religion than that itself; but trying to explain why one would choose religion over science is hard because each of us feels a different level of completeness.

For me there is a big difference between something that changes every so often and finding something you agree with and wont easily change.

Again, as a scientist & a buddhist; i can understand why science is highly rated; however i can't find a reason to actually believe in science itself. Just because some religions might have bad habits or rituals; doesn't mean all religions make people bad.



What's funny? Did you type in darwins theory is false? The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems. The documentary i saw; was based on a human like fossil found ages ago where we were thought still to be only monkeys.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+scientist+darwin+wrong+tree+life&client=ms-android-htc-rev&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAWoVChMI_K-z95TOyAIVRm8UCh1YFgqs#imgrc=_8wbTcR2F0A2tM:

Just an example of many if you spend less time laughing and a more time searching bud.

The fact you've said that nullifies any argument(s) you may have had.

Just set you on your way. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

 

[Santiago_KinderBueno]

You don't believe in science. You use science to ascertain the truth, to the best of your knowledge/ ability. Science is not a belief system.

If science isn't a belief system ( and im not saying it is), then why is it up against religion here? Something that looks after more than just facts of life?

The fact you've said that nullifies any argument(s) you may have had.

Just set you on your way. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

The only reason i said monkeys is because we have a common ancestor and couldn't be bothered to find the proper name purely for discussion.

 

[Trigg]

You said Monkeys are still here though and that is one of evolutions biggest problems.

I'm not even sure you're sure what you was trying to say!

 

[RexHamilton]

If science isn't a belief system ( and im not saying it is), then why is it up against religion here? Something that looks after more than just facts of life?



The only reason i said monkeys is because we have a common ancestor and couldn't be bothered to find the proper name purely for discussion.

Science is used to dispute the claims made by the religious. That doesn't make it an alternative belief system.

Also on your second point, you claimed that because monkeys are still here, it poses a problem for the evolutionary theory. How exactly?

 

[Eriku]

Seriously? Explain to me then? Again, it's this cemented root in belief over something that matters shit all to scientists but means more to religous people who have to consider which religion if any is true and believable.

"Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._S._Watson#Famous_Quote

Have a read on that quote. You presented a creationist straw man of that quote, and the actual quote is something quite different. You also stated you were a scientist, earlier? If so, why are you making an appeal to authority, and an appeal based on a quote from 1929, when major kinks in evolution were still being ironed out? I have a hard time believing that you're a scientist.

And to say that the fact that monkeys are still here presents a problem to the ToE is absolute nonsense. You've already corrected yourself on the notion that we evolved from monkeys rather than from a common ancestor, so what on earth is left to be a problem?

 

[Mihajlovic]

Science is used to dispute the claims made by the religious. That doesn't make it an alternative belief system.

Also on your second point, you claimed that because monkeys are still here, it poses a problem for the evolutionary theory. How exactly?

The argument should rather go like this: if evolution is a continuous process and if various life forms have developed gradually over millions of years, then why are we today not seeing any species which are evolving 'towards something', or in other words why can't we detected any animals that appear to be in a transitional stage. Unless our window of time is so incomprehensibly super-short it seems as if every species is fully and completely developed. Yes evolution on a micro-level is taking place every single second but where are the type of 'cow-to-whale' or 'Australopithecus-afarensis-to-homo-sapiens' types of evolution? And if we're talking about evolution by trial-and-error, where are the millions of degenerated and half-developed remains of any species who died in the evolutionary process?

 

[Eriku]

The argument should rather go like this: if evolution is a continuous process and if various life forms have developed gradually over millions of years, then why are we today not seeing any species which are evolving 'towards something', or in other words why can't we detected any animals that appear to be in a transitional stage. Unless our window of time is so incomprehensibly super-short it seems as if every species is fully and completely developed. Yes evolution on a micro-level is taking place every single second but where are the type of 'cow-to-whale' or 'Australopithecus-afarensis-to-homo-sapiens' types of evolution? And if we're talking about evolution by trial-and-error, where are the millions of degenerated and half-developed remains of any species who died in the evolutionary process?

Oh god, are you seriously asking this?

You often claim that people are blathering against theology with little to no knowledge... I think that accuastion could be returned with regards to your understanding of evolution on this point.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Oh god, are you seriously asking this?

You often claim that people are blathering against theology with little to no knowledge... I think that accuastion could be returned with regards to your understanding of evolution on this point.

There's no accusation here, nor have I claimed anything. It's just a type of question that was asked many times at uni by undergrad students.

 

[Redlambs]

I always have to chuckle when someone brings up Darwin and talks about monkeys.


But I stop short of laughing because ignorance isn't that funny.

 

[Eriku]

There's no accusation here, nor have I claimed anything. It's just a type of question that was asked many times at uni by undergrad students.

I just find it curious that you say that the question "should" go like this. It makes it seem like you think that's a valid question, and not just a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Redlambs]

No question is invalid.

After all, how are people to learn?

 

[Eriku]

No question is invalid.

After all, how are people to learn?

Obviously it's not so much a question as a veiled criticism. Yes, people should be free to ask questions, so long as they are willing to consider things with an open mind. But clearly, in common parliance, we can say that notions like "the missing link" are no longer valid criticism.

 

[Redlambs]

Obviously it's not so much a question as a veiled criticism. Yes, people should be free to ask questions, so long as they are willing to consider things with an open mind. But clearly, in common parliance, we can say that notions like "the missing link" are no longer valid criticism.

Well if they are ignorant of what Darwin's theory actually says, then I urge them to ask as many questions as possible.

And I think you've missunderstood Mihaj there

 

[Eriku]

Well if they are ignorant of what Darwin's theory actually says, then I urge them to ask as many questions as possible.

And I think you've missunderstood Mihaj there

I hope so

I didn't mean to say he was talking about the missing link to modern homo sapiens, btw... I was just giving an example of what you can say isn't a legitimate question. "Where is the missing link?". It may be a sincere question, it may need to be answered, but it's not a legitimate question to evolutionary theory.

 

[Mojo_]

When Jesus reads this thread you guys are fecked.

 

[Mihajlovic]

I just find it curious that you say that the question "should" go like this. It makes it seem like you think that's a valid question, and not just a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

It makes sense in the context of my response to Rex and his previous response to Santiago, sorry if it's inconclusive but I can't be bothered to go into more detail.

And yes, the questions are valid, why shouldn't they be. An average archaeology or paleontology student who is studying the origins won't extensively go into genetics, for example, so a question like 'how the feck have nostrils moved up and further back along the snout and eventually turned into a blowhole' is a perfectly valid question. What triggers the change of information on genetic level, where does new information come from, how is it generated, how is that information preserved and transferred from individual to group level, what effects does it have on the proto-species in the lifespan of the animals undergoing an evolutionary change, etc. What's wrong with asking all that?

 

[Eriku]

It makes sense in the context of my response to Rex and his previous response to Santiago, sorry if it's inconclusive but I can't be bothered to go into more detail.

And yes, the questions are valid, why shouldn't they be. An average archaeology or paleontology student who is studying the origins won't extensively go into genetics, for example, so a question like 'how the feck have nostrils moved up and further back along the snout and eventually turned into a blowhole' is a perfectly valid question. What triggers the change of information on genetic level, where does new information come from, how is it generated, how is that information preserved and transferred from individual to group level, what effects does it have on the proto-species in the lifespan of the animals undergoing an evolutionary change, etc. What's wrong with asking all that?

Asking specific questions about how a nostril moves along and later becomes a blowhole is one thing, asking teleological questions such as 'why don't we see intermediaries of cows to the next big bovine thing running around?' is rather silly if you get the gist of evolution. The goals aren't set from the start, and nobody's an intermediary in the here and now, that's an after the fact label that we can tag on a million years later, when it's apparent what direction all the minute changes were taking a certain species, or a branch of a species.

The macrospecies questions you ask are a far cry from nuanced questions about genetic information and the mechanisms of change, transfer, etc.

Incidentally, macroevolution HAS been observed in bacteria, flies, etc... Those things are far less complicated than a mammal, or anything else of a similarly complicated order, and as such we won't see them popping up before our very eyes.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

I have no problem with anyone believing anything they like, assuming they extend the same courtesy to everyone else and dont hurt anyone.

 

[Red Dreams]

I am a Christian and I also believe in science. I don't see any conflict with my faith from science. For one I don't take Genesis literally.

The Gospels are what I refer to many times. What Christ says is my faith.

 

[Revan]

The argument should rather go like this: if evolution is a continuous process and if various life forms have developed gradually over millions of years, then why are we today not seeing any species which are evolving 'towards something', or in other words why can't we detected any animals that appear to be in a transitional stage. Unless our window of time is so incomprehensibly super-short it seems as if every species is fully and completely developed. Yes evolution on a micro-level is taking place every single second but where are the type of 'cow-to-whale' or 'Australopithecus-afarensis-to-homo-sapiens' types of evolution? And if we're talking about evolution by trial-and-error, where are the millions of degenerated and half-developed remains of any species who died in the evolutionary process?

You know that evolution from a specie to some other specie takes a few millions of years. Even for a specie to get divided into a few relatively similar species (like the joint ancestor of sapiens and chimpanzee) it takes a few millions of years. From 'cow to whale' it should take even longer. So, I guess it is a bit difficult to observe it in the last hundred years. Assuming that a specie get seperated for 5 million years, 100 hundred years is still 0.002% of that time. Basically, tens of thousand up tp hundreds of thousands of generation need to pass in order for a specie to change.

However, if you look at organisms that have short life span, like bacteria, you can see how they evolve all the time. If not, then pharmaceutists would be very happy considering that they won't have to work (until of course they would realize that there is no money for them).

 

[Amethyst]

I am a Christian and I also believe in science. I don't see any conflict with my faith from science. For one I don't take Genesis literally.

The Gospels are what I refer to many times. What Christ says is my faith.

You may not see a problem if you're prepared to ignore (or at least not take literally as you said) certain parts of the Bible that are challenged by our understanding of the scientific method. But for those who do believe every word to be true then there are obviously sections that come into direct conflict.

How do you know which parts are metaphorical and which are supposed to be taken literally or adhered to if you're able to discard things that we know could not have happened? For example, science tells us that we can dismiss the idea that 'Adam and Eve' existed as is potrayed in the Bible. If they never existed then the story of the Garden of Eden cannot have happened and therefore the idea of original sin can also be done away with.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The argument should rather go like this: if evolution is a continuous process and if various life forms have developed gradually over millions of years, then why are we today not seeing any species which are evolving 'towards something', or in other words why can't we detected any animals that appear to be in a transitional stage. Unless our window of time is so incomprehensibly super-short it seems as if every species is fully and completely developed. Yes evolution on a micro-level is taking place every single second but where are the type of 'cow-to-whale' or 'Australopithecus-afarensis-to-homo-sapiens' types of evolution? And if we're talking about evolution by trial-and-error, where are the millions of degenerated and half-developed remains of any species who died in the evolutionary process?

Take a look at the development of an embryo from conception to birth. If seeing bits of you moving to different places is what it really takes to believe in evolution.

 

[Neutral]

I have no problem with anyone believing anything they like, assuming they extend the same courtesy to everyone else and dont hurt anyone.

Yeah that's the problem isn't it.

- I'm Muslim - so I'll end up in heaven some day, whereas most of you lot

- I'm righteous, but you are evil, I must end you.

 

[Rick88]

I' m also studying dhamma. Infact, i couldn't see a more scientific religion than that itself; but trying to explain why one would choose religion over science is hard because each of us feels a different level of completeness.

For me there is a big difference between something that changes every so often and finding something you agree with and wont easily change.

Again, as a scientist & a buddhist; i can understand why science is highly rated; however i can't find a reason to actually believe in science itself. Just because some religions might have bad habits or rituals; doesn't mean all religions make people bad.



What's funny? Did you type in darwins theory is false? The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems. The documentary i saw; was based on a human like fossil found ages ago where we were thought still to be only monkeys.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+scientist+darwin+wrong+tree+life&client=ms-android-htc-rev&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAWoVChMI_K-z95TOyAIVRm8UCh1YFgqs#imgrc=_8wbTcR2F0A2tM:

Just an example of many if you spend less time laughing and a more time searching bud.

*Facepalm*

Understanding evolution is certainly not your strong point.

 

[Redlambs]

He meant the scientific word for monkey.

Duh!

 

[Wibble]

The reason why religous people are more scientific is because religion is more personal than science. So ultimately when every person is getting closer or more distant from a religion they are using knowledge and science to believe or contradict what they have learnt from religion.

That is then most unmitigated nonsense I have every read. Science builds knowledge by testing predictions. It does not do so with any reference whatsoever to any religion. They are two totally different things.

Everytime i hear something new in regards to science; i see if it matches with my religion or not. My religion is then automatically against proof of science that might aswell change years down the line. I do this every time.

That isn't being scientific. That is being religious and denying what doesn't suit you. Almost the polar opposite of being scientific.

How does science become something personal to you?

Why would scientific enquiry be personal?

For example; IF I WAS christian; then the theory of evolution seems to go against what the religion believes in. Yet if i was a scientist believing in science and science alone; why would you even think about evolution at all other than put another religion down?

Erm? Because it is how we and all life in earth arose and therefore one if not the most important areas of scientific inquiry. Are you suggesting that scientists only study evolution to annoy Christians and other religions?

 

[Wibble]

I' m also studying dhamma. Infact, i couldn't see a more scientific religion than that itself; but trying to explain why one would choose religion over science is hard because each of us feels a different level of completeness.

Completeness? What does that even mean? It certainly has nothing to do with science.

For me there is a big difference between something that changes every so often and finding something you agree with and wont easily change.

To a scientists there is no such division. How would you differentiate and why would you bother?

Again, as a scientist & a buddhist; i can understand why science is highly rated; however i can't find a reason to actually believe in science itself.

If you think that you need to believe in science then you aren't a scientist. Belief is not involved in science at all. Ever.

Just because some religions might have bad habits or rituals; doesn't mean all religions make people bad.

Who ever said that religious people were inherently bad people?

What's funny? Did you type in darwins theory is false?

The documentary i saw; was based on a human like fossil found ages ago where we were thought still to be only monkeys. The fact that we have evolved from monkeys and yet monkeys are still here instead of being one species altogether is one of the biggest problems.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+scientist+darwin+wrong+tree+life&client=ms-android-htc-rev&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAWoVChMI_K-z95TOyAIVRm8UCh1YFgqs#imgrc=_8wbTcR2F0A2tM:

Just an example of many if you spend less time laughing and a more time searching bud.

Being a trained biologists I find the primary literature far more useful than dubious web links.

First of all, and I may have mentioned this before, we did not evolve from monkeys. Humans, monkeys and apes all had a common ancestor but we did not evolve from monkeys. It is not less inaccurate to say monkeys evolved from humans.

The source of most of the buffunory relating to Darwin being wrong relates to a stupidly dramatic headline in New Scientist a few years ago. Of course people who want evolution to be wrong didn't go further than the misleading deadline. What the article said was that the tree of life that Darwin drew is now known to far more complex. However, our better understanding of the relationship between all organisms has demonstrated that Darwin was correct about common descent rather than the opposite.

And human evolution in no way challenges evolutionary theory any more than the evolution of any other animal does.