Creation vs. Evolution

[Kim]

...but we have good reason to trust.

I'd have thought it's closer to, you trust you have good reason to trust. What other foundation can you base your "good reason" on, that doesn't rely on trust?

For the record, I'm not knocking anything here.....

Just trying to be extremely specific.

I like my truth hard and shiny.

 

[MikeFerrara]

If there is ONE thing that has slowed the progression of science it is religion! If it werent for religieus dogma (dogma = turn off the brain and do not think for oneself), science would be 500+ years ahead of where we are now. Give me a break, religieus dogma has done nothing but fuel wars and oppose critical thinking and progression. Display the best we are capable off? What a joke, more people have been murdered in the name of god than for any other reason.

People wage wars and murder other people. Probably the majority of people throughout history have been participants in one religion or another. Even today, I think the majority of people identify themselves as being of one religion or another. They justify their acts in any way that seems convenient at the time. I think anyone who is at all skilled in critical thinking could see this.

I'm not sure any of that really establishes religion as "the cause". As I look at history, the desire for wealth and power seem to be the real driving forces. Religious folks seem to want wealth and power the same as the next guy.

Personally, I tend to think that a major factor is the fact that man continually turns from God and rebels...that includes the "religious". Unfortunately, even "religious" people tend to have all the same failings as other people.

Speaking of how many people have been murdered "in the name of God", I suppose it even depends on your definition of murder. Surely abortion will help the non-religios catch up IF they were ever behind in the first place...or maybe you just consider it scientific advancement?


Speaking of critical thinking would you care to substantiate your contention that science would be 500 years ahead if it weren't for religion?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'd have thought it's closer to, you trust you have good reason to trust. What other foundation can you base your "good reason" on, that doesn't rely on trust?

For the record, I'm not knocking anything here.....

Just trying to be extremely specific.

I like my truth hard and shiny.

God has demonstrated that He is and that He keeps His word...though clearly one who doesn't believe in God might miss that. It's a lot easier to do a trust-me dive with someone if you know them.

 

[Kim]

It's a lot easier to do a trust-me dive with someone if you know them.

And very dangerous if you only think you do.....

 

[MikeFerrara]

But how did you make that determination? To trust christianity...

You have a whole buffet of "vendors"(religions, political and philosophical "ways of life") offering "trust me dives", how did you come to choose christianity?

Since all these offer the same terms ie "in the long run we are all dead" (and then you´ll see)...what made christianity appealing to you?

I think the best answer I can give here is to say that I didn't choose it.

 

[Rhone Man]

I am a pretty committed Christian, but I don't have any serious doubts as to the theory of evolution being correct. There is an awful lot of scientific evidence that backs it up. But nothing in that contradicts either the existence or the hand of God. I am perfectly comfortable with the generally held scientific belief that the world is about 4 billion years old and the universe is about 7 billion years old.

I accept that there is a huge amount we don't know about evolution theory (in particular the "creeps" versus "jerks" dichotomy, and the fact that no one seems to be able to explain how eyesight evolves), but that is not surprising given we only have 0.01% of the fossil record available to study.

I do get slightly grumpy when Biblical literalists give the rest of Christians a bad name. The bibles we read today have been translated multiple times and are themselves collected from fragments of much older texts (esp. the old testament, but even the new testament the oldest original documents of the Gospels date from 50 years after the death of Jesus). As Dan Brown famously said in The Da Vinci Code, the Bible "did not arrive on a fax machine from God". It is still the best source we have to determine the word of God, but I wouldn't look there for scientific research on the start of the universe.

 

[MikeFerrara]

And very dangerous if you only think you do.....

Fortunately, my beliefs have never dictated that I do anything more dangerous than take up an unpopular position. Scubaboard can't hurt me. LOL

 

[BarryNL]

If there is ONE thing that has slowed the progression of science it is religion! If it werent for religieus dogma (dogma = turn off the brain and do not think for oneself), science would be 500+ years ahead of where we are now. Give me a break, religieus dogma has done nothing but fuel wars and oppose critical thinking and progression. Display the best we are capable off? What a joke, more people have been murdered in the name of god than for any other reason.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to need religion in order to kill each other. Most wars are ultimately about resources anyway. In the absence of religion some other fiction can always be found (Weapons of Mass Destruction springs to mind).

Agree about the holding back of scientific progress though. Even today the various churches seems to be doing their utmost to prevent scientists playing with DNA molecules. In 200 years the whole anti-genetic research issue will just be alongside the church insisting the Earth was the centre of the universe.

 

[sheck33]

People wage wars and murder other people. Probably the majority of people throughout history have been participants in one religion or another. Even today, I think the majority of people identify themselves as being of one religion or another. They justify their acts in any way that seems convenient at the time. I think anyone who is at all skilled in critical thinking could see this.

I'm not sure any of that really establishes religion as "the cause". As I look at history, the desire for wealth and power seem to be the real driving forces. Religious folks seem to want wealth and power the same as the next guy.

Personally, I tend to think that a major factor is the fact that man continually turns from God and rebels...that includes the "religious". Unfortunately, even "religious" people tend to have all the same failings as other people.

Speaking of how many people have been murdered "in the name of God", I suppose it even depends on your definition of murder. Surely abortion will help the non-religios catch up IF they were ever behind in the first place...or maybe you just consider it scientific advancement?

Speaking of critical thinking would you care to substantiate your contention that science would be 500 years ahead if it weren't for religion?

Abortion: my personal opinion: abortion of a child that is capable of being born alive could be considered murder. Abortion in any of the stages before this point is reached is NOT murder as far as I am concerned. A fertilized egg for example is not a child/person, what it could be 6 months down the road is irellevant. Yes I am pro choice.

The Church hindering scientific advancement: how about the church's persecution of great scientists like Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo: the idiots in Rome censored his scientific work for nearly 200 years, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Darwin and the list goes on. A good present day example is stemcell research. Religieus dogma is the exact opposite of the scientific method, it is baffeling but there are still in this day and age people that actually believe the world is 6000 years old and we are somehow the result of some divine creation. The ignorance and arrogance of these people is beyond understanding. I'll go even further, I think science would have been ahead by more than 500 years if it hadnt been for the church.

Not let me get one thing straight, if someone chooses to believe this superstitious nonsense I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when these people want this nonsense taught in science class and I do have a problem when these people start forcing their beliefs on everyone else. And I do have a problem when they expect people to discard or distort scientific fact in order to make their point of view compatible with reality.

Christians claim jezus rose from the dead. People claim prayer helps with <fill in the blank>. If I claim I saw a pink invisible elephant everybody will say I am crazy, why?
Considering that each of these claims are equally ludicrous.

If the bible is the word of god than he did a pretty lousy job huh. Considering that no two religieus groups can even agree on what it means.

 

[sheck33]

I am a pretty committed Christian, but I don't have any serious doubts as to the theory of evolution being correct. There is an awful lot of scientific evidence that backs it up. But nothing in that contradicts either the existence or the hand of God. I am perfectly comfortable with the generally held scientific belief that the world is about 4 billion years old and the universe is about 7 billion years old.

I accept that there is a huge amount we don't know about evolution theory (in particular the "creeps" versus "jerks" dichotomy, and the fact that no one seems to be able to explain how eyesight evolves), but that is not surprising given we only have 0.01% of the fossil record available to study.

I do get slightly grumpy when Biblical literalists give the rest of Christians a bad name. The bibles we read today have been translated multiple times and are themselves collected from fragments of much older texts (esp. the old testament, but even the new testament the oldest original documents of the Gospels date from 50 years after the death of Jesus). As Dan Brown famously said in The Da Vinci Code, the Bible "did not arrive on a fax machine from God". It is still the best source we have to determine the word of God, but I wouldn't look there for scientific research on the start of the universe.

Why the empasis on the development of the eye? Creationists always use this argument 'how could an eye evolve' 'what good is half an eye', of course these arguments show that creationists dont have a clue how evolution works to begin with. In Nature having 50% of the eyesight of a fully evolved eye is still better than having no eyesight at all. Eye sight evolved, the fact that we do not yet know the exact details of exactly how it evolved does not mean that it didnt evolve.
Complexity does NOT require a designer in the sense christians use the word.

You say the oldest documents of the gospels date from 50 years after jezus died. Isnt it fascinating how jezus supposedly did all these marvelous things yet people dont bother to write about until 50 years after all this is claimed to have happened? I'd expect that kinda stuff to be 'all over the news' as it happend so to speak. Not to mention how distorted a story becomes 50 years after the fact.