Evolution or creation? (page 12)

Crazy151drinker

Why in the Hell am I on 'ignore'??? WTF did I do? I agree with you and you put me on ignore? Well then I have 2 words for you.........

gumby

Pom,

gumby, I believe in both God and the Bible...

Thanks for replying

How do explain ..."deadly Viruses" Who put them here? How did they become deadly if they were not in the first place(if you believe they were not)

What could be their purpose? Would god create a flesh eating Virus? This is an honest question.....please respond

expatbrit

There should be no such thing as "faith" where science is concerned.

Science must always explain the unknown in terms of the known. Thus it is built on fact and evidence. Scientific "theories" and explanations are built upon existing natural processes and physical evidence, since these are the only ones we have knowledge of. As knowledge increases, so scientific explanations are updated or discarded. (This is different to the religious doctrine of "the light getting brighter", since religion is not based upon verifiable evidence and experimentally gathered data).

Religion, on the other hand, tries to explain the unknown using the even more unknown: the supernatural and the spiritual and so forth. The Bible and other religious books are examples of this. In doing so, religion commits the basic logical fallacy known as ignotum per ignotius (the unknown by means of the more unknown). When scientific knowledge increases, religionists demand that it conform to their desired supernatural explanations. Instead of basing conclusions on evidence, they first decide what they want the conclusion to be, and demand that the evidence fit it.

This is a basic conflict between religion and science. It is why they are incompatible; why religious influence declines as scientific knowledge increases, and vice versa.

Expatbrit

LucidSky

Pom: When I asked "Pom, do you believe that God could create through evolutionary processes if He so decided?," you said "yes".

I would agree. Do you also think that the creation of new species constitutes evolution? If so, then couldn't God be using the process of evolution to create new species? How much of a stretch would it be to continue that path into forms of greater and greater diversity?

Thanks.
LS

gumby

why religious influence declines as scientific knowledge

Benny Henn is living proof there is a God and the Bible is true.......and his numbers are growing

Whoops...wrong thread

JanH

Jim,

Who wrote about all this evolution stuff and passed it along! Seriously!

Life itself wrote it down. The history of evolution is indeed written inside every one of us, and all other living things, in billions of copies.

Since Darwin didn't have the faintest clue about genes and DNA, their discovery was a remarkable and independent confirmation of evolution.

In fact, those who discovered the DNA worked on the assumption that evolution, or common descent, was a fact. They had already demonstrated what DNA would look like, based on the fact of evolution, and they were proved right when they finally discovered how it worked. There simply is no reason for all living things having the same code if common descent wasn't true. Evolution at that time didn't really need more evidence, but sure got it.

Today, nobody can expect to be taken seriously when they talk about science if they don't accept that all living things share a common ancestor. It is the cornerstone of the whole science of biology.

- Jan

Blogging at Secular Blasphemy

Edited by - JanH on 11 October 2002 18:4:54

rem

Jim,

So you are saying that we would have no knowledge of the Roman empire if nobody ever wrote anything down and passed it along? Interesting point of view. What about artifacts? Even if there are no written documents we can still learn a lot by artifacts left behind. That's exactly what fossils are.

And to counter your argument about science all just being about 'Fancy high sounding theories': These 'Fancy high sounding theories', as you call them, produce results. Men landed on the moon because of them. Probes are shot into space because of them. Many lives have been saved through medicine because of them. We understand conservation better because of them. We are posting on the Internet because of them.

So, you see, they are much more than just 'Fancy high sounding theories'. Show some respect for the scientific method. It works. Had Solomon known about the scientific method, he would have written praise of it.

rem

Valis

Life itself wrote it down.

Greetings JanH...I hope Bergen is treating you well. Just going to add that the history of evolution started way before homonids and their holy books. The fossil record is always a fun read as well.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

D wiltshire

A person can believe in evolution, and the Bible.

Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you don't believe in God.

Read this link it shows how Genesis the first two chapters is actually in harmony with an evolutionary process.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html

Edited by - D wiltshire on 12 October 2002 0:59:46

rem

Jim,

I do believe that life comes from a common life giver not ancestor!

That is fine. Anyone can believe what they want. You can believe in invisible pink unicorns for all I care. Only when people claim that they have evidence for their irrational beliefs is when they will be taken to task by rational folk like myself. As long as you recognize that your belief is based on faith, then I have no problem with that.

It is just a foreign concept to me because with only faith there is no way to discriminate between belief systems. That is, there is no way to say that your system of belief is more correct than, say, the Hindu, Islamic, or Mormon faith. They are all faith-based and lack evidence... and the same is true for all of their various creation myths.

rem

Edited by - rem on 12 October 2002 16:11:8

Evolution or creation?

Share this