894 replies to this topic

[dre]

And they'd better have proof too.

Yup need absolute proof for the theory of evolution. But the talking snake thing? Well... someone wrote that shit down thousands of years ago so thats good enough

[Bonam]

Yup need absolute proof for the theory of evolution. But the talking snake thing? Well... someone wrote that shit down thousands of years ago so thats good enough

Haha well said.

[Jonsa]

Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator.

Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time.

Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity.

Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling.

[GostHacked]

I got a question. What is the main reason why people hate the idea of religion. Is it because it leads to a lot of wars and violence?

The reason I don't like it is because it is a form of control and manipulation.

[bloodyminded]

Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator.

Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time.

Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity.

Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling.

I agree. And in fact, periodic resurgences in extreme religiosity notwithstanding, they aren't likely to succeed even by their own standards.

They'd be better to listen to the humanist religious authorities, the Dalai Lama, the Bishop Tutu: people who accept scientific knowledge, who accept the subsequent changes necessary for religion to flourish as a positive in people's lives...and whose authority is derived from a mixture of grand humility and compassion and tolerance.

[betsy]

What about the talking snake part?

What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Say hello to your uncle.

[WIP]

Neither evolution nor the big bang theories preclude a supernatural creator.

During the development of religion, it seems that distinction between natural and supernatural doesn't occur until natural forces are discovered that govern how things happen in the natural world. I agree that there is no conflict to having a supernatural creator, as long as it doesn't step in to the natural world....god in the gaps etc. Most people who are able to harmonize accepting scientific evidence with a personal God, do it by separating the two, like using a mystical or non-objective way of understanding God. After my own long, acrimonious break from traditional religion, I have no desire to incorporate God or divinity in my life, but I'm all for it if others feel they just have some intuition that God is there guiding the Universe.

Big Bang does not deal with what came before it or what caused it because we remain completely ignorant of what could exist outside of space/time.

According to some smart philosophers who've pondered over how God would interact with the physical a lot more than I have, the problem with a supernatural God who is beyond space-time, is how he would be capable of interacting with creatures like us, who are bound by constraints of space and time. How would God even be aware of the passage of time inside his universe?

Evolution does not negate the possibility of a "creator" of terrestrial life. It just negates the anthropomorphic conceit that Humans were made directly by a supernatural entity.

Evolution doesn't posit how living creatures started from organic chemistry, but inserting creation here at the beginning could create the need for future backtracking if and when the processes of abiogenesis are better understood through science.

Yet, instead of supporting our increasing understanding of our universe, our environment and ourselves, many people of faith devote their energies in lamely attempting to "disprove" science on the basis of an unwavering belief in a collection of myths written by and for people who were comparatively profoundly ignorant. That they should unquestioningly embrace such ignorance is a bit baffling.

I mentioned previously.....may have been on the other god thread, that early Christian scientists like Newton, Kepler and Descartes, get the blame for unintentionally starting the fight between science and religion, when they turned their growing understanding of the Cosmos and its physical laws, to looking for scientific proof of God....and ever since then, whenever another domino falls and a mystery is explained by new scientific theories, the god of science retreats further into the gaps. There were many churchmen of the time who objected to scientists proving God because they seen faith as something that doesn't exist without some degree of uncertainty. If the early scientists were successful, they would have eliminated the need to believe in God based on faith rather than empirical evidence.

[dre]

What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Say hello to your uncle.

The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that.

[kimmy]

The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that.

Betsy's uncle was a pile of dirt; her aunt was a piece of bone.

-k

[Jonsa]

The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that.

Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding.

[bloodyminded]

Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding.

Dre was just being humorous. He knows we aren't descended from chimps.

[Jonsa]

According to some smart philosophers who've pondered over how God would interact with the physical a lot more than I have, the problem with a supernatural God who is beyond space-time, is how he would be capable of interacting with creatures like us, who are bound by constraints of space and time. How would God even be aware of the passage of time inside his universe?

An unaswerable question since we cannot conceive of an existance outside of space/time.

Evolution doesn't posit how living creatures started from organic chemistry, but inserting creation here at the beginning could create the need for future backtracking if and when the processes of abiogenesis are better understood through science.

As this thread demonstrates "backtracking" by those of faith is almost impossible, since scientific evidence is not required to support their faith. I'm personally inclined to beleive in abiogenesis. However this also does not negate a "creator". It just created the universe thru an unknown process/mechanism that produced the big bang and thereby "created" all of the ingredients and conditions for life to begin. Kinda like a Cosmic seeding program. Granted it eliminates the human conceit of "in his own image" and all that twaddle, but its still compatible with a creator belief.

[WIP]

An unaswerable question since we cannot conceive of an existance outside of space/time.

I came across something awhile back from physicist and science educator Paul Davies, who ponders questions that most physicists wouldn't bother with. Anyway, he came up with a simple model to demonstrate that, in theory, a supernatural existence outside of space and time would be possible, but such a creature would not be able to just drop in to the physical universe and interact with time-constrained creatures like us. It would either have no awareness of our universe and the goings on in it; or if it did manage to drop through, it would no longer be supernatural.

As this thread demonstrates "backtracking" by those of faith is almost impossible, since scientific evidence is not required to support their faith. I'm personally inclined to beleive in abiogenesis. However this also does not negate a "creator". It just created the universe thru an unknown process/mechanism that produced the big bang and thereby "created" all of the ingredients and conditions for life to begin. Kinda like a Cosmic seeding program. Granted it eliminates the human conceit of "in his own image" and all that twaddle, but its still compatible with a creator belief.

One of the gaps that has been used for ages by creationists is the astronomical odds of creating a DNA molecule from naturally occurring organic chemistry. But, although little money and time goes to research on how life could have been sparked, there is a growing consensus that the highly perishable RNA, which is easier to make, was the origin of self-replicating lifeforms. DNA is so sturdy, that it likely took over the job of gene replication because it could survive the harsh environmental conditions. Long story short, is that during the primordial Earth, there may have been zillions of possible combinations of simple RNA life forms that could only exist for short durations. But when the jump to DNA occurred, whoever was first to start DNA-based gene transfer, would have flourished and diversified. The researchers in abiogenesis today believe that they will likely find multitudes of possible avenues for life, rather than one pathway to what we have today.

Looking at the big picture, creationists aren't wise to plant their flag over this gap any more than the "human eye","bacteria flagella",the "blood-clotting cascade", or any other of a host of gaps that disappear once "irreconcilable complexity" vanishes as soon as rungs are found on the ladder between the starting point and the finished product. Most of the real scientists who are Christians, like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, advise their fellow Christians to refrain from trying to blend science and religion together. Science may not provide a good way to find meaning and decide ethics (I'm not convinced by Sam Harris's latest effort), but it does do a good job of piecing together the facts of what goes on in the natural world. And if the religious really have as much confidence in their faiths as claimed, they shouldn't feel such a need to try to prove them through science.

[segnosaur]

What about the talking snake part?

What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution.

Everyone here noticed you dodged the issue, probably because it would make those believing in biblical creation look rather foolish.

The issue is consistency. If you are using the bible as any sort of guideline for how earth/life was created, then you should either:
A: Accept all parts of the bible (even the silly talking-snake portion)
B: Provide a rational why one part of the bible is valid, but other parts can be ignored

So, what do you think of the whole talking snake thingy?

[CANADIEN]

So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much.

Actually, thanks should come to YOU, for the way you ignore a truth almost as certain as the turth of the existence of God - that the knowledge of His existence comes through faith. As I said beofre, feel free anytime to show the mathematic formula that proves the existence of God.