talking otters WOULD be cool though

6/28/2007 6:53:48 PM

Quote :

"the atomic bomb isn't a bad thing, how it's used determines that the inquisition was just simply a bad thing"

Religion isn't a bad thing, how it's used determines that.

My point isn't to justify religious excess . . . just to point out that it, and science, are only as good as the men who wield them.

6/28/2007 7:14:37 PM

As a Christian I have the following objection to accepting evolution as it is currently understood,

i.) In the OT Genesis we learn that death is the result of sin.
ii.) In the NT tells us that just as by ONE man sin entered the world and death by
sin so shall by one man many shall be made righteous (Romans 5:12 and 19 and elsewhere)

You could strengthen my case that death in this world is due to the sin of Adam, but let us stop here for now.

Consider the story of human evolution. Supposedly we are the end result of billions of years of death and struggle, I mean you cannot take death out of evolution. In fact, it seems to me that
death is an integral element to picking out those features which are the "fittest", without nature selecting those random mutations which are "best" we could never have evolution.

At some point prehumanity became human, but was there just one Adam ? How could this be?
How could there be just one human who sinned and as a result the rest of mankind was doomed, modulo Christ's action ?

No it seems to me more natural that in the evolutionary scenario there should have been a whole community of humans, did they all choose together to sin? What do the Genesis stories and geneologies mean in this context ?

I have no idea myself, in fact this is one of my most serious objections to evolutionary history. I'm curious are there any Christians who take the Bible seriously and have an answer for how you can believe in evolution and simultaneously not bankrupt the whole doctrine of original sin ?


[ DISCLAIMER: I do believe that there are Christians who accept evolution and also sincerely believe in Christ, I just don't see how they can do it logically w/o putting numerous important doctrines in jeopardy. ]

6/28/2007 7:59:48 PM

Quote :

"I just don't see how they can do it logically w/o putting numerous important doctrines in jeopardy."

That is the point I've been making. You can't square Christianity with science because you're making presuppositions about Christian doctrine being true instead of conclusions drawn by the observation of the natural world

6/28/2007 8:26:39 PM

Basically, I'm going to accept a lot of what I'm learning in my biology and zoology classes. You know, God gave us the power and the free will to do this. I also accept the fact that no matter how the earth and the galaxy and the universe came to be, it was because of God. He is the one that did it all.

In my opinion the bottom line is I don't think that God really wants us to be that concerned with the exact way the earth was made, if so, we would know. I think He just wants us to know that He did it.

6/28/2007 9:16:24 PM

Quote :

"You could strengthen my case that death in this world is due to the sin of Adam, but let us stop here for now. Consider the story of human evolution. Supposedly we are the end result of billions of years of death and struggle, I mean you cannot take death out of evolution. In fact, it seems to me that death is an integral element to picking out those features which are the "fittest", without nature selecting those random mutations which are "best" we could never have evolution. At some point prehumanity became human, but was there just one Adam ? How could this be? How could there be just one human who sinned and as a result the rest of mankind was doomed, modulo Christ's action ?"

WTF are you talking about. People die because it is a natural biological process, not because of some made up guy in a book written 2000 years ago. If creationism did exist does this mean that Adam and Eve's children fucked each other in order to create the human population we have today?? Who would have been around back then to record this "history." oh i guess all the other major religions/cultures in the world must have had their "historical documents" destroyed over millenia that is why they do not believe that some guy and chick just POOF appeared and started humanity.

The story of creationism is as almost as stupid as the story of Noah's Ark. There may have been a big regional flood and some herder put his livestock onto a boat. In no way do i believe some big flood covered all the lands on earth and Noah herded everything from the big ass elephants, aggressive lions, to the smallest fucking creepy crawler living 10 ft underground. He must have collected seeds of all known plants too. Lucky Noah though after the floods went away he got to go on a cruise of the world in order to create the distribution of species that we have in the world today. I hope he had warm coat and some good ass tranquilizers when he dumped the polar beer off in the arctic.

a lot of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken literally. you are a math major wtf....

Quote :

"When comes down to Jesus, you can't say "he was a good guy, but not fully God/fully human." If he wasn't who he said he was/is, then Jesus is a hypocrite and a liar."

how so do we know for fact that he went around claiming himself to be a deity back in roman times??

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 10:10 PM. Reason : l]

6/28/2007 10:07:20 PM

^I mean no one around today was around then, but it was written down that during the trial he said he was the son of God. I'm pretty sure that was the only time he actually said it though. All the other names he was given (Christ, Messiah, ect.) were given by other people.

6/29/2007 12:04:31 AM

If god were so powerful he'd tell you the correct answer to this thread

6/29/2007 12:05:36 AM

You sound just like King Herod, and Pilate.

6/29/2007 12:16:15 AM

lol no i dont

6/29/2007 3:14:21 AM

I think the correct title of this tread should be "Religion and science" because almost every major religion disagrees with science. You people just like to point to Christians because, well ummm.........who knows?

6/29/2007 9:25:10 AM

Quote :

"because almost every major religion disagrees with science"

Not necessarily true. Strict christians today only disagree with science because that's the direction fundamentalist ministers want to take because they're losing 1-2% of christians a year in america so they need to hold on to thier followers somehow.

Quote :

"The proportion of the adult population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001"

- 2001 American Religious Identification Survey

Aside from Christianity religions like Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, and even Judaism often side with science alongside thier religious beliefs. Even liberal Christians like the Unitarian Universalists take science and religion as a whole.

It's a very new idea that science and religion are different. Check out this link, it explains it pretty well.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/histo-frame.html

Quote :

"Science and religion have always been at war with one another, right? Isn't that what we've all been taught? Isn't that what the trial of Galileo was all about? In fact this widely held view is a distortion of the historical truth. On the contrary, historians over the past fifty years have revealed that for most of history science and religion have been deeply entwined."

Quote :

"Historian Ronald Numbers, an expert on the relationship between science and religion, points out that for hundreds of years one of the most prevailing models in Western culture was what was known as the "two books" - these being the books of Scripture and the book of Nature. From the Middle Ages through the nineteenth century most people in the Western world believed that both books were the work of God, and so "it was impossible that the two should conflict.""

History shows that only until recently has there been this much debate between the inconsistencies of religion and science.

Quote :

"A key component of this effort is "flood geology". Flood geologists - some of whom are card-carrying Phd's in geology - look at the geological and fossil record and argue that the correct interpretation of the evidence is that the earth is really 6000 years old. According to flood geologists, the massive crevice of the Grand Canyon is evidence that there was a vast flood just as the Bible depicts in the story of Noah."

Anyone else find this mildly hilarious?

Quote :

"The story of creationism is as almost as stupid as the story of Noah's Ark."

Pretty much.

Quote :

"a lot of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken literally."

Well put, and many christians need to start realizing this. I mean if EVERYTHING was taken literally in the bible, we'd still have slaves, women couldn't speak in church or be teachers, and men would be castrating themselves to be the "holiest to God". -Isaiah 56:3-5 or Matthew 19:12

One of my favorite bible quotes:

Quote :

"“Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them” (Ezekiel 16:17). "

(women masturbating with dildos of gold!!!)

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 10:09:37 AM

HUR, mathman wasn't trying to convince people that those events occurred. He was posing a question to people who already believe in those things. No sense in attacking him.

6/29/2007 11:58:19 AM

^I agree. I still believe that there's not a single person who takes the bible 100% literally. Sure you can gain morals, and ideas from the bible, but when you say you take the bible 100% literally you're pretty much an idiot (not saying anyone here said that). That's just logic because the stories in the bible are so full of inconsistencies and ideas that any society anywhere today wouldn't allow. Everyone has to remember when the bible was written, and who wrote it. It was based around the culture and living standards of that time, and alot of the bible doesn't apply anymore because we don't live that way anymore.

6/29/2007 12:04:37 PM

^ you're giving a lot of people way too much credit.

you can easily find people, including a couple on here, who will say that the bible is the only 100% self-consistent, reliable, non contradictory, and infallible book ever written.

6/29/2007 12:08:02 PM

^really? That's only because they haven't read all the books and understand who wrote it. If someone believes the bible is 100% literal then they must still believe in slaves, pologomy, women having no rights, rape, murder, and a ton of other things the bible says is okay. They only teach the nice rated stuff in sunday school. If you take an in-depth look at the bible it's full of violence, sex, and horrible things people today would consider very wrong.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 12:16:33 PM

Quote :

"HUR WTF are you talking about. People die because it is a natural biological process, not because of some made up guy in a book written 2000 years ago. If creationism did exist does this mean that Adam and Eve's children fucked each other in order to create the human population we have today?? Who would have been around back then to record this "history." oh i guess all the other major religions/cultures in the world must have had their "historical documents" destroyed over millenia that is why they do not believe that some guy and chick just POOF appeared and started humanity. The story of creationism is as almost as stupid as the story of Noah's Ark. There may have been a big regional flood and some herder put his livestock onto a boat. In no way do i believe some big flood covered all the lands on earth and Noah herded everything from the big ass elephants, aggressive lions, to the smallest fucking creepy crawler living 10 ft underground. He must have collected seeds of all known plants too. Lucky Noah though after the floods went away he got to go on a cruise of the world in order to create the distribution of species that we have in the world today. I hope he had warm coat and some good ass tranquilizers when he dumped the polar beer off in the arctic. "

I don't have much time, so I'll keep it short. I get it, you think the Bible is just a stupid story book for fools and imbeciles. My post was aimed towards those who profess to take it seriously yet simultaneously hold evolution in high regard. Sorry if you missed that.

Quote :

"HUR a lot of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken literally. you are a math major wtf...."

sure, but there is really not an indication that the creation or flood stories are poetic, the primary motivator for such view is a fear that "science" contradicts those accounts. And frankly sir, I have forgotten more physics than you'll ever know, but that's beside the point here.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN That is the point I've been making. You can't square Christianity with science because you're making presuppositions about Christian doctrine being true instead of conclusions drawn by the observation of the natural world"

depends on what you mean by "science". I agree with the parts of science which are easily tested checked and are largely uncontroversial. I've no problems with genetics, GR, SR, QM, QFT, Stat. Mech. etc... these are all easily checked and experiments may be performed to question the truth of their claims. Historical evolution (the kind that is postulated from fossils), geology, and stellar evolution are much more subjective. I feel no need to treat science as some sort of monolithic whole which is either rejected or accepted. I view different parts as having varying credibilities.

I take the view of a sceptic as the correct view. We were not there in the beginning so we cannot say with certainty what the Genesis account really means. Is it a literal account? Perhaps, but not without serious interpretation. I trust God so I believe it is true, it doesn't really matter much too me how He did it, what I think is more clear is that He did. That said, I think creationist
cosmology is wildly unexplored territory and one could probably to groundbreaking work there. This for me would just be for fun, I don't think that having a "natural" explanation for a phenomenon necessitates God to a position of irrelevance. For example, you can explain my actions on some given day in terms of physics but I still did them. I think God works through physics, some of which we know at the present time, most of which we are incapable of comprehending.

I reject the idea that all of nature is understandable by human logic. This is a tempting postulate, but a wrong explanation is not better than no explanation despite the dictates of human pride. This rejection is not a purely Biblical dictate, at least as it applies to physics, the Bible is largely silent on what science may at some future date discover.

I'm going to stop here before my daughter turns off the computer again.

6/29/2007 12:19:39 PM

Quote :

"I agree with the parts of science which are easily tested checked and are largely uncontroversial. I've no problems with genetics, GR, SR, QM, QFT, Stat. Mech. etc... these are all easily checked and experiments may be performed to question the truth of their claims. Historical evolution (the kind that is postulated from fossils), geology, and stellar evolution are much more subjective"

Geology and astrophysics are not subjective to the point that the Earth can be 6000 years old. If you hold even a skeptics view, you'd have to reject a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

And these things are largely uncontroversial, except among a mostly uneducated, but loud, right-wing fringe that reject science on the basis of the bible, not on skepticism.

6/29/2007 12:31:30 PM

^^^^
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband" (Colossians 3:18-19; see 1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5:22).

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:7-8).

sell your daughter, if she doesn't behave, kill her.

"And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28).
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalms 111:10; Proverbs 9:10).

Wisdom is fearing the lord.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Women shouldn't speak in church.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

Women shouldn't teach either.

"Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:5-6).

Widowed women should live in misery.

“Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses” (Ezekiel 23:19-20).

Egyptians have big dicks.

“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man...Then said I, Ah, Lord God, behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself...Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith” (Ezekiel 4:12-15).

Cakes with human dung!!

“And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness” (Jeremiah 19:9).
“And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and the straitness” (Deuteronomy 28:57).
“Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm” (Isaiah 9:19-20).
“Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him” (Numbers 19:13).”

Cannibalism is a sin, unless you eat: Your children, infants, friends and self when God destroys everything else so these are all that are left to eat

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:17).
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy firend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods…thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).
“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:21-22).

Murdering your own child is a sin, unless your child: Spoke to you with curse words. Encouraged you to join a faith other than Christianity. Is killed in the name of Jesus.

In conclusion. The basic point of all these quotes is that NO ONE can take the bible literally. The bible is full of horrible things, and stuff that MUST BE TAKEN as a story with a moral. So don't claim there's people who take the bible literally because i could sit here and quote the bible for a whole day proving that no, it's hard to find someone who takes all this literally.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 12:37:48 PM

Quote :

"Aside from Christianity religions like Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, and even Judaism often side with science alongside thier religious beliefs"

haha

6/29/2007 12:48:02 PM

^ Oh you agree? Nice?

"The heavens and the earth were ordered rightly, and were made subservient to man, including the sun, the moon, the stars, and day and night. Every heavenly body moves in an orbit assigned to it by God and never digresses, making the universe an orderly cosmos whose life and existence, diminution and expansion, are totally determined by the Creator." [Qur'an 30:22]

If you actually read the Qur'an then you'll see it's full of scientific references and ideas. Muslims were some of the best map makers and explorers. Not to mention some of the best scientists and Mathmaticians.

Muslims have the oldest universities in the world. If you look at Al-Zaytunah in Tunis, or Al-Azhar in Cairo, you relize they date back 1000+ years and are the oldest existing universisites in the world. They were also models for the first European universities. They also taught ALOT of science at these places.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 1:01:41 PM

This thread is so motherfucking stupid it makes me want to die.

I think I say that every time this thread is made.

6/29/2007 1:24:09 PM

^Yeah it's kinda too hard to discuss this issue on tww. There's too many people just trying to piss other people off.

6/29/2007 1:27:21 PM

You're just as irritating as the people you're making fun of.

6/29/2007 1:35:01 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "because almost every major religion disagrees with science" Not necessarily true. Strict christians today only disagree with science because that's the direction fundamentalist ministers want to take because they're losing 1-2% of christians a year in america so they need to hold on to thier followers somehow."

this is quite possibly the worst arguement I have ever heard.

6/29/2007 1:39:39 PM

^^ You're right, me posting all those quotes and trying to prove that "no one takes the bible literally" does tag me as irritating, but sometimes i feel like i have to put in my 2 cents worth. Although all i did was refute the claim that people actually take the bible 100% literally in this day in age, and it's hard to argue that people do considering what the bible actually says in relation to moral/culture values and societal norms for the time it was written.

^I only said that after talking to southern baptist ministers, and some catholic priests during a highschool project. In thier defense science is taking over religion, and it needs to be stopped. By putting religion over science, the church can get a hold back. But it is true, statistically christians in the US have decreased in numbers in the last few decades. (Obviously not numbers but a ratio of the people who tag themselves as "Christian" in the us.)

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 1:40:48 PM

what does that have to do with most major religions disagreeing with science?

6/29/2007 1:56:45 PM

I was stating that most religions and even Christianity agreed with science (go to that pbs link) at some point in time. THEN i made the point that conservative christians in the US today disagree with science not for biblical or historical reasons, but subconsciously because that's what the church wants them to do, or they'll lose all thier members. Conservative christianity in the US and science don't always mesh, and this is true, but not for the reason most people believe.

You'd be amazed at how many conservative christian ministers will admit to discrediting science because they'll lose members otherwise.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 2:00:04 PM

so you are saying Christians, Muslims, and Hindus at some point in time believed in evolution and the big bang THEORY.

6/29/2007 2:24:20 PM

^Not exactly. I'm saying in the past science and history didn't always have such a seperation as it does now in conservative US life. I mean most scientists were of some religion, and this very fact tells us that they must have been more intertwined then we know. In this day in age it's easy to be a "scientist" or a "minister", but way back when most scientists were also followers of a faith, or a minister. All i'm saying is that according to the research i've done, most religions took science as fact along with whatever holy book they used. The trend has just changed over the past few centuries.

6/29/2007 2:35:11 PM

Quote :

"The trend has just changed over the past few centuries."

probably because only in the past few centuries has it been possible for science to begin to explain the big questions, which were only "explainable" by religion, mysticism, and fairytales before then. That is, the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, all the way through the scientists in the Middle Ages had no way of even beginning to explain the origins of the universe, so they did the next best thing - make up stories that made people happy and comfortable. Same with how Humans came to be. They had no means or framework to collect data from over time and throughout the world to begin to connect the dots of how all the species of the world are related.

Only in the past 150 years have there been the means to develop theories of the origin of species, and only in the past 50 has there been means, via DNA sequencing and testing, to prove these theories.
Similarly, only in the past 100 years has technology been developed to look into the depths of the universe to see that it is at least 14 billion years old and it's expanding at a quickening pace. Without modern telescopes and equipment, these observations and conclusions are simply impossible. So religion has always been there to fill that gap. As gaps are increasingly able to be filled by legitimate science, then religion should give way.

6/29/2007 2:51:16 PM

^exactly, you put my thoughts into words. Although i would give a little more credit to scientists over the ages. Some of our very basic science dates way back before christianity. Even the ancient Egyptians had some idea of what was going on. Obviously no one had the means to explain a lot of what was happening, but there are truths in ancient astronomy/biology in terms of how things worked.

For example you can look into Indian Vedas and see how much they knew. It'll blow your mind.

Good article:

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/a3.pdf

I mean that article is rediculous, those Indians had it down what was going on. Rigveda explains cosmic order and all that shit.

"There are astronomical references in the Vedas which recall events in the third or fourth millenniunm B.C.E. and earlier"!!!

The hindus were just alot of scientists. I mean 'veda' alone means knowledge. We are only starting to realize that many vedic scriptures were actually about physics, logic and cognition.

http://www.crystalinks.com/indiascience.html

"Physics - Concepts of atom and theory of relativity were explicitly stated by an Indian Philosopher around 600 BC."

"Astronomy - Rig Veda (2000 BC) refers to astronomy."

"Mathematics - Vedic literature is replete with concepts of zero, the techniques of algebra and algorithm, square root and cube root. Arguably, the origins of Calculus lie in India 300 years before Leibnitz and Newton."

Anyway, just saying that there were thinkers who took science AND religion as a whole. Hinduism being a perfect example.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 3:00:25 PM

yeah, that's true. People have shown incredible ingenuity for thousands of years in explaining scientific questions and solving technical problems. I mean, I still can't even imagine how the Egyptians built 150m tall pyramids with intricate tunnels or how the Romans built 100 mile long aqueducts with perfect grading, with no GPS, aerial photography, altimeters, etc. Shit, I don't even know how NASA was able to design and build a rocket and moon lander barely 40 years ago with basically no computers!
but even given all that, the breakthroughs we've seen, a lot of which center around being able to observe really small things (DNA, molecules) and really large, distant things (100's of billions of galaxies billions of light years away) just in the past 100 years open up the door to questions that were probably once thought unanswerable.

6/29/2007 3:15:16 PM

Yeah Roman aqueducts are fucking rediculous. I guess only in the last 100 or 200 years have we been able to create ideas that directly dispute a conservative religious standpoint. Or are able to provide solid evidence that directly disputes that standpoint.

6/29/2007 3:21:32 PM

WHAT IF GOD CREATED THE BIG BANG

WHAT THEN

6/29/2007 3:46:52 PM

This is the most fucked up thread I have seen...

Quote :

"Anyway, just saying that there were thinkers who took science AND religion as a whole. Hinduism being a perfect example"

Science and Religion coexisted because they DIDN'T contradict each other! Drrrr....

Hell they didn't really even coexist since "Science" wasn't really science, it was more of philosophy/mysticism/alchemy/whatever.

Molecular biology shows us life and its creation. Modern Astronomy puts the Earth in perspective. This is why there is a disconnect.


and uh most Islamic scholars are just as hardcore against evolution, big bang, etc theory as Fundy Christians

Quote :

" If you actually read the Qur'an then you'll see it's full of scientific references and ideas. Muslims were some of the best map makers and explorers. Not to mention some of the best scientists and Mathmaticians. Muslims have the oldest universities in the world. If you look at Al-Zaytunah in Tunis, or Al-Azhar in Cairo, you relize they date back 1000+ years and are the oldest existing universisites in the world. They were also models for the first European universities. They also taught ALOT of science at these places."

To bad it isn't like that now. Because I know I am going to apply to Tehran University for my PhD in Evolutionary Biology

6/29/2007 3:52:12 PM

The Big Bang created the Universe and life on Earth, therefore Man

God created the Big Bang

Man created God

Ipso facto

Man created himself?

















[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2007 3:52:25 PM

^^

Quote :

""Science" wasn't really science, it was more of philosophy/mysticism/alchemy/whatever"

Please explain, if you read all that shit i posted you'll see how that statement is very wrong. Wait you're getting your PD in evolutionary biology?

^good point. who knows.

6/29/2007 3:58:29 PM

You should read the link you post...

Quote :

"The root to the concept of atom in ancient India is derived from the classification of material world in five basic elements by ancient Indian philosophers. These five ³elements² and such a classification existed since the Vedic times, around 3000 BC before. These five elements were the earth (prithvi), fire (agni), air (vayu), water (jaal) and ether or space (aksha). These elements were also associated with human sensory perceptions: earth with smell, air with feeling, fire with vision, water with taste and ether/space with sound. Later on, Buddhist philosophers replaced ether/space with life, joy and sorrow. ... Kanada, a 6th century, Indian philosopher was the first person who went deep systematically in such theorization. Another Indian, philosopher Pakudha Katyayana, who was a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas about the atomic constitution of the material world. All these were based on logic and philosophy and lacked any empirical basis for want of commensurate technology. Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in an embryonic form in the Indian philosophical concept of 'sapekshavad', the literal translation of this Sanskrit word is theory of relativity."

That isn't science, it's religion/philosophy.

While i'm sure philosophers like to call themselves scientists, they aren't.

Science is the understanding of the natural universe. Religion used to try and explain this natural world but has been trumped by science. (ALL religions are guilty of this).

Science, as we know it, didn't really begin until the Enlightenment. Which, oddly enough, corresponds to the beginning of the decline of religion in the West.

6/29/2007 4:09:19 PM

Quote :

"Science, as we know it, didn't really begin until the Enlightenment."

Alright i'll take your word for it. I just thought there were scientific discoveries not classified as religion/philosophy before the enlightenment. So you'd agree to say none of what the Romans did in regard to civil/mechanical engineering, or what Indians did in terms of Mathmatics was true science? But just a derivative of religion?

6/29/2007 4:14:00 PM

science != engineering

6/29/2007 4:15:25 PM

anything that is taken literally as an absolute truth cannot mix with science. any sort of strict constructionism is non-scientific. science by definition is the "least worst guess". science = 'the limit as x approaches the truth'.

6/29/2007 4:20:15 PM

^Alright. But what about early mathmatics? as science? There was defin mathmatical discoveries before the enlightenment that could be considered science....correct?

6/29/2007 4:21:45 PM

^^^

i don't think that's an appropriate way to put it

i would say that science and engineering and rational thought = not being a dummy

6/29/2007 4:30:32 PM

^well he said that because our discussion was in regard to when modern "science" came about. Engineering was around for much longer, whereas the science he's talking about only came out recently (last 400-500 years).

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 4:31:40 PM

yes, but since the enlightenment period in western civilisation, it has been widely accepted that science is a falliable discipline. that way of thinking is highly unlikely to reverse.

6/29/2007 4:31:47 PM

^Exactly. I think we were agreeing, i just needed to read up on the differences between modern science and ancient philosophy/science/engineering. There's defin a difference.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 4:33:07 PM

there's a little bit of difference between applied applications and pure theoretical science

the foundational underpinnings of science and the processes that go into engineering concepts have been on a serious exponential rise since Hooke and Newton

but again, I could really care less

a good engineer will have much the same mindset of a good scientist

he will be just more inclined with "making something" than writing a paper about it

and both of them will find the religious philosopher hard to suffer

6/29/2007 4:36:57 PM

Quote :

"it, and science, are only as good as the men who wield them"

i see your point, but by nature science is simply seeking truth. religion is creating your own truth, which imo, does damage by itself, regardless of the nature of the person wielding it.

6/29/2007 5:14:41 PM

Quote :

"As a Christian I have the following objection to accepting evolution as it is currently understood, i.) In the OT Genesis we learn that death is the result of sin. ii.) In the NT tells us that just as by ONE man sin entered the world and death by sin so shall by one man many shall be made righteous (Romans 5:12 and 19 and elsewhere) You could strengthen my case that death in this world is due to the sin of Adam, but let us stop here for now. "

fairy tale

Quote :

"Consider the story of human evolution. Supposedly we are the end result of billions of years of death and struggle, I mean you cannot take death out of evolution. In fact, it seems to me that death is an integral element to picking out those features which are the "fittest", without nature selecting those random mutations which are "best" we could never have evolution. "

one of the funny things i've always found with people who don't believe in evolution is that they think all of "this" happened in one cycle. "oh so we just happened to appear after a big bang, we just happened to appear on this planet" etc. what's to say that this is the first "cycle" of the universe, or that this was the first big bang. this could have been going on for zillions of years which makes sense in evolution terms. As for the "cannot take death out of evolution" point, what are you talking about?

Quote :

"In my opinion the bottom line is I don't think that God really wants us to be that concerned with the exact way the earth was made, if so, we would know. I think He just wants us to know that He did it."

pretty flawed reasoning there, if god didn't want us to know then he wouldn't give us brains, or at the least he would have kept the reasoning and curious sections out. don't forget, supposedly in the bible it says they ate from the tree. well if god hadn't given them curiosity then wouldn't have been a problem. and if he wanted us to know he did it, then he could have made it apparent instead of dictating through supposed prophets and then letting empires pick and choose what stays in the bible and what doesn't

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 5:22 PM. Reason : jank]

6/29/2007 5:18:20 PM