Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#101
#101
ridethelightening said:
Yes, but I'm deranged :crazy: You have to love a thread that wants to discuss something but has already established the opposition as crazy. Open minded approach, I'm sure?

Theology does stand or fall on evolution since God created MAN not Stevie the ape. Can you show me an example of a species evolving into another species in the "scientific" era?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Sensationalism! If you want people to buy into a new thread, say something that will piss them off! :)

Anyway, that is just a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Speciation doesn't work that way. It also shows a misunderstanding regarding the scientific enterprise - observation doesn't have to be direct. Half the things you take for granted haven't been seen in the way you seem to demand evolution having had been witnessed.
 
#102
#102
Why must so many people (from both sides of the debate) think science and religion must be at odds and perpetually contradicting each other?
 
#103
#103
BigPapaVol said:
You're clearly more gifted with the language than I. I guess we'll have to just call it a day since we can't seem to communicate and you're the only one that knows anything in this thread.
Just look at you, all scientific and linguistic. Intimidating is the word I'd use, but it's probably wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Kusha is back in the states!
 
#104
#104
KB5252 said:
Why must so many people (from both sides of the debate) think science and religion must be at odds and perpetually contradicting each other?
Click to expand...

you clearly don't understand how it works. The two have to be mutually exclusive.
 
#105
#105
turambar85 said:
Sensationalism! If you want people to buy into a new thread, say something that will piss them off! :)

Anyway, that is just a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Speciation doesn't work that way. It also shows a misunderstanding regarding the scientific enterprise - observation doesn't have to be direct. Half the things you take for granted haven't been seen in the way you seem to demand evolution having had been witnessed.
Click to expand...

Ehhhh???

My feeble mind doesn't compute. So things don't evolve into other things?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#107
#107
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.

In the end, even scientific theory and the interpretation of scientific data requires faith in current theories that may be proven wrong tomorrow. Hell,most of us are just trying to make it through the day the best way we know how.
 
#108
#108
Lexvol said:
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.

In the end, even scientific theory and the interpretation of scientific data requires faith in current theories that may be proven wrong tomorrow. Hell,most of us are just trying to make it through the day the best way we know how.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same camp, except no MDiv :good!:
 
#109
#109
ridethelightening said:
Ehhhh???

My feeble mind doesn't compute. So things don't evolve into other things?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Speciation doesn't happen over night. Speciation is the result of a division in population, and then the subsequent collection of distinguishing mutations. Most importantly, the species concept is barely useful and largely fuzzy.
 
#110
#110
Lexvol said:
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.

In the end, even scientific theory and the interpretation of scientific data requires faith in current theories that may be proven wrong tomorrow. Hell,most of us are just trying to make it through the day the best way we know how.
Click to expand...

No, science does not demand faith. Faith doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. If a Christian said "you know, I have faith in Christ...but I am constantly looking for alternative evidence, am constantly testing the god hypothesis, and would change positions if better evidence came about" you would not say that they have faith. You would say, as you should, that they believe a position on the evidence, and tentatively hold it until evidence shifts.
 
#111
#111
Lexvol said:
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.

In the end, even scientific theory and the interpretation of scientific data requires faith in current theories that may be proven wrong tomorrow. Hell,most of us are just trying to make it through the day the best way we know how.
Click to expand...

This is about where I stand as well.
 
#112
#112
turambar85 said:
No, science does not demand faith. Faith doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. If a Christian said "you know, I have faith in Christ...but I am constantly looking for alternative evidence, am constantly testing the god hypothesis, and would change positions if better evidence came about" you would not say that they have faith. You would say, as you should, that they believe a position on the evidence, and tentatively hold it until evidence shifts.
Click to expand...

No need to get into a parsing battle here. I did not have sex with that creation scientist....

If you would like to substitute "belief based on best evidence" that is fine with me. Faith doesn't have to mean "blind faith". Far be it from me to question unexplainable personal experiences others may have had.
 
#113
#113
Lexvol said:
No need to get into a parsing battle here. I did not have sex with that creation scientist....

If you would like to substitute "belief based on best evidence" that is fine with me. Faith doesn't have to mean "blind faith". Far be it from me to question unexplainable personal experiences others may have had.
Click to expand...

That isn't just a linguistic battle - something does hang on its being understood. You say that science is faith, which somehow blurs the lines between science and non-science, and between the scientist and the theologian. This isn't proper, though. Hence my reply. Science operates under tentative acceptance of hypotheses, which is so far from the common understanding of Christian faith as to render the two ways of thought irreconcilable.

Belief based on best evidence would work, thanks! :eek:k:
 
#114
#114
turambar85 said:
Speciation doesn't happen over night. Speciation is the result of a division in population, and then the subsequent collection of distinguishing mutations. Most importantly, the species concept is barely useful and largely fuzzy.
Click to expand...

So you can't give me an example of one thing evolving into another?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
turambar85 said:
That isn't just a linguistic battle - something does hang on its being understood. You say that science is faith, which somehow blurs the lines between science and non-science, and between the scientist and the theologian. This isn't proper, though. Hence my reply. Science operates under tentative acceptance of hypotheses, which is so far from the common understanding of Christian faith as to render the two ways of thought irreconcilable.

Belief based on best evidence would work, thanks! :eek:k:
Click to expand...

The human element certainly brings the word "faith" into the discussion. Surely there is a scientist somewhere that has firmly held to their theories even if said theories are disproven in other circles.

In this case I can roll with the preferred nomenclature. Pass me a White Russian!
 
#116
#116
KB5252 said:
Why must so many people (from both sides of the debate) think science and religion must be at odds and perpetually contradicting each other?
Click to expand...

Because at a fundamental level, they are. Any sort of marriage of the two, philosophically or otherwise, is intellectually dishonest to both.
 
#118
#118
turambar85 said:
No, science does not demand faith. Faith doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. If a Christian said "you know, I have faith in Christ...but I am constantly looking for alternative evidence, am constantly testing the god hypothesis, and would change positions if better evidence came about" you would not say that they have faith. You would say, as you should, that they believe a position on the evidence, and tentatively hold it until evidence shifts.
Click to expand...

How can a Christian be constantly looking for alternative evidence, and constantly testing the god hypothesis ?
 
#119
#119
Lexvol said:
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.

In the end, even scientific theory and the interpretation of scientific data requires faith in current theories that may be proven wrong tomorrow. Hell,most of us are just trying to make it through the day the best way we know how.
Click to expand...

Disagree. There is no faith about it. Current theories provide a starting point.

The theories are reinforced or weakened by the data gathered.
 
#120
#120
Lexvol said:
I'm a part time theologian with an MDiv. Put me firmly in the the camp that still doesn't really understand how something can come from nothing. I'm not so concerned with the literal interpretation of any creation account in the Bible or otherwise.
Click to expand...

That goes for the science crowd as well, FWIW.

...and just to note, if you can't understand how something came from nothing, then you would have to address where the "creator" came from. Something can't come from nothing, right?

...and it God is eternal, by definition, then it is just as easy for any scientist to say the universe is eternal, by definition. How silly would that sound?
 
#122
#122
rjd970 said:
Because at a fundamental level, they are. Any sort of marriage of the two, philosophically or otherwise, is intellectually dishonest to both.
Click to expand...

Religion is all about beliefs, both personal and institutional although one doesn't have to subscribe to all the institutional beliefs of any particular religion to be considered religious.
Science is simply a mechanism for trying to explain what we see around us, it isn't at odds with religion as an institution as I see it although some on both sides certainly have their own agendas. Please explain to me it is "intellectually dishonest" or how they are opposed at a fundamental level to each other, I just don't see it.
 
#123
#123
rjd970 said:
That goes for the science crowd as well, FWIW.

...and just to note, if you can't understand how something came from nothing, then you would have to address where the "creator" came from. Something can't come from nothing, right?

...and it God is eternal, by definition, then it is just as easy for any scientist to say the universe is eternal, by definition. How silly would that sound?
Click to expand...

Because you are a human who only knows beginnings and endings. We can't comprehend infinity because we have never experienced it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#125
#125
KB5252 said:
Religion is all about beliefs, both personal and institutional although one doesn't have to subscribe to all the institutional beliefs of any particular religion to be considered religious.
Science is simply a mechanism for trying to explain what we see around us, it isn't at odds with religion as an institution as I see it although some on both sides certainly have their own agendas. Please explain to me it is "intellectually dishonest" or how they are opposed at a fundamental level to each other, I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

Science: Evidence based, constantly evolving, never really certain about anything.

Religion: Faith based, certain (about the basics "God exists", etc).

...fundamentally, can they be any different? It is aiken to saying the fundamental tenets of Islam are conducive to a modern society. While sounding PC and nice, it simply isn't the case. It is taking the middle road in an effort to not have to take a stand on what is plainly obvious.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top