Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#127
#127
turambar85 said:
It seems as if the religious discussion thread has rocked back and forth between discussion primarily theological (or atheological!) issues and with the scientific validity of evolution and its deranged :crazy: cousin creationism. It might be nice to separate the two a bit, especially as theology doesn't stand or fall on evolutionary theory.

A quick starter: does anybody actually buy the "natural processes couldn't have caused life, as you can't take inorganic matter and create living matter" argument? It is very similar in claims to the "you cant have consciousness without a soul' argument ... or at least they both seem equally silly to me.
Click to expand...

why cant science and Christianity co-exist?
 
#128
#128
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...

I don't disagree. Either way, the issue of origin leads religion and science back to the same question. As a being limited to time, dimension and my five senses the inquiry goes back to "purposeful" or "random". Religion aside, my gut feels like it is purposeful. That is about all I got on that one.
 
#129
#129
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...

but being intellectually honest kills both sides of the debate. To pretend that the evolution side of the debate doesn't require faith makes him offering up that comment look like the idiot he assumes those believing in a creator to be.
 
#130
#130
Lexvol said:
I don't disagree. Either way, the issue of origin leads religion and science back to the same question. As a being limited to time, dimension and my five senses the inquiry goes back to "purposeful" or "random". Religion aside, my gut feels like it is purposeful. That is about all I got on that one.
Click to expand...

frankly, it all comes back to everyone's gut on the issue, including those claiming hard science. Both sides of the debate struggle to understand the other and both tend to overlook the merit in the others' argument.
 
#132
#132
BigPapaVol said:
but being intellectually honest kills both sides of the debate. To pretend that the evolution side of the debate doesn't require faith makes him offering up that comment look like the idiot he assumes those believing in a creator to be.
Click to expand...

In science, "faith" simply isn't the word. I am not trying to split hairs, but there is a big difference. Things are discarded in science all the time. Not so in religions.
 
#133
#133
IPorange said:
In science, "faith" simply isn't the word. I am not trying to split hairs, but there is a big difference. Things are discarded in science all the time. Not so in religions.
Click to expand...

I understand that "faith" would never be used in the vernacular of a scientist, but that doesn't preclude the use of it. The word assumption is the nasty one in science.
 
#134
#134
BigPapaVol said:
frankly, it all comes back to everyone's gut on the issue, including those claiming hard science. Both sides of the debate struggle to understand the other and both tend to overlook the merit in the others' argument.
Click to expand...

I don't really struggle with the "opposite" view (i.e. science, cosmology, archeology, etc.) because IMO in many cases they support what is documented in the Bible. Most Christians probably agree that living beings "evolve" (or perhaps a better term... "adapt") to their living environments over time. However, it is a much larger step to say that man evolved from apes which in turn evolved from a single organism. The reality is that science may at some point in the future explain many things, but that still doesn't mean that God was not the supreme creator that put those things in motion. And this is where non-believers take issue because as stated numerous times... science can not prove that God does not exist.
 
#135
#135
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I don't really struggle with the "opposite" view (i.e. science, cosmology, archeology, etc.) because IMO in many cases they support what is documented in the Bible. Most Christians probably agree that living beings "evolve" (or perhaps a better term... "adapt") to their living environments over time. However, it is a much larger step to say that man evolved from apes which in turn evolved from a single organism. The reality is that science may at some point in the future explain many things, but that still doesn't mean that God was not the supreme creator that put those things in motion. And this is where non-believers take issue because as stated numerous times... science can not prove that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you can replace "God" with any deity ever thought up, and your statement is still just as valid.
 
#137
#137
IPorange said:
The problem is, you can replace "God" with any deity ever thought up, and your statement is still just as valid.
Click to expand...

sure you can... and it just bugs the crap out of you doesn't it. On the other hand, it doesn't bother me at all.
 
#138
#138
ridethelightening said:
So given enough time, everything will evolve into something else?

Does something trigger the mutation?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Mutations are random copying errors in the replication of genes. This just happens when something doesn't copy itself perfectly. Natural selection just says that there are differential survival and reproduction rates. Put two and two together, and you see that the mutations that help the organism prosper, and ones that harm the organism die off. Give enough time, and these mutations will continue to operate in a relatively sequential manner - given the right environmental conditions. What I mean by this is that a positive mutation will be positively reinforced, and any subsequent mutations in that regard will thrive in the population as well.
 
#139
#139
turambar85 said:
Mutations are random copying errors in the replication of genes. This just happens when something doesn't copy itself perfectly. Natural selection just says that there are differential survival and reproduction rates. Put two and two together, and you see that the mutations that help the organism prosper, and ones that harm the organism die off. Give enough time, and these mutations will continue to operate in a relatively sequential manner - given the right environmental conditions. What I mean by this is that a positive mutation will be positively reinforced, and any subsequent mutations in that regard will thrive in the population as well.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Have you seen it happen?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#140
#140
turambar85 said:
Mutations are random copying errors in the replication of genes. This just happens when something doesn't copy itself perfectly. Natural selection just says that there are differential survival and reproduction rates. Put two and two together, and you see that the mutations that help the organism prosper, and ones that harm the organism die off. Give enough time, and these mutations will continue to operate in a relatively sequential manner - given the right environmental conditions. What I mean by this is that a positive mutation will be positively reinforced, and any subsequent mutations in that regard will thrive in the population as well.
Click to expand...

and who is to say that these mutations arent part of the intricate system that was designed by a creator?
 
#143
#143
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
and who is to say that these mutations arent part of the intricate system that was designed by a creator?
Click to expand...

Nobody can say that with certainty, but as there is no evidence for that belief, and it isn't even logically testable in any possible future, science and people concerned with scientific evidence, can effectively discard that hypothesis.

I mean, really, the obvious answer is to say that there is no way of proving it isn't the intricate system of advanced aliens who refuse to let us see them, or that it is the intricate system or an evil demon (this is more likely than god, as natural selection, and nature itself, is brutal and tortuous.
 
#144
#144
ridethelightening said:
How do you know this? Have you seen it happen?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It is absolutely certain, without question, that genes mutate in copying errors. That isn't even an issue. It has been observed in a laboratory, and in population studies. Natural selection is a pretty clear logical conclusion from A) random changes in genetic structure, B) the Malthusian thesis that more organisms are created via reproduction than can (and do) survive in nature, and C) those better adapted will have a better chance of surviving if surviving is difficult.

We could add in morphological evidence, molecular evidence, evidence for an old earth, the fossil record, continental drift and the dispersal of species, etc. then this isn't really an issue. Is it?
 
#146
#146
turambar85 said:
It is absolutely certain, without question, that genes mutate in copying errors. That isn't even an issue. It has been observed in a laboratory, and in population studies. Natural selection is a pretty clear logical conclusion from A) random changes in genetic structure, B) the Malthusian thesis that more organisms are created via reproduction than can (and do) survive in nature, and C) those better adapted will have a better chance of surviving if surviving is difficult.

We could add in morphological evidence, molecular evidence, evidence for an old earth, the fossil record, continental drift and the dispersal of species, etc. then this isn't really an issue. Is it?
Click to expand...

Survival of the fittest and adaptation I'm completely down with. Saying my species was once a different species is a little harder to fathom. Just asked for some proof and I'm concerned it might happen again
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#148
#148
IPorange said:
... No, it doesn't bother me at all. Why would it?
Click to expand...

Then why did you make the point to begin with?

turambar85 said:
I mean, really, the obvious answer is to say that there is no way of proving it isn't the intricate system of advanced aliens who refuse to let us see them, or that it is the intricate system or an evil demon (this is more likely than god, as natural selection, and nature itself, is brutal and tortuous.
Click to expand...

Not sure I really follow your logic here, but if I could offer an interpretation... seems like you're more willing to believe almost anything before you would believe in God. This, at least to me, defies normal reasoning and suggests that perhaps you've had some bad experiences with "religion" at some point.
 
#150
#150
IPorange said:
If applied your own logic to religion, you'd be an atheist (if not a nihilist). I'm being consistent.
Click to expand...

I thought science was based on what we could prove and there was no faith or assumptions applied? I believe in faith. You wholeheartedly detest it, yet you can't prove everything you believe in
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top