Creationism vs. Evolution

[ciber 0]

i for one dont realy find it very ehh umm positiv to belive in any religon i could put 4rth sevrel sientfic theriors that suport god on the grounds of the bible being more simbolic than literal but i strongly suport scince i find religen often causes wars but i can suport the bible

sutch as god may have ben travling near the speed of light whear tim dialates so 15 bilyon years could seem like 6 days

[burtos 0]

Maybe its not humans that evolve but DNA and we are the result of that change. You could say that we are the hosts of the parasite DNA.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Lord Baylum 0]

Simply put SCIENCE and RELIGION co-exsist. 6 Days could be equal to 6 billion years in GOD's perception.THERE is no time frame in the book of GENESIS and it misses many events in time that have not been recorded.Most of the Bible takes place in the past several thousand years.

The truth is ,GENESIS could be large enough to be a book of its own.

THERE is alot of Science in Religion and scientist are finding out everyday that things are closer in the Bible to the truth than they apear.

Perplexing is the truth right in front of you,When you are the paint on the tapestry of exsistence and cannot step back to see all the colors and what the painting creates.

[vistla 3]

Religion vs. science? Interesting subject. Simply put; religion is based on theory, (hence the term theology), science is based on fact. Now, let's explore a little deeper.......Organized religion certainly has it's place in society. Without it we could not wage succesful war, as what rational human being would risk thier life to make the rich richer? The promise of a better life is very inticing, so long as do as you're told. The spectre of death, on the other hand, is quiet frightening, especially when we apply the definition of the word itself as, exactly as it emplies; i.e., the end of existince. [Content] To the Buddist and Hindus, though, simply.........Nirvana. What have we learned so far? The great unknown. No answers, only questions. Science is the key to our future survival as a species. Religion has thus far held us up. Don't take my word for it, though, learn history. You should come to see the truth, if you have logic and reason on your side. There may very well be a God, of some sorts, out there. Perhaps, many Gods. Who know? This, I do not know for sure. Who does? The great mystery of life, itself. The foundation of all world religions is the fear of death. They give us hope, where there may in fact be none. I will, however, say this; the evidence for evolution, e.g., natural selection is overwhelming. One needs only to look at the fossil evidence. At the risk of sounding arrogant, which I certainly do not want to imply, I would say that those who disagree simply lack the education on the subject. I mean no offence to those of you who are ferverant believers in any sort of dogma, but you must see that there is a larger picture. Please, try to expand your mind,........ if only a little. Personally, I live in the U.S.A., where Christianity, (specifically protestism), rules the land. Now, with that said, why should I be forced to adhere to a forienge religion? Make no mistake about it, it is. I am of German & Scotch/Irissh decent and I often wonder how a middle easter religion (based on mysticism & astology) came to dominate our society. Oh yeah, I know,.........through homocide. Any argumentents? Again, read history. One does not become the dominant way of thinking through peice and love, rather through winning wars. The Gods of one religion, thus become the Demons of the suceeding one. So, where are now? Probibly nowhere. Endless debate........no conclusion..........pointless............blind faith is exactly what it implies. Our only hope to survive into the long future is science. To deny this, is folly, and ignorance. Differance of opinion? Feel free..........vincelarimore@yahoo.com, aka, vistla@simtropois.com. I welcome all opinions. I am in the business of changing your minds. It's my charter. Have a nice day! -V

[coolotter88 2]

well, it's time to ask our presidential candidates

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1939200.shtml

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hamsterTK 93]

well, it's time to ask our presidential candidates

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1939200.shtmlquote>

well as scandalous as some things may be expecting anything different from politicians is kind of silly, given that us non-religious individuals still comprise a minority in the population.

[hawkpride147 1]

i just have one thing to point out about this...darwin denounced all his findings before his death...if the guy who came up with the idea doesn't believe it, then why should anyone else?

[coolotter88 2]

do you have an audio recording of darwin saying "all my ideas are stupid!"

I didn't think so, thus your argument is moot

besides, he was suffering from a parasitic disease that most probably affects the brain so what he says before he died doesn't count. nyeah.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: hawkpride147 i just have one thing to point out about this...darwin denounced all his findings before his death...if the guy who came up with the idea doesn't believe it, then why should anyone else?quote>

Well, if he did say that it would have been a death bed repentance no doubt... if there was a God, the last thing he would want is to spend eternity in hell.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: hawkpride147 i just have one thing to point out about this...darwin denounced all his findings before his death...if the guy who came up with the idea doesn't believe it, then why should anyone else?quote>

But why should we believe this statement? Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is necessarily true. I personally would not accept that (or any) statement at face value, unless it had reasonable evidence to support it (which you did not present). As I've previously mentioned  you should always check the source to make sure it is accurate.

Even if it were true exactly as stated, what effect would that have on the scientific theory? Absolutely none, because scientific theories are not falsified based on recantation. They can only be falsified based on substantial evidence. If someone, even the person first credited with the theory, has evidence that the theory is incorrect, they must go through the normal scientific process of investigation, submit research findings for publication, have publication peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature, other scientists debate and do their own investigations, they publish etc etc.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[crazyyaya 4]

I don't want to offend anyone, and I completely respect one's own relgious beleifs. But my personal view, as I look at the world we live in... I think the world would be better off with out organzined relgion. Especially in Modern times. We live in an age when everthing is condensed, mass produced, mass marketed, and computerized, I sadly feel that relgion has become a product. I think personal relgion far outways in importance. A find that a person who is exposed to different relgions, then makes a personal commitment to different aspects of morals, God or whatever it may be, is far more religous then a person born into a faith with no wiggle room on thier beleifs.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Well I prescribe to the Creation-Evolution theory...

Why do people take 7 days literally? God is without time... in Heaven, time does not exist.

In essence, the reason I believe in God is that..well.. where do humans go when they die? Nowhere? How do we have such a large expanse of mental space in our minds? Why do we have such creativity? Why do we cry? Why are we happy? Why do we feel emotions? Are we just some accident, that just extremely coincidentally happened to pop up?

I think we are not an accident, that we are here for a purpose.

Albert Einstein is one of the smartest scientists in our history, and he was a Jew. He said that "Science without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind"

And besides, without religion, what is the purpose of living anyway? The Easter Bunny, who has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' ressurection?

Here, try out this website: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 ...

Albert Einstein is one of the smartest scientists in our history, and he was a Jew. He said that "Science without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind"

...

quote>

I found the source of this quote, and it made very interesting reading. Again I would urge people to read the full text for any one liner quotes.

Albert Einstein in Science, Philosophy and Religion, a Symposium (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941)

It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.

quote>

[saltandsauce 0]

HELLO the people who thought of or whatever lived at least 3000 years ago where religion was the only answer for a lot of questions they didn't know the answer for these people can't comprehend the word million never mind 6 billion the word they used for a lot was a thousand which was more than enough for them so don't criticise the past because it was simpler and happier

(the importance of the number 40 was that the jews had no word for many so they always said forty instead of many) so it was many days and nights

[oceanmariner 0]

I just noticed this discussion and had to comment. How could anyone believe that an aquired trait could be passed along to another generation!?! If you have two rats, and you cut off their tails, does that mean that their offspring won't have a tails? NO!

It takes more faith to believe in the chances of evolution than to simply believe there is one almighty God who created everything!

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: oceanmariner I just noticed this discussion and had to comment. How could anyone believe that an aquired trait could be passed along to another generation!?! If you have two rats, and you cut off their tails, does that mean that their offspring won't have a tails? NO! quote>

The theory of evolution does not claim any such thing. (Edit: I would be very interested to know why you would think this, and why so many people seem to think similar things)

Chopping off a rat's tail in no way changes the genetic code of the rat.  Besides, its cruel to the rat to do so.

However, changes can occur in an organisms genetic code (ie the code was not present in that form in either of the organisms parents). We know by observation that this does indeed occur. Changes that occur in the genetic code can be passed on to an organisms offspring, if those changes are represented in the germ cells (if they are only in the somatic cells and not present in the germ cells then they cannot be passed on, at least in species that reproduce only by sexual reproduction).

This is the basis of evolution. Genetic change that is heritable. And we know this can occur because it has been observed to occur.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I would, add, though, that evolution by means of Natural Selection operates at an even deeper level. ...

Barbarossaquote>

Yes I didn't mention natural selection, although as you say its just as much a part of the process of evolution.

I guess in the case of the poor rat above, that if losing its tail affected its survivability (eg the tail is prehensile) then it may not get to pass on its genes, therefore an acquired trait could indeed influence the outcome of that particular rat population. Not that the population would be characterised by missing tails thereafter, but any unique genetic features or combinations that rat possessed may not be passed on to the rest of the population. Just as genetic change and natural selection plays a part, so does chance and also learned behaviour (in those species that can learn). Sometimes its not the feature that is selected that is important, but those that accompany it and are therefore indirectly selected.

Note: I do not condone cruelty to rats or any other species.

[Aroughleague1209 0]

I'm an athiest, gotta go with the facts. 6 billion years.

[The_Hutt 11]

Until science can explain to me how the universe simply popped into existence out of a void where nothing existed, I believe in God.

[coolotter88 2]

that's not the question at hand.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[tohokingdom 0]

I personally believe in Evolution and the formation of the Universe, but this topic is such a heated subject for so many people where I live. Mainly conservative Utah. That I've started telling people.

Who knows. God could've created all this stuff to make us try and have faith?

So believing in creationism, is part of believing in evolution.

That's what I just say to shut most people up, because they honestly don't know what to say.

They look at me with this dumb look and think, what if he's right? What if Science is right, and we're right as well?

Wouldn't that be unfair for everyone. Both being true.

But scientifically I believe the universe evolved and this rock got lucky so we evolved from billions of years of evolution.

Yea.

Anyway.

[mayor of the manor 0]

God made man in his own image according to the creationist notion. However no human looks the same. Creationism doesn't explain how Inuit peoples are pale or that Mongolian peoples have slanted eyes or that Fulani peoples have little lactose tolerance whilst Finnish peoples have high lactose tolerance. Natural selection, evolution and the transfer of genotypes through the ages can explain all of these and all the other little differences that makes everyone different from everyone else. Just my two pence! Not trying to enforce any belief on anyone . And people still have to remember that Evolution is not a complete theory. They (geneologists) are still trying to ascertain whether a large portion of North-Western European genotypes are contributed to by homo erectus via interbreeding. Very interesting really

[packersfan 666]

The Bible is the inspired word of God. Every word is truth and literal. 6 days means 6 days. And when God made man in his own image this does not mean in a physical sense....He created us with SOULS and PERFECT like him, but SIN screwed that up...as for different skin tones and traits, that is the work of the amazing creation God created. And I hate this argument (Religion is based on THEORY and Science is based on FACT)...um no...ATOMS are mostly theory, BIG BANG mostly theory, EVOLUTION mostly theory...

[packersfan 666]

And what I don't understand is how Science and Religion shalt not be mixed...PREACHED by all our EVOLUTIONISTS here...If the evolution tale is true, is not religion part of it... and if Creation is true, is not evolution part of it.

And everybody who says that most of the Bible is fanciful, please point out these instances in detail.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce   HELLO the people who thought of or whatever lived at least 3000 years ago where religion was the only answer for a lot of questions they didn't know the answer for these people can't comprehend the word million never mind 6 billion the word they used for a lot was a thousand which was more than enough for them so don't criticise the past because it was simpler and happier

(the importance of the number 40 was that the jews had no word for many so they always said forty instead of many) so it was many days and nightsquote>

What does this have to do with six days of creation?  Okay so maybe when the Bible says 40 years, or 40 days/nights it may be explain as many as opposed to exactly 40...or thousand means many many years....but why did it say 6 days and nights???  You have no argument on that.  According to your argument it should have said i took God 6000 years to create the world.  Nowhere did you say a day = a billion years...and that would be rediculous language to use...Moses with his Egyptian education would never say DAY when he meant BILLIONS OF YEARS!!!

The words of the Bible are literal.  A day is a day...a year is a year...God is talking to us, not at us...and since he knows all, he puts his words in our language and frame.