Religion...

[chilli]

Well it would need to start with solid evidence of man coming from the ape.

Also someone would need to be able to prove millions of years (carbon dating cant, and big bang is dead theory).

I find the animal world very interesting. So many creatures totally defy evolution. The Giraffe and its blood flow system to its head, could never have evolved, it was sure to fail. The woodpecker would have knocked his brains out before he could develop the shock absorbed beak, the list is endless of animals who could not have survived evolution but are with us.

Evolution promotes racism, this we have seen with Hitler. Consider 3,000,000,000 base pairs, 85% within local ethnic group variation, 9% between ethnic and linguistic groups, and 6% between races. 0.2% max between individuals (ref. Guntin 1994 - end of the rainbow). Genetic unity means for instance, that say white americans although ostensibly far removed from black americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than other black americans. Race? what races, only ones I know are at tracks.

Evolution is one of the most fascinating subjects there is, if you are willing to live with a load of theories and assumptions, it can offer the student a fantastic sense of understanding with its "if we dont have an answer we can soon manufacture one style". It works great for most people, but i can handle only small amounts of theory at a time, it just seems too far fetched on most occasions. Everyone to their own. Man I am fed up sitting in front of a computer today, I dont think I have ever typed this much in here in a day.

:spanish: I now retire from this as I am knackered and losing the will to live

 

No sorry I don't agree at all, you are mixing several things up here to try and form an argument against evolution - or at least trying to suggest there are things it doesn't accomodate when clearly it does. There are at least two things going on here:

 

1) The theory of evolution - it is based on even simpler processes (mutation and selection) that individually have clearly been shown to exist! There are not speculations, these are fundamental facts of life. As such, the theory has a very strong basis, because it takes two simpler pieces and combines them and then provides a method that does explain why we have complex things that appear to have been designed by god, but in reality were never designed as such, they evolved to survive against all odds in the evironment they find themselves in, this is ongoing because evolution still marches forward and our envirment is ever changing!

 

2) Tracing ones genealogy and the historical process of evolution. This is a different problem. There is no denying this is a difficult task, but the same is true of trying to piece together _any_ information from historical remains. This does not disprove the theory or even detract from it in any way! There are many things we can not prove directly, or even get anything more than indirect evidence for, this is not the theories fault, nor does it suggest some other theory must exist and be better. Our knowledge of the history of evolution is growing all the time, it has some holes in it, but this history will gradually be filled in over time as we collect more information. There is always a risk that something will come along that completely breaks the theory, to date nothing has though. I suspect that if anything the theory will get stronger, but some evidence may refine the model, that is just progress and it doesn't mean what we have already isn't the closest to the "truth" as we have got so far, and we are on a good path to get even closer still.

 

There are many things we believe to be true that can not or have not been 'proved', this doesn't mean we have to throw away our theories and start again lol. Somethings will never be provable directly anyway, but they still have theories based on a lot more evidence and rational thought than any religion ever did.

 

The Giraffe and its blood flow system to its head, could never have evolved, it was sure to fail. The woodpecker would have knocked his brains out before he could develop the shock absorbed beak,

 

This is quite funny, good examples but you if you think this disproves evolution, then you don't understand it at all. For example, a Giraffe did not suddenly evolve a long neck or a special vascular system in isolation! More likely what happened over a very long period of time is that Giraffes with very slightly longer necks had a very slight survival advantage in their environment. Over long periods of time these longer necked Giraffes tended to survive, but in order to do so, they also needed a better vascular system. bit by bit over a very long time, a longer neck and a supporting vascular system evolved as a mutually benifial pair (because you need both to survive as a long necked Giraffe). Same can be applied to anything, the woodpecker included.

 

Things don't suddenly grow longer necks, becuase in isolation, mutations that did so would be worse off and die out. Only mutations that combine the right combinations to suit the environment persist.

 

This same problem occurs even in our own bodies, and the same simple method is the explanation for all of it, there is no need to use it as an excuse to look for a more far fetched theory to explain it.

 

Evolution promotes racism, this we have seen with Hitler. Consider 3,000,000,000 base pairs, 85% within local ethnic group variation, 9% between ethnic and linguistic groups, and 6% between races. 0.2% max between individuals (ref. Guntin 1994 - end of the rainbow).

 

Firstly, Hitler and his ideas where mostly against a religious group, the Jews (i.e. against a man made religion). Secondly, his (the Nazis view) of a an Aryan race has nothing to do with evolution at all.

 

Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to have different variants of a species - co-existing. When a mutation causes a difference, all of the original genitic material does not magically change too! If both are viable solutions to the problem of survival then both may exist at once! Over time, a significant change in material would result in a strain that is no longer sexially compatable, then you would truely have a 'new species' (say ape to human or whatever example you choose to pick). However, the human race has genetic variety, but we are all part of the same species, this is all completely compatable with the theory of evolution!

[Chiefgroover]

Chilli, good to see this thread still going without the usual forum twisting !

 

You have made many points which i will address, so as readers of the posts hear both sides of the story. I respect and defend your right to hold your opinon, even when its contrary to mine.

 

In addressing your points, may I make it clear that the Muslims have as much to say on the creation vs evolution detate as anyone else.

 

You wrote

1) The theory of evolution - it is based on even simpler processes (mutation and selection) that individually have clearly been shown to exist! There are not speculations, these are fundamental facts of life. As such, the theory has a very strong basis, because it takes two simpler pieces and combines them and then provides a method that does explain why we have complex things that appear to have been designed by god, but in reality were never designed as such, they evolved to survive against all odds in the evironment they find themselves in, this is ongoing because evolution still marches forward and our envirment is ever changing!

 

This is based on a "theory" of millions of years, which when evolution gets stuck for an answer the time scale gets increased to billions etc, all fallable because we cant prove that time scale for reasons i have described in earlier posts. Considering mutation and selection, Darwin expected millions of transitional fossils to be found, none have been found only a handful of questionable ones. Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History responded to a letter from Luther Sunderland LD in relation to Darwins Enigma book he wrote as follows to a written question asking why he failed to include illustrations of transitional forms in a book he wrote on evolution.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the informantion from? I could not honestly provide it, and if i were to leave it to artistic licence would that not mislead the reader. I wrote the book four years ago and if I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept i believe in , not just because of Darwins authority, but because my understanding of genetics demands it. Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophicial problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line there is no fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

 

 

2) Tracing ones genealogy and the historical process of evolution. This is a different problem. There is no denying this is a difficult task, but the same is true of trying to piece together _any_ information from historical remains. This does not disprove the theory or even detract from it in any way! There are many things we can not prove directly, or even get anything more than indirect evidence for, this is not the theories fault, nor does it suggest some other theory must exist and be better. Our knowledge of the history of evolution is growing all the time, it has some holes in it, but this history will gradually be filled in over time as we collect more information. There is always a risk that something will come along that completely breaks the theory, to date nothing has though. I suspect that if anything the theory will get stronger, but some evidence may refine the model, that is just progress and it doesn't mean what we have already isn't the closest to the "truth" as we have got so far, and we are on a good path to get even closer still.

 

I appreciate the hard work and dedication of evolutionary scientists, and their dearly held and much respected (in certain quarters) theories. At all times we in my opinion always remember theory is theory and not fact, consider a court case based on theory, it would be a fares. Looking at it from this perspective, perhaps when evidence is missing a "Jury is still out" verdict is wiser, rather than teaching theory as fact, and predicting what future evidence will be, i dont consider that objective.

 

there is no need to use it as an excuse to look for a more far fetched theory to explain it.

 

Far fetched? I had a chuckle at this, nothing was more far fetched than big bang, and evolution. Severe lack of evidence, only the heavyweight media acceptance.

 

Firstly, Hitler and his ideas where mostly against a religious group, the Jews (i.e. against a man made religion). Secondly, his (the Nazis view) of a an Aryan race has nothing to do with evolution at all.

 

Actually, there is more to it than that. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton founded the evolutionary Pseudo-science of Eugenics. He shared Darwin's antagonism for religion for most of his adult life. He was a childhood genius, knew the alphabet @ 18months, memorised poetry by 5, discussed the Iliad @ 6 !. Galton believed that talent, character, intellect etc was inherent from ones ancestors.Therefore the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances but were paupers because they were biologically inferior!!.He believed that humans should be selectively bred. Galtons views left no room whatsoever for human dignity or the human soul. He wrote "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 which proposed a system of arranged marriages, of people of distinction. Darwin mentioned Galton no less than 11 times in his book Decent of man.Galton was much awarded for his work. His work had great effect in that from the 1920's on more than half of the US states had laws for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be "unfit". This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims who were criminals, drug addicts, paupers, blind or deaf, or mentally retarded and other conditions. Even a few were done as late as the 70's!. About 60,000 swedish victims between 1935 and 1976, and it went on in Norway and Canada, the figures of which I dont know. Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder. Sadly ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler. David Duke, Americas infamous anti black, anti-jew racist developed his ideas from reading Galton, Sir Arthur Keith etc. Galton/ Darwin also were strong on abortion, their legacy means today there is a one in four chance of a baby being aborted world-wide. IN certain cultures it is common to find out the sex of a baby and abort on those grounds alone. However I doubt that Galton ever thought his theories would ever cause such havoc.

 

Shit its nearly 8;30! aahh typing this load with a double fractured wrist has been a challenge to say the least!. Anyway i hope you enjoy reading my writings and are not offended by it. This debate reminds me of the video between an Australian Evolutionist and Creationist, both heavyweight scientists, best of mates but putting there information to eachother. Different viewers come away with different attitudes.

"Harmony doesn;t happen when we all sing the one note!"

 

Have a good weekend, I am off for a few Stella.

[Charlotte]

ermmm i've got an article that needs writing for college if you've got time on your hands???

[tbourner]

Anyway i hope you enjoy reading my writings and are not offended by it. This debate reminds me of the video between an Australian Evolutionist and Creationist, both heavyweight scientists, best of mates but putting there information to eachother. Different viewers come away with different attitudes.

"Harmony doesn't happen when we all sing the one note!"

 

I do and no I'm not.

 

I don't have much of the proof from readings as some of the people in this discussion have, it's mostly my own thoughts and ideas - so even more of an unproven theory than the scientists have!

 

To be honest though even though the information in this thread hasn't changed any of my beliefs, it's still very interesting.

 

I'm as suprised as everyone that this hasn't turned into a bloodbath already - I wonder who is more likely to start abuse in this kind of discussion a religious believer or a scientific Aethiest?

[chilli]

hey, I'm back. Interesting read chief, it's all interesting stuff

 

I'm all with you in the sense that evolution is a theory not a fact. Then again, many things in science are theories, not fact because they can not be proved as such, this is just as true for creationist theories and the other miriad of theories out there. However some theories have a lot more credit than others due having theor roots based on facts. Many theories that would not be disputed for an instant are 'not yet proved' or 'not provable'. The more evidence we gather that doesn't contradict the theory tends to strenghen it of course. Theories are still incredably useful as a stepping stone, I havn't seen a better one myself yet (than evolution) to explain why we are here (that is not to say there won't be one in the future).

 

I tend to believe in the evolutionary idea because, as I mentioned it is based on much simpler, more provable concepts, and it builds on them, drawing a logical conclusion based on them which then goes a long way to explain how things might be as we find them.

 

I'm all for straightfoward logic, reasoning and theories built up from simpler truths. When it comes to some alternative views, to me they are often laughable - there is a lot to discredit any creationalist view - e.g. http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/ which makes it hard to take seriously, for me at least.

 

To my mind, much more so than the idea of evolution - even though so many people misunderstand it (but think they totally undertstand it) and use this misunderstanding as a basis to try and pick fault with it...

 

For me I'm confortable with the idea that we may never piece together all of history - this may indeed be an impossible task but it still can not be used as evidence to discredit any particular theory.

 

I'm also confortable with the possibility that no one created us, or the Earth or the whole Universe - most obviously because I don't think this actually answers anything, it just pushes the problem up to who created the creator lol

 

I'm also happy not to think the whole universe is centered around us and our existance, quite the opposite in fact!

 

It's all good stuff, good to see an interesting converstation on here

[Chiefgroover]

I try to take out the words, theory, believe, assume, etc and see what I am left with. There is also a lot to discredit Evolutionary views, one has to carefully read between the lines. It may be the case that you have studied evolution more than me and I have studied creation more than you, but I am guessing here, in theory anyway

 

Creation science spends most of its time picking holes on evolution which is easy.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp This site covers loads of interesting questions, I cant find a more informative one. Its MD is Ken Ham, whom I have heard lecture and debate with ardent evolutionists, still undefeated I AFAIK.

 

Anyway, my mind is open, I am not biased, I hope it does not appear that way. I am happy to read into evolution still as i am to read creation. It is all very interesting to me. However after these many years I go with creation, as this, after much study holds up best for me. My personality as it is means I find theory challenging in all its aspects.

 

I'll read away at your web link, and you can read mine, in coming weeks we can discuss our findings. Objective to the last !

[chilli]

yes it is all good stuff. It's easy to pick holes in both theories as far as I can see, but with evolution mostly the problem can be traced back to the difficulty of obtaining historical evidence - something even more difficult when it comes to a creationist view no doubt [well this would be true except that it seems to side step a lot of difficult questions that it would otherwise find equally hard to answer, this does not make it right though of course ]

 

A bit like insisting the Earth was at the center of the universe for hundreds of years, it gives a warm fuzzy feeling and it is easy to be content with this, when it simply does not reflect reality.

 

I'll read up when I get time, it will be good, because either I will start to buy into creationist theories because they have something more concrete to offer, or it will strengthen my evolutionary viewpoint, and either way this can only be a good thing

[Chiefgroover]

Interesting it is, in a recent MORI poll only 48% of the British public said they believed in Evolution, 17% in intelligent design, and 22% in creation.

 

Typical, true to form, we had Dawkins on t.v. in Jan doing his bit for Atheists, with his usual "Kangaroo court" attempt to discredit all religious belief, but mainly aimed (almost totally) at Christianity. I think he set a new record for subjective propaganda. Lord Robert Winston also doing his "I've got it all figured out" version of life the universe and everything on national t.v..

Struggling to keep their mindset in the public eye now that Big bang is dismantled, the holes in the evolution story letting a draft through, the once almost immortal peers of science getting worried about their credibility. Pity they built there castle on a sandy base, their empires to crumble in the future when even more scientists say "enough!" to theory and stick with what they can prove. The change of view in the scientific world in the last 5 years is truly massive.

[chilli]

That's the whole point though, science does change as it seeks out the truth based on facts and evidence. It doesn't just make up something arbitrary and then try to stick to it - as if by sticking to it, it somehow makes it more true lol

 

Anyway, whats this about the big bang? The big bang theory (which is just a theory) has sod all to do with the process of evolution, I think you are clutching at straws if you think a rethink of the big bang idea suddenly vindicates one or more crackpot religions or far fetched ideas.

 

Furthmore, until we claim to know 'everything' about the universe, science is a subject that will continue to evolve - this is how it gets better! At least it's a subject that embraces this idea rather than gets scared by it.

 

When you find something new, you take it on board, admitting you don't know everything is not the same as being wrong about everything, I think people get mixed up here. It's generally a process of refinement and improvement, not a complete throw away and start again. Even if the big bang turned out to be a false idea, large parts of science still hold up on their own, don't pretend anything is on a sandy base, except for relgions and pseudo science based on ideas totally detatched from reality!

[Chiefgroover]

That's the whole point though, science does change as it seeks out the truth based on facts and evidence. It doesn't just make up something arbitrary and then try to stick to it - as if by sticking to it, it somehow makes it more true lol

 

LOL fact and evidence LOL, you mean the years they preached 14C as evidence? the THEORY of Evolution is the correct term. 14C is still being taught in schools, dont see anything progressive about that.

 

Anyway, whats this about the big bang? The big bang theory (which is just a theory) has sod all to do with the process of evolution, I think you are clutching at straws if you think a rethink of the big bang idea suddenly vindicates one or more crackpot religions or far fetched ideas.

Clutching at straws? The theory of Evolution does this on a continuing basis, when one theory falls through its replace by another one just as crazy.

 

Furthmore, until we claim to know 'everything' about the universe, science is a subject that will continue to evolve - this is how it gets better! At least it's a subject that embraces this idea rather than gets scared by it.

 

Thats a fairly big contradiction by a subjective outlook.

 

When you find something new, you take it on board, admitting you don't know everything is not the same as being wrong about everything, I think people get mixed up here. It's generally a process of refinement and improvement, not a complete throw away and start again. Even if the big bang turned out to be a false idea, large parts of science still hold up on their own, don't pretend anything is on a sandy base, except for relgions and pseudo science based on ideas totally detatched from reality!

 

News for you, Big bang is dead. Evolution, its lack of evidence is as detached from reality as anything else on the planet.

 

I'm still reading both, and until I can see some decent evidence, Evolution stays a scientists dream to me.

 

Have a nice weekend Chilli.

[chilli]

some things are clearly more detatched than others but if you believe in it, good for you,

 

Arguing over the big bang is irrelavant here, my point was you can't use it to aid your pseudo science or to disprove evolution

 

have a nice weekend too

 

PS: evolution is more rock solid than any evidence that we havn't evolved that I've ever seen but good luck with that line of thinking - I'm sure it explains all the diversity of life and the crossover breeds and mutations we see today (that are new, not created in the past) just perfectly!

[Chiefgroover]

I consider Evolution to be pseudo science, after all BOTH creation science and Evolution both use the same scientific evidence but inturpute it differently. As we are in the days of fast advancing science, after the next five years it will be very interesting to see what stands strongest when tested. Maybe those evolutionary transition Fossils might magically appear?.

[chilli]

well I take it you probably do believe in evolution to some extent even if you don't know it, lets break down this 'pseudo science' (pot, kettle lol).

 

Do you believe in the science of reproduction?

Do you believe in the concept of genetic mutation?

Do you believe that statistically the fittest tend to survive longer to reproduce more?

 

If not, I'd love to hear your better alternatives.

Assuming that you don't have issues with those basic ideas, in essence you believe in evolution to some extent, even if you don't want to believe it.

 

Broken down, it's based on fairly well understood, simple things that most people don't have an issue with.

 

Transition fossils! Please don't make me laugh. That really does show you don't know what you are talking about. You think there arn't fossils that show a transition over time? think again! Just because they end up named with one name or another based on what they most closely resemble, don't think they are all nicely quantised into one bucket and then the other, there are many fossils that sit somewhere between and could be considered 'transitional', thats pure creationist denial / excuse if ever I heard it.

 

So, lets hear your more plausible alternative to it, I'd love to hear your take on it I wait with eager anticipation.

 

Oh and please don't try to convince me the earth is only 10k years old etc lol you will be telling me the supe has 4 cylinders next

[Chiefgroover]

well I take it you probably do believe in evolution to some extent even if you don't know it, lets break down this 'pseudo science' (pot, kettle lol).

 

Do you believe in the science of reproduction?

Do you believe in the concept of genetic mutation?

Do you believe that statistically the fittest tend to survive longer to reproduce more?

 

If not, I'd love to hear your better alternatives.

Assuming that you don't have issues with those basic ideas, in essence you believe in evolution to some extent, even if you don't want to believe it.

 

Broken down, it's based on fairly well understood, simple things that most people don't have an issue with.

 

Transition fossils! Please don't make me laugh. That really does show you don't know what you are talking about. You think there arn't fossils that show a transition over time? think again! Just because they end up named with one name or another based on what they most closely resemble, don't think they are all nicely quantised into one bucket and then the other, there are many fossils that sit somewhere between and could be considered 'transitional', thats pure creationist denial / excuse if ever I heard it.

 

So, lets hear your more plausible alternative to it, I'd love to hear your take on it I wait with eager anticipation.

 

Oh and please don't try to convince me the earth is only 10k years old etc lol you will be telling me the supe has 4 cylinders next

 

 

 

Firstly the three questions you pose do nothing to prove Evolution. Where is the conflict on reproduction?, Mutations (copying mistakes) which are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity, and how long a species survives has more to do with devolution than evolution lmao You wouldnt be trying to put words in my mouth would you ?

 

Transition fossils, let me quote Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History who responded to a letter from Luther Sunderland LD in relation to Darwins Enigma book he wrote as follows to a written question asking why he failed to include illustrations of transitional forms in a book he wrote on evolution.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the informantion from? I could not honestly provide it, and if i were to leave it to artistic licence would that not mislead the reader. I wrote the book four years ago and if I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different.

Still laughing?

 

Age of the earth? as we dont have a reliable way of scientifically proving age since 14c bit the dust, I wont put an age on it, but I'm not in Billions of years fantasy land either!

[Chiefgroover]

Chilli, can you find me the RSB VVti 6sp with REAS I am after?

[chilli]

I've seen that quote before, it's the same one used time and time again by creationists lol - I don't think it proves anything, what classifies as a transitional fossil anyway, it must be subjective to some extent. What is more important is that a path of fossils through time can show a clear change. Why focus on transitional fossils when clear evidence of the large scale links in the chain exist? Do you think that transitional fossils would be as common as normal fossils anyway? not likely since by their very nature they exist for a short period of time where species as we know them tend to exist in a stable form for much longer.

 

>Mutations (copying mistakes) which are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity,

 

It's not a leap of faith to think that mistakes occassionally make things better not worse is it? When this does lead to a persistant change via genes, it does lead to a long lasting increase in information. Thats all, it's nothing magical or crazy by any reckoning.

 

Computer modelling has shown that something even as complex as an eye can evolve in quite a short space of time - this is functional complexity increasing based on simple, primitive mechanisms.

 

billions of years is fantasy land? lol erm ok then, do you actually believe in any real science at all?

 

how whould you explain the huge variety of life, the diversity of species on the earth then? they just magically appeared? Why then is the DNA of species so similar if they didn't come from common ancestors, it was a fluke?

[Chiefgroover]

So if there are no transitional fossils then what stage was evolution at ? on hold? lol How do we know transitional fossils last only a short period of time? do you suggest things all of a sudden decide to change and do so? in that case I'll have eyes on the back of my head please

Mutations explain odd bod versions, but hardly the entire animal kingdom.

Glad you brought the eye subject up, now thats an interesting one for sure. Some of the believed earliest sea creatures had only one eye, but a much more complicated eye than the current human one. Once again sounds more like devolution than evolution.

Consider intelligent design, rather than trying to tie up all loose ends with theory, the more one studies the species of this planet the more realistic it becomes. Too many evolutionists are so subjective in their approach that they refuse to consider a creator, and that's just where Dawkins and co fall down by their own admission.

Maybe this wee debate would be better on hold until you get a quick scan through "Darwins black box", as a scientist you would appreciate the methods and objective learning. Might just be a breath of fresh air to you? If you buy it, read it and think it isnt up to much, I'll buy it off you for whatever you paid as my copy went walky when doing the rounds.

[tbourner]

I'd like to think that a scientist shouldn't even be involved in this conversation. By the very nature of science it admits it doesn't know all the answers, only astimates the most likely conclusion from available 'proven' data (Ockham's razor) - not necessarily the actual conclusion (we can keep coming back to the fact that we knew the earth was flat all those years ago).

 

If it's proven (within current understanding) that there was/is a creator, then that will be accepted into science, it would radically change a hell of a lot of viewpoints yes, but nonetheless it would become a scientific truth.

[penguin]

i found this publication VERY VERY informative... http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/ProblemOfHumanSuffering.html

[Chiefgroover]

If someone wishes to dismiss religion, then they ought to try and understand it before making a judgement.

Biblically, we started in a perfect world, Satan got his influence and messed it up. Maybe throwing him into the eath with 1/3 of the Angels after the war in heaven wasn't the best idea. So One would conclude that for every two good Angles there is one bad one. Thats like 10 experienced players on one football team and five on the other, OK, the five wont win but they shure could put the pressure on sometimes. Take a look about you, there are loads of good things we take for granted every day, and dwell on the bad too much. So no point and yapping at God, when it's his enemy who cause the problems. If you believe in one enough to point a finger of blame then you have to accept the other entity. So next time something goes badly wrong, try putting the blame with those who "pace the earth looking for evil to do".

[Lucifer]

Sorry.

[Chiefgroover]

so you should be :-)

[Ian R]

I was confirmed Christian but I am my own God and I make things happen in my life and no one else. Don't believe in fate, if I want something I get of my arse and get it.

I believe religion is for people who need to be led and those who don't need it tend to be leaders

[penguin]

so does this mean your a leader? that you don't follow someone elses rules?

[chilli]

Personally I think you (chiefgoover) miss the point to some extent, let me explain why...

 

Ok, so you don't personally buy evolution, who cares TBH. What matters is that it doesn't automatically make your idea of God, who magically just created everything any more valid, plausible or likely if evolution were proved correct or proved to be false.

 

TBH I really do think it's a load of nonesense that any rational individual should be able to see through in an instant. Creationism to me answers nothing at all, it justs brushes the problem under the carpet - after all, I'm entitled to ask, who created the creator, and so on and so forth. It's just a non-argument (a theory of nothing) that actually solves nowt.

 

I'd actually be totally happy if evolution was proved wrong, why... because it means we have found a better explanation, and I'd be all for that, that is progress. Evolution is the best, most rational explanation we have to date, it might get refined, it might be wrong in places, heck we might throw it away and replace it with something better - whatever the case it will be based the best knowledge we (as a human race) have accrued over our time on the planet. If you are happy to throw that away for some whimsical notion, then in a free society no one is going to stop you, but don't expect anyone else to see it for anything more than fantasy thats been taken far too seriously by some.

 

Mutations explain odd bod versions, but hardly the entire animal kingdom.

 

That statement makes me question if you actually know how evolution (the theory) of works!

 

I'd like to think that a scientist shouldn't even be involved in this conversation. By the very nature of science it admits it doesn't know all the answers, only astimates the most likely conclusion from available 'proven' data (Ockham's razor) - not necessarily the actual conclusion (we can keep coming back to the fact that we knew the earth was flat all those years ago).

 

If it's proven (within current understanding) that there was/is a creator, then that will be accepted into science, it would radically change a hell of a lot of viewpoints yes, but nonetheless it would become a scientific truth.

 

well said, science doesn't know (or claim to know) everything, it just seeks the best answer based on the weight of evidence before it, It draws potential solutions (theories) based on fact and rational thinking. It continually adapts to become better and better, rather like evolution itself infact The fittest survive, and the fitest ideas survive, in science so far, that happens to be evolution, we can't say the same about any theory of God. The theory that we are all in a computer simulation run by mice has as much strength as any other creationsist theory, I'm sorry but it's true!