*this thread make me sleepy* the only true in the world or universe is binary 0,1 science not always correct. once, long time ago, scientist think that the world is flat. once, long time ago, scientist think that the world is the center of the universe. maybe what we think true right now, will be change in the future
I believe in a God but no particular religion. Organized religion is man made and subject to error. Catholics say I will go to Hell because I am a heathen. I believe Muslims, Jews, Christins etc. all worship the same God but religion has created these stupid divisions that people are willing to die over.
Hell comes from the Greek word 'Hades' which literally means mans grave so no worries there - that is the eventuality of all mankind at present. Do you really think all of the different religions worship the same God? If that were true they would all do much the same thing, but they don't - don't you think that in many instances they make a God for themselves, designed to suit their own requirements ... much like a designer suit but a designer God?
No, scientists ASSUMED the world was flat, there was no evidence, plus it had been believed for many centuries and proved WRONG (just like religion should be). Scientists are always proving each other wrong (note that I said prove), which means a lot of research and long hours to find an answer or solution. In religion, the pope could make something up, put it in the bible and say that it happened (which has actually been done).
There are not that many learned scientists who argue in favour of creationism. The others, not being scientists, aren't all that well placed to make authoritative pronoucements about science. That is true of every single scientific theory. Why are you singling out the theory of evolution? Certainly not for scientific reasons. That isn't true, as can be clearly seen from looking at the creationist ministry websites. Those websites, and the organisations behind them, exist to uphold the notion that Genesis is literal history and that salvation and Christian faith depend on believing that it's literal history. This isn't an argument about science. Never was. Therefore it follows that no amount of physical evidence will ever be enough for people firmly convinced that if Christianity is true, evolution is false. So, in your opinion, are they truly Christians? Or is it necessary to be a young-earth creationist in order to really count as a True Christian? I'm having a very hard time reconciling that statement with the historical reality of the treatment of the Jews in 14th century Spain, the St Bartholomew massacres, the Catholic-Protestant wars and killings that have characterised British history from Tudor times until the present, and the general treatment of Jews in Europe for the last thousand years. To say nothing of the Crusades. Apparently loving your fellow man doesn't preclude torturing and killing him if he doesn't worship the right god in the right way. I don't see how you can just put that down to religion - the people who came up with these atrocities used the Bible to justify them. If the Bible can be so hideously misinterpreted by people who were really quite learned scholars, then how come it isn't possible that you're misinterpreting Genesis now?
The two examples I gave in my previous post were of a species diverging into two separate populations that could not interbreed. That makes those populations two separate species. Your idea of species seems to lie more along the line of a biblical 'kind,' which is very poorly defined. The argument you're making seems to be a micro evolution/ macro evolution argument (that micro evolution like my speciation examples has been proven but macro evolution like there being a common ancestor between man and apes has not). This is completely bogus, as 'macro' evolution is a logical extrapolation of 'micro' evolution, and one which matches with a large body of evidence. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.
Exactly, because religion has lies in it does not mean there is not some sort of god. Religions do not make sense.
Sorry. Had to say this. Codswallop! You saying a "logical extrapolation" in regards to this is nothing short of a "guesstimation". You are creating "links" when there are none. Col
What's to stop macroevolution if microevolution is shown to occur? This is like saying that, yes, OK, 1+1=2 but no, sorry, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 can't possibly equal 10.
This picture is of Masjid-e-Nabwi or Mosque of the Prophet in Saudi Arabia. As you can see, it is very well lit. But whenever people try to put a light on the Green canopy, it fuses. Anybody got an explanation for this? P.S. Please ignore instead of making fun of it.
I used to have a bathroom like that.... It's caused by faulty wiring. Unless god has an equal dislike to my bathroom being lit as he does with the green canopy. Again you are applying the act of god to things with perfectly reasonable explanations. Of course the other alternative is that it's a myth and it could be lit. They just say it can't to make people like you claim god done it.
I don't see it that way at all. It's all to do with terminology in this case. You are using the term "evolution", whether it be micro or macro, and, referring this to species of life. In my terminology. This is called "adaptation". Seeing you used mathematical terminology, I will also use this method of illustration. Your idea of "microevolution" is to say 1+1=2. Therefore, "macroevolution" is to say 1+1+1=7. It's not the same in my books. There's a massive "jump" to a conclusion going on here. Theory might sound good, but that's all it will ever be, "theory". Unless it is proved factual. Col
I believe that other learned non-scientist are indeed well placed to offer a view on evolution, perhaps even a more objective one. A lawyer for example is used to analysing and debating evidence, though he or she may not be responsible for providing that evidence. The thread singled out evolution, something that is taught and spoken of here as being fact ... it isn't, hence my discussing it as 'theory', (and yes I know theory can be applied different ways). Children are taught in schools that evolution is proven fact but it isn't, here it is presented as proven fact, but it isn't ... that's my reason ... taught as fact it is unchallenged and creation is discounted, that is not beneficial. I do not speak for or represent the creationist ministry websites, nor do I expect that they will necessarily represent the Bible, (though they may). The bible gives a literal account of the creation, not just in Genesis but confirms it elsewhere, including by the words of Jesus Christ. My concern re: the question of science/evolution is of course primarily scriptural but I do not beleive that makes it unscientific. I take the view that God is the greatest scientist, indeed as the Creator, he is the originator of science and therefore any discussion about creation, (an act of science in itself), is going to be about science. When scientists of the day thought the earth was flat the bible clearly spoke of 'the circle of the earth'; read the accounts in the Mosaic Law requiring quarantine of the sick and dead bodies and the requirement for hygeine for example ... long before Louis Pasteur and the knowledge of microbiology and the reasons for the spread of disease. IMO one cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and at the same time deny his teachings and the teachings of the bible. Jesus confirmed the account of creation, other bible writers confirmed it, the genealogy from Adam to Jesus is shown in the book of Luke. Now someone may call themself a christian and say they believe in Jesus ... they may read the bible, attend church and do many other things associated with christianity ... but if they deny the teaching of Jesus, is that claim to being a christian valid? Why would a denial of creation be such a serious matter for one claiming to be a christian? Apart from the words of Jesus as mentioned above, throughout the bible God is spoken of as the Creator, the Psalms and the Book of Job show how the creation glorifies God. A denial of creation would discredit the bible as not being the true Word of God, it would brand Jesus as a liar, it would deny God the credit for how life was brought about and bring into question the whole question of His promises for the future and His ability to fulfil those promises. Jesus spoke of people who would claim to be his followers but who would show by their words and actions that they were not, it is a sobering warning for those who would call themselves Christian:- Yes but the examples you quote make the assumption that those people were in fact Christians! My answer to that is that it is impossible to believe the bible and then set about torture and murder, which the bible condemns. Now that is not to say that you may 'use' the bible as an excuse to do bad things and to justify your action, history is full of such instances as you rightly say but as I have previously said just because one claims to be a Christian does not make him/her one or make them approved by God and Jesus words above clearly show the outcome for them. Religion has been a source of trouble throughout man's history, but true Christianity has never been a source of evil because it opposes evil and condemns injustice and wrongdoing. Of course IMO there is very little to misinterpret in the words, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Says the guy who believes a 2000 year old story to be true..... The hypocrisy of the religious is baffling. We have them talking about "proof" then talking about the invisible man in the sky, and we have them accepting that natural selection takes place while saying evolution doesn't. It's just a case of them believing what they are told, They have completely lost the ability to form any kind of thought of their own. Which causes them to contradict themselves with almost every breath. How on earth can someone ask for proof, And even after being given that proof, Continue to instead believe something that offers no evidence at all. It's because it's not about proof, They are simply looking for a reason to disbelieve something which is obviously true to the rest of us, And they do this by constantly asking for evidence for the obvious.
That's because you are looking in the wrong places for evidence. You can't see that at all can you. Because you are soooooooo afraid that you could be wrong. I don't blame you though. I was just like you for 30+ years. Looking in the wrong places. Col
What, Science books written by scientists? yeah that's a terrible place to look, I should look in a story book collaboratively written by nomadic goat herders 2000 years ago. That has to be more solid than science. I'm also going to ignore the fact that your post, While quoting me, Wasn't at all referencing what i said. You simply glazed over what i wrote and continued with your "I'm right, I don't believe evidence, I'm gifted, I see the light" rhetoric. Absolutely not. My position allows me to be wrong. That's what science is about, It's the search for truth though evidence. It's your position that leaves no room for error. We could present all the evidence in the world and prove evolution beyond all shadow of doubt and your position would still force you to deny it. That is why religion is dangerous and that is why the religious are primitive brainwashed imbeciles. You aren't allowed to change your mind, Regardless of what you see with your own two eyes.