Quran Burning

Status
Not open for further replies.

wpk

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
73
Location (City and/or State)
Ohio
dmmj said:
to settle the debate about evolution vs science


Which debate is that? :cool: Science is simply the method we use to advance our knowledge of the natural world. Evolution is a collection of theories that explain the diversity of biological life. They are not in conflict. I'm guessing you meant to use a different word there. :p
 

dolfanjack

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
151
Location (City and/or State)
Dallas Oregon
Scooter said:
evolution is science we can practice it

I was staying out of this also but I have to ask how exactly do you "practice" evolution?

In a nut shell, evolution is the change of one species to another through mutations. We manipulate genes all the time (breeds of dogs) so we 'practice' evolution.

Yourlocalpoet said:
chadk said:
Yourlocalpoet said:
Okay, but you've kind of just confirmed what I've been saying, strongly believing in something because I had my own sources of information that support it would never happen to me, it is you that has strongly held personal beliefs, I'm an empiricist, I would look at the empirical evidence of the two sides of the argument and then conclude with the one with the most empirical evidence to support it. (the explanation with the least probability, namely the least amount of evidence would be the irrational one.)

OK, so you don't have any strongly held personal beliefs and I do. But not everything has strong empirical evidence. So you just don't take a stand on those things? Issues of 'right and wrong', morality, ethics, love, faith, etc...

So if both sides have almost equal empirical evidence, do you just stick with the one with more every time? That could get awful tiring switching back and forth as new evidence comes out. Happens often in many feilds of science...

Of course I have an opinion on the concepts you mentioned but as someone already said, these concepts do not require a supernatural mandate in order for them to be accepted.

Well yes I agree, as I said before that's the beauty of science isn't it, it constantly strives to understand and quantify, it is objective thus it constantly moves forward.

chadk said:
dolfanjack said:
Science and faith are perfectly compatible. You can be a perosn of science and reason and also a person of faith.
I've tried to stay out of the whole religion disscusian here but when you say 'science and faith are perfectly compatible' you are so wrong! To have faith you have to belive in your bible PERIOD and the bible is not compatible to science. The "big bang" is science it can be measured, evolution is science we can practice it. The bible can't be proved " there is now evidence Jesus was even a person" thats why it's called FAITH. I don't care what people believe but don't ever say science and faith are compatable.

Uh oh!!! I better call all my scientist friends right now (who happen to be Christian) and tell them they don't exist!!! Seriously, that is nonsense.
Let's try this... can a chemist have faith? Why or why not???

I agree with Chad here, of course there are scientists who are people of faith, even if you have faith you can't reject science completely, I mean people that believe in God still accept the laws of gravity don't they?
I would however, and I'm in no way a biologist (I teach English) find it hard to explain the Genesis story if I was a scientist yet believed in the Bible.
There are some people of faith who believe in evolution, however they believe it was God that placed the tools in which evolution could start from, because they can't accept the explanation that is put forward by evolutionary scientists for the origins of the universe. This is a nice theory except that it fails to account for who created God in order for him to start the process of evolution.
What do your scientist Christian mates believe in? Do they find it difficult to believe in the virgin birth etc? (Again, I am genuinely interested.)

harris said:
In my humble opinion there are two topics that are pointless to debate, and that's politics and religion. Each side will never be able to make the other understand or believe in their point of view.

Not always pointless you can learn something new everyday Harris :)
Were not trying to make each other believe in anything, well I'm not anyway, I'm enjoying engaging in a debate and we will all probably continue to do so until a tortoise emergency comes up!

My mom believes shes a christian also but she has never been to church, never read the bible, and doesn't believe in Jesus. Anyone can say their christian.
You can't be a scientist and not have some doubt about your beliefs and not have some doubt about your faith. Without 100% faith your not a christian.
Most of the scientific community aknowledge the big bang as the beginning of the universe, and evolution as the way species came about. But there is alot more to learn.
 

Yourlocalpoet

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
526
Location (City and/or State)
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
dolfanjack said:
In a nut shell, evolution is the change of one species to another through mutations. We manipulate genes all the time (breeds of dogs) so we 'practice' evolution.

Yes, however, breeding animals by exploiting certain genes is not evolution by natural selection.

dolfanjack said:
My mom believes shes a christian also but she has never been to church, never read the bible, and doesn't believe in Jesus. Anyone can say their christian.
You can't be a scientist and not have some doubt about your beliefs and not have some doubt about your faith. Without 100% faith your not a christian.
Most of the scientific community aknowledge the big bang as the beginning of the universe, and evolution as the way species came about. But there is alot more to learn.

In my opinion, I think it would be difficult to be a scientist and not have doubts about your religious beliefs also, especially if they contradicted each other but, as for 'without 100% faith your not a Christian', I disagree.
 
S

Scooter

Guest
Yourlocalpoet said:
dolfanjack said:
In a nut shell, evolution is the change of one species to another through mutations. We manipulate genes all the time (breeds of dogs) so we 'practice' evolution.

Yes, however, breeding animals by exploiting certain genes is not evolution by natural selection.
Yourlocalpoet said:
dolfanjack said:
My mom believes shes a christian also but she has never been to church, never read the bible, and doesn't believe in Jesus. Anyone can say their christian.
You can't be a scientist and not have some doubt about your beliefs and not have some doubt about your faith. Without 100% faith your not a christian.
Most of the scientific community aknowledge the big bang as the beginning of the universe, and evolution as the way species came about. But there is alot more to learn.

In my opinion, I think it would be difficult to be a scientist and not have doubts about your religious beliefs also, especially if they contradicted each other but, as for 'without 100% faith your not a Christian', I disagree.


Making different breeds of dogs through gene manipulation is not changing one species into another. All breeds of dogs are the same species. Gene mutation does not cause "organisms" to change into another species. The mutations might change the look of the species as the dog example shows but it doesn't turn it into another species.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Science is constantly being used to back up the Bible. Archeologist and scientist are finding/doing things all the time that back up the events.
 

wpk

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
73
Location (City and/or State)
Ohio
Scooter said:
Making different breeds of dogs through gene manipulation is not changing one species into another. All breeds of dogs are the same species. Gene mutation does not cause "organisms" to change into another species. The mutations might change the look of the species as the dog example shows but it doesn't turn it into another species.


"Macro-evolution" is simply "Micro-evolution" over a larger timescale. There is no difference between them. The process is well documented and has been duplicated in the laboratory. Richard Lenski and his colleagues at Michigan State University have been conducting an ongoing study using E. Coli bacteria since 1988. The results are fascinating, I'll let you look them up yourself as there's too much good stuff there to post here. It has seemed to me that the people who rail against evolution the most are the ones that understand it the least. I used to be a denier (I was raised evangelical christian), but when I actually looked at the data and what we actually know about evolution, the evidence is really irrefutable.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Science is constantly being used to back up the Bible. Archeologist and scientist are finding/doing things all the time that back up the events.

Which parts of the bible are being backed up by science? Is it the part about the talking snake, the worldwide flood, the talking shrubbery? People coming back from the dead, feeding a multitude with a bit of fish? I'm very familiar with scripture, I've read it many times. There's a reason that courts throw creationism out of science classes on a regular basis.
 

Yourlocalpoet

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
526
Location (City and/or State)
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
wpk said:
Scooter said:
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Science is constantly being used to back up the Bible. Archeologist and scientist are finding/doing things all the time that back up the events.[/b][/b]

Which parts of the bible are being backed up by science? Is it the part about the talking snake, the worldwide flood, the talking shrubbery? People coming back from the dead, feeding a multitude with a bit of fish? I'm very familiar with scripture, I've read it many times. There's a reason that courts throw creationism out of science classes on a regular basis.

Let's not forget the most important, which also happens to be the one I'm most curious about, a man being born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
 

wpk

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
73
Location (City and/or State)
Ohio
Yourlocalpoet said:
Let's not forget the most important, which also happens to be the one I'm most curious about, a man being born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

No no no, the best part is that Matthew and Luke both trace (different) genealogy of that man through the human father.
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
***been away for a few days...****

This is always amusing.... Trying to display your enlightened and tolerant supremacy, while actually conveying the opposite... If you are going to try and belittle someone - especially millions and millions of people at the same time... at least do a little research first.

Reminds me of the guy trying to make himself look smart by pointing out the typo in someone else's post while making even worse ones himself...

I don't have long here, so I'll just address the last one here before I head out. Clearly a few minutes on google or bing and you'd have understood better. Adoption, love, marriage, children, heirs, promises, relationships - all important things that need to be understood to appreciate why Mathew gives us a geneology through the adoptive father and Luke follows the blood line via the mother. If you really want to dig into it, send me a PM.

This may help as well:
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...ferent-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Top