[James Hutchins]

Re: Science and Religion

this was just an aid for revision. i have to write the 'essay'- not paper, im not doing honours, yet- tomorrow in an exam. it was merely posted in order to convey my message to you, not to have you criticise its spelling.

Is the exam before or after nap time?

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

Please point out the assumptions that support your conclusion because I don't see them.

One, the question of abiogenesis is just one small aspect of the Christian faith. Two, you write that there are heretical Christians who accept the theory of evolution but are still able to maintain their faith. If that is possible, how do you come to the conclusion that "proof" of evolution has the ability to overcome religion?

1) Taking religion as a meme, allowing the religious meme to survive over the evolutionary meme would, because the concept of the meme is an evolutionary one, prove evolution regardless of the actual result, meaning that, hypothetically, if one could prove religion, then you would disprove it. Not that a person could, because, as outlined at the start of my essay, religion is not based on scientific proof, and it is the fact that it strives to create this proof which makes it so hated by many in the world community

2) your last question, about heretical christians; i stated this because, although some humans have managed to adapt the memes of evolution and creation, or science and relgion, so that they fit together, eventually one must win- the larger beak must be more fit, or the smaller beak; these heretical christians have the mental equivalent of carrying the coders for both, and so, if memes were genetic, wouldnt survive.

3)i used the example of creation, to answer your comment about abiogenesis, because of the ferocity of the debate between it and its rivals compared to other parts of biblical/scientific debate, and because of its position so close to the start of the bible.

there is a bible parable about a man who builds his house on sand. I chose abiogenesis because, although disproving various parts of the bible wrong may undermine parts of it, disproving its beggining chapters, its beggining book, would undermine the whole, leading to a larger argument and therefore a much easier to define the relationships between the two sides.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

I showed that to my 8 year old grand daughter, she said,
"Is this one of your tricks, Grandpa Ezekiel?"

(I assured her it was not.)

She continued, "Why has the silly man assumed that evilution is proven? His entire argument is based upon a false premise."

I told her she was a good girl and that I would buy her a toy ironing board tomorrow.

Sir, I have not the faintest idea how you bribed your way into any place of learning.

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

I showed that to my 8 year old grand daughter, she said,
"Is this one of your tricks, Grandpa Ezekiel?"

(I assured her it was not.)

She continued, "Why has the silly man assumed that evilution is proven? His entire argument is based upon a false premise."

I told her she was a good girl and that I would buy her a toy ironing board tomorrow.

Sir, I have not the faintest idea how you bribed your way into any place of learning.

aww, how cute. i dont think, however, that i showed that evolution was proven. i only said that, if religion was proved, so to would evolution be, and i said, not in a derogertory fashion, that religion cannot be proved, because it relies on belief, not evidence.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

aww, how cute. i dont think, however, that i showed that evolution was proven. i only said that, if religion was proved, so to would evolution be, and i said, not in a derogertory fashion, that religion cannot be proved, because it relies on belief, not evidence.

You made the unproven assumption that the concept of the meme was evolutionary. That claim cannot be made unless evilution is proven.

I can prove anything if you allow me a few false assumptions.

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

You made the unproven assumption that the concept of the meme was evolutionary. That claim cannot be made unless evilution is proven.

I can prove anything if you allow me a few false assumptions.

Pardon me, but the victory of either Science or Religion proves meme theory- the victory of one social coder, one theory, over another, happens is much the same way as the victory over large beaks and small beaks on a genetic level. If i have to spell it out;

If religion is proved, then that theory has become the victor- it is more fit to its habitat- society. If this happens, we can see that meme theory is a valid process, because of this victory. As meme theory is an evolutionary theory- and offshoot of gene theory, we can therefore logically conclude that, if meme theory was to be proved, so too would gene theory be proved, meaning that, should any one theory become the victor, become more fit than the other, then the theory of evolution will be proved, and therefore so will science be, as the most valid theory.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

Pardon me,

I may pardon you but the real point is, “Will God?”

but the victory of either Science or Religion proves meme theory

Oh Dear! Memes are the invention of the arch-satan Dawkins – Satan is the Father Of Lies, thus we cannot accept the idea.

You keep saying that memes are evolutionary; if you read Dawkins, he assumes that ideas are passed down in teachings or observed behavior patterns (the latter being consciously or unconsciously copied.) He sees “Chinese whispering” having a part in this and the better memes surviving. From your and his points of view, the trouble with this is that True Christianity has passed from God to us without error or interruption and is revealed in KJV1611. So it is either the best idea in the world and/or The One Truth. As there is no “Evolution” in the Bible, it is against God’s Word. Everything else is an iniquity, an abomination and/or God has rejected it. Thus we see that change, or as you would have it evolution, plays no part.

the victory of one social coder, one theory, over another, happens is much the same way as the victory over large beaks and small beaks on a genetic level. If i have to spell it out;

You rabbit on about survival of the fittest; yet you reject the most obvious solution. Punctuated Smiting

Darwin’s problem was that he went and found some variants in God’s intricate design and then made his own theory to fit them. This is the same as if you postulate that crickets hear through their legs. To do this experiment, put a cricket on the table and clap your hands – the cricket will jump. Cut off the cricket’s legs, clap your hands and it will not move.

offshoot of gene theory, we can therefore logically conclude that,

No we can’t. These are “Theories” not immutable proven laws and, if you want to know about breeding things in a certain way, God has that covered in the Bible:


Animal Breeding – Genetics
Ge:30:37: And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
Ge:30:38: And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
Ge:30:39: And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.


That is how it works.