[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

[...] its you who don't know how the world was created. I do!

"The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken"[...]

I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could believe such an obviously fraudulent story created by simplistic peasants devoid of any biblically scientific understanding. Frankly it's laughable and you should re-examine your ideas - in other, less tolerant societies, you'd be locked up; in the coming theocracy, I think stoning would be lienient.

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

Mr. Jackkkethicspeter, if you are serious in seeking quotes, I must strongly recommend Brother Bathfire's comments HERE, as he helps guide a would-be Christian through his doubts:

Evilution: what bit of the following do you not understand?

Ge:1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Ge:1:30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Now we are not so stupid as to think that every dog, cat and rabbit should look the same, God has allowed for certain fashions to decorate the animal world for our pleasure. Large, small, medium-sized, black, white and spotted, etc. Nor do we say that dinosaurs roam the earth – they went out with the Flood. Nor do we say that certain species might not have changed a little in the 6,000 years since the beginning of Creation. This is micro-evolution (see animals listed above) or punctuated smiting.

I hope this helps.

You may also wish to read THIS THREAD.

[jessev]

Re: Science and Religion

I wished to add a question to this thread. Perhaps it may have been already answered. Perhaps not. However, I did think about this as I read some things on this thread. I understand you believe the KJV 1611 bible to be the true and correct bible. However, isn't it true that it is a translation of the earlier Hebrew bible? If this is not the case, then that is fine. But English as we know it didn't exist to be written several hundred years ago. Things have been translated into english from other languages. So, if this is true, did God write this book himself, but not the earlier Hebrew book? I thank you for answering this question as I was just being a bit curious about it.

So far, this thread has been rather interesting to read. I'm not going to try debating much of what's been said, though, I would like to try clarifying a couple things.

Few Evolutionists believe we 'came from monkeys'. It's a misunderstanding of what has been said in the past. It 'is', however, believed according to the evolutionary theory, that we evolved from a common ancestor. And even though we are more intelligent, monkeys are still on this planet because they have a niche to survive in. Many creatures adapt as we do.

That brings me to another thing. There was much talk about Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. It's true that he didn't explain evolution. That wasn't his intent. He just explained natural selection. Partially because genetics were not at all known by that time. It was simply the observation of phenotypic traits and surmising a way how this all worked from generation to generation.

It's also true that there are several theories about how life began. And it's true that it's a difficult thing to prove because trying to recreate early Earth conditions is not particularly easy. While through the electrolysis of particular molecules, we can create particular strings of proteins and other bio-molecules, it hasn't shown yet that those could be potential for future capability of life. I imagine that will remain a debate for a while.

I appreciate the help thus far.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Science and Religion

I wished to add a question to this thread. Perhaps it may have been already answered. Perhaps not. However, I did think about this as I read some things on this thread. I understand you believe the KJV 1611 bible to be the true and correct bible. However, isn't it true that it is a translation of the earlier Hebrew bible? If this is not the case, then that is fine. But English as we know it didn't exist to be written several hundred years ago. Things have been translated into english from other languages. So, if this is true, did God write this book himself, but not the earlier Hebrew book? I thank you for answering this question as I was just being a bit curious about it.

The KJV1611 was translated into American-English from a 9th Century Greek manuscript. Hebrew has nothing to do with The Bible and not even widely spoken in Judah in the time of Jesus earthly ministry. Aramaic was the language commonly spoken then.

So far, this thread has been rather interesting to read. I'm not going to try debating much of what's been said, though, I would like to try clarifying a couple things.

Few Evolutionists believe we 'came from monkeys'. It's a misunderstanding of what has been said in the past. It 'is', however, believed according to the evolutionary theory, that we evolved from a common ancestor. And even though we are more intelligent, monkeys are still on this planet because they have a niche to survive in. Many creatures adapt as we do.

According to their “theory” common ancestor for modern apes and humans is an archaic ape called “Africanus ProConcilus”. This archaic evolved from a archaic monkey. So that means we came from monkeys, as absurd as that sounds.

[barneyhilliard]

Re: Science and Religion

How then did you eliminate any other possiblities?

By not being stubborn, atheistic, retards. Try reading your Bible instead of your so-called "intellectual" books. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." What part of that verse are you struggling with? You may need to sound it out.

[Cranky Peter]

Re: Science and Religion

By not being stubborn, atheistic, retards. Try reading your Bible instead of your so-called "intellectual" books. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." What part of that verse are you struggling with? You may need to sound it out.

How many times? I need more proof than a book which could have been written by anyone; it could have been written by God, but it could have been writen by Peter Pan.

Which part of, more proof than the 'evidence' which one book gives you, do you not understand?

you may need to sound it out.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Science and Religion

How many times? I need more proof than a book which could have been written by anyone; it could have been written by God, but it could have been writen by Peter Pan.

Which part of, more proof than the 'evidence' which one book gives you, do you not understand?

you may need to sound it out.

Proof of God can be seen HERE. Now shut up and REPENT!

[barneyhilliard]

Re: Science and Religion

Proof of God can be seen HERE. Now shut up and REPENT!

Thank you, Pastor. However, I doubt that Cranky Peter even has the ability to repent. He obviously believes in Peter Pan. My neighbor's kid, Timmy the Retard, also believes in Peter Pan. Ergo, Cranky Peter is probably a retard.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Science and Religion

How many times? I need more proof than a book which could have been written by anyone; it could have been written by God, but it could have been writen by Peter Pan.

Let us look to nature then friend. Consider the cucumber; it is perfect for sodomizing a human. There is no natural process that would evolve a plant for bottom buggering. Clearly the cucumber was supernaturally created and only God is concerned about what humans shove into the bum.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

How many times? I need more proof than a book which could have been written by anyone; it could have been written by God, but it could have been writen by Peter Pan.

Which part of, more proof than the 'evidence' which one book gives you, do you not understand?

you may need to sound it out.

I often ask people who ask for proof of God, "What proof would satisfy you?" What's your answer?

[Palmer C. Eldrich]

Re: Science and Religion

I often ask people who ask for proof of God, "What proof would satisfy you?" What's your answer?

Miracles would help.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

Miracles would help.

27 years ago, I was without the taxi fare home, I prayed to Jesus to help me. Then I found a $100 dollar bill in a washroom. OK? I assume you believe in God now?

Son, the Lord is not to be tested! He does things in His own time and to His Great Plan.

[joe707]

Re: Science and Religion

I often ask people who ask for proof of God, "What proof would satisfy you?" What's your answer?

Isn’t this the crux of it? What would satisfy anyone as an answer, as proof? Miracles can be explained, or else explained away as anomalies. You know what counts as proof for scientists. But you accept the word alone as proof, and you say you dismiss all other proofs. I doubt it though. I doubt either of these proofs are the end of the story.

What do you do if they fall short?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

Isn’t this the crux of it? What would satisfy anyone as an answer, as proof? Miracles can be explained, or else explained away as anomalies. You know what counts as proof for scientists. But you accept the word alone as proof, and you say you dismiss all other proofs. I doubt it though. I doubt either of these proofs are the end of the story.

What do you do if they fall short?

If they fall short, they aren't proof - what's your question?

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

Right, im back. I said i'd post this, so i will.


Examine, and comment on, the relationship between Religion and Science, refering to Evolution and Creationism


The relationship between Science and Religion is one of Conflict, caused, in part, by the blurring of the borders which define the two factions. First then, a definition; Science is mutable- it changes easilly to interpret new evidence. A Scientific theory is accpeted, not beleived. Religion is absolute- it doesn't change in order to interpret new evidence. A religious theory is beleived, indeed, it takes a 'leap of faith' in order to beleive it.

Swinburne once postulated his 'principle of credulity and testimony', in which he posited that we should accept what people tell us as the truth is we have no evidence to the contrary. In actuality, this theory doesnt work- whatever you accept or beleive, humans have only got thus far by being cynical; questioning things constantly. If you beleive that a particular berry won't kill you, it won't prevent it from doing so, and so in actuality swinburne should have prehaps postulated a principle of 'Incredulity and Tesitmony'- that we only accept what someone tells us as the truth if there is evidence which supports it. By this principle, Science should have more acceptors than Religion has beleivers- while Science can offer up evidence for it's claims, Religion is based around pure beleif, therefore meaning that many people are much more likely to be 'incredulous' of religious theories, and find Scintific ones credible.

The religious think-tank theos recently commissioned a study, which found that, whilst 25% of Britons fully accepted the theory of evoluton, a staggering 50% of Brits were either opposed to or 'confused' by the theory. Why, if our afformentioned principle suggests that Scientific ones are the most credible ones, do such a seemingly anomolous number of people refute the claims of one of it's major theories in favour of relgious answers? The answer lies in the blurring of the borders between Science and Relgion, and this too is where the conflict lies.

Creation Science is a major movement across the western world. Whilst technically a religion- it is absolute, not changing it's views because of evidence- this has not stopped it from attracting many powerfull people to its psuedo-scientific theories, amogst them the former head of NASA, dubbed 'father of the space age', and Adnan Oktar, Turkish Oil Billionaire and writer (and publisher and funder) of the lavish Atlas of Creation, a vastly expensive peice of creationist proppaganda which was delivered free to all schools in the UK. Contrasting to this, Evolutionaries activley protest against the formation of an Evoltuion Religion- as Andrew Marr, staunch evolutionist and bbc political correspondent, said 'we mustn't let [darwin's theory] Crust into Creed, Harden to Dogma'. It is Creationism's encroahment onto scientific ground, the styling of it;s religion into a psuedo-science, complete with museums and 'scientific' refernce books, and it is Evolution's decision to not form a religion, which has made half of Brits 'confused' over the issue of how we came into existence, and which fuels the conflict which defines the two theories.

Scientific debate is a major part of the scientific process, and is welcomed by the scietific communtiy in order to prove new ideas and to disprove old ones. Creation Science is not dissmissed by the scietific community because it challenges their views, it is dismissed because it is 'bad' science.

If, as previosuly mentioned, a major human attribute is cynicism, then we can assume that scientists are the most cynical of us all- constatnly looking for holes in their own theories in order to make it water-tight. It is fair to say, therefore, that all 'good' scientists woud only be attracted to theories which take this cynical aproach too; theories which are built up gradually as new evidence is found, rather than those which make giant, unsupported, leaps of faith. Taking this into account, it is safe to say that any scientists attracted to the religious theories of Creation Science are 'bad' scientists, and the psuedo-scientific evidence which they present as proof for their beleifs can result in some very 'bad science, and it is this which riles the Scientific community into the aggesive stance which it takes against religion. For Example, the creation science magasine, 'Good News magasine', recently published an article which claimed that, if we truely had evolved, we would divide, like amoebas. Despite presenting this as scientific fact, this article made no mention of the fact that amoebas are single celled organisms, whilst we are made up of bllions of cells, and so division would not be a valid process for us to undergo. It also made no reference to the obvious fact that, if we did divide like amoebas, which, if we did, the magasine says would prove that we had evolved, there would be no variation to cause evolution in the first place! In the same article, the writer presented the extended time which humans have to care for their young for as evidece that we had not evolved, since caring for them for so long weakened us. Again, no mention was made to the correlation of the survival rate of young animals and the time they spend in their parents care, nor did it make mention of the fact that, since we share the concept of caring for our young for many years with chimpanzees and many other simians, this parent/progeny bond proves our relation to these creatures, thereby proving evolution. The Genesis Expo museum in portsmouth, is the the only Creation Science museum in the U.K, and its exhibits include a gravestone marked 'The Theory of Evolution, R.I.P', and a sign which reads 'The existence of a primordeal soup would be a nightmare for the canned soup industy!'.

The views presented above, however, are all extremist points of view, and it is also true that, whilst militant evolutionaries and militant creationists do exist, there are many shades of grey between the two- religous scientists and liberal christians use the bible quote from luke's gospel 'To God, Nothing is Impossibe' to validate their beleif that God used the process of evolution to form the earths creatures, whilst even the most evangelical christians accept that micro-evolution- the creation of breeds within a species, is a valid proccess.

Whilst there are shades of grey within the beleivers and acceptors of both Creation and Evolution, so too are there shades of grey between the theories themselves. Whilst the religious outcry and scientific turmoil which darwins theory of evolution caused has been well documented, 50 years before darwin published 'On the Origin of Species', Lamarck published an alternate theory of evolution which he called 'aquired charateristics'. The traditional example of this is the girraffe's neck- a girraffe streches it's neck reaching for the higher branches, and passes this on to it's young. Although this theory was dismissed by the scientific community untill as recently as Sir David Attenborough's program early this year, to mark the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, recent experements have shown that the benfits of improving of certian traits, such as memory, are passed on to the next generaltion, and Lamarck's theory was publised into little, or no outcry, and rightly so. Lamarck's 'aqquired characteristics' has a very christian view to it, something almost irenean- the 2nd Century philosopher Ireneaus prosulated a theodicy to solve the problem of evil and suffering for Christians, by suggesting that this world was a 'vale of soulmaking'. Lamarck's theory mirrors this perfectly- the higher branches as a manifestation of the evil which exists in the world, and the streching of the neck as a manifestation of the 'soul making' that this evil inspires. Ireneaus also found evidence for his theodicy in Genesis- 'Let me make man in my own image, AFTER my own likeness', suggesting that the word 'after' implies that God did not make the world perfect, that we have to become perfect, to grow into God's image, which Lamarckian Evolution depitcts flaultlessly.

More recently than Ireneaus, or even Lamarck, was David Owen Wilison, who published a book called 'Darwin's cathedral', in which he showed how the theory of Group Evolution- the evoltuon of behavious within groups, such as altruism, which enable the survival of a group of a certain organism- could have propagated the existence of organised religion, and many (more liberal) christians use this as ratification for their beleif that God used evoltuion to create us as his favoured race, and to begin His Church.

Why then, if there is so much middle ground between the two factions of Evoltuion and Creationism, and by extention Science and Religion, does such conflict patently exist? The ancient greek philosopher, aristotle, once postulated the theory of 'Horror Vacui', which proposed that humans 'fear' 'gaps' in our knowledge, and that we try to fill these 'vacui'. Aristotle suggested that we fill these gaps with Gods- with parables and deities. The God of the Gaps theory, as detailed by Ian A. Barbour, also suggests this- that as humans have gained more knowledge about how the world works, we have lost the need for deities such as 'Thor, the thunder god' from the Norse religion, because we now know that thunder is just the sonic boom of superheated air formed around a lightning strike. These two theories do not, however, entirely show why such conflict does exist between Relgion and Science- there was not such conflict when Science showed that water cannot turn to wine, that the only creature able to walk on water is the bicycle lizard, so why is there such conflict now? The answer lies in creation's placement within the bible- Genesis 1:1 'In the BEGGINING, God created the heaven and the earth'. The begigning. The conflict between relgion and science is due, majorly, to the fact that religion has no-where else to retreat into, no more parables to refute, no more deities to give up. Creationism is Relgiion's Britian, it's last hope against the Nazi machine of Science's Evolution.

And so, creationism fights back. It fights back by becoming a psudo-science, and by criticising the ethics of evoltuion- the Nazi analogy is quite apt, because creationists point to the fact that darwin's theory was the major inpiration for Hitler's Nazi Eugenics program, in order to discredit the theory, but in reality this is just a criticism of the ethics of the theory, and similar arguments, such as the 'It's adam and eve, not adam and steve' movement in central USA could be applied to the christian view of creation too.

Richard Dawkins, militant athest and staunch evolutionist, proposed the existence of the 'Meme' in his groundbreaking book 'The selfish gene'. he wrote that 'just as genes propagate themselves by leaping from body to body... so to do memes propagate themselves by leaping from brain to brain'. Dawkins saw memes as social genes, the mental coders for, for example; songs, books, or theories, and that these memes only survive by being, for example; catchy, entertaining, or correct. The paradox is that, in the conflict between Evolution and Creationism, when one side becomes the victor, that meme will have survived, proving, no-matter who the real victor is, that evolution is the correct theory.

In conclusion, the conflict between Evolution and Creationism is due to the fact that, through Aristotle's horror vacui and Barbour's God of the GAp's theory, and Dawkin's meme theory, the conflcit between them will, once resolved, resolve the conflict between science and religion once and for all, by disproving relgion.


tell me what you think.