• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Evolution Created?

ZerroEnna

Member
Jun 7, 2006
13
2
✟22,643.00
Faith
Christian
I have never quite understood why science and religion have always fought. I know there are plenty of other people out there that think the same thing. It's as if people classify one or the other as good and evil. I digress already, so let me get back on topic. Having said that I would like to think that the two subjects can co-exist, I'll go one step further; Why can't they be inter-linked? Why do there have to be two seperate theories that peacefully and seperately exist? I have always been more of an intuitive thinker so bare with my assumptions. I have been an advocate of this line of thinking for quite some time now. I'm not sure how it all started, but I'm positive it has to do with my christian upbrining and my love for science.

I believe in many theories of science like the big bang theory and that evolution DOES occur, that it still happens today. Just like Darwin himself thought, though, there must have been rules put in place for things like natural selection to occur. Something must have existed before there was nothing and I'm not even going to begin to get on that topic. To summarize my sentiment I'm going to paraphrase a quote because I can't remember who first said this, but it goes something like; In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded. Why couldn't have God made all of these things happen? To all of those who have SOME knowledge of how computer programs have written consider this. God creating the universe is comparable to a programmer writing a computer program. Bare with me here and please sit back in your seat and clam down. When someone writes a program they write all the code for how it should properly run, compile it then, hit one button or type one command and its off acting on its "own" accord based on the rules you gave it. The first thing you must understand about programming is that computers are stupid you can't just tell them to find the sum of 23 and 23, you have to write code for it. This process becomes very complex especially if you have to use machine language. Te hardest part about it is "dumbing" yourself down to the computers level. So, following this line of thinking why couldn't God have formulated how the universe should work first then set it off so that it might act on its "own" accord. "He" wrote the rules just like in the computer program, yet it runs on its "own". Now to me this means the big bang. Theoretical physicists are able to explain how the big bang occured up to the very second that it actually happened. We have no knowledge whatsover what first started the chain reaction or what everything condensed into a single "point" was. This is where the afformentioned theory comes into play. Still awake?

Now as for the bible. Yes it does seem to say that things were created in a certain order and in a certian amount of days for that matter. Imagine this though,(here comes a huge assumption) IF you were God and, lets say, Adam had asked YOU how you made this world he was living in? What would you say to him? If you explained it in full detail would he be able to comprehend what you said? To me, it's exactly like the programmer and the computer. God couldn't have said EXACTLY how he did it, he would have to use terms that, whoever wrote Genesis, could understand and ultimately pass on. This doesn't mean the bible is wrong, just incomplete. Now I know what alot of you are saying. Theres just no proof to any of it. My answer is simply, I know, but it takes faith. Faith is a hot topic issue, I know, especially in this context. Yet, everyday we use the same concept. In a slightly different form of course, but still, in essence, the same; Belief. You believe that when you get in your car to get to work that your car will not break down and will get you there on time. This is putting a certain amount of faith in your car. To bring this a little closer to home for some of you. Believing that we EVOLVED the ability to act with free will, to learn, to choose, and to love takes a bit of faith does it not?

As a side note I'm here more for my own understanding rather than to preach. I don't personally know too many people who can add to what I have to say and I'd certainly hate to force my inquisitveness upon people. This is why I am posting here. Those that want to respond and those that care, will. I also realise that I make alot of assumptioins so please bear with me. :)
 

fromdownunder

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2006
944
78
✟24,024.00
Faith
Atheist
Mostly, science and religion do not fight. The only major issue is between YECs and evolution (and to a lesser extent geology), not science in general (until you get to the lunatic fringe and the likes of Hovind who fight everything).

Prior to the 20th century, science was basically an "upper class" hobby, because there were no research grants, institutions, or multi national corporations ready to fund scientific research.

The 19th century researchers (Darwin, Lyell, Mendel to name three) were God believeing theists. The conclusions they came to from their research unfortunately did not fit in with an inerrant literal bible.

Evolution, genetics and the geological column were not (and still are not) a major issue in most of Europe. Except for distractions like the Scopes trial, I understand that they were not a major issue in the USA either (as far as I know)

But then, along came the cold war, and the Russians launching Sputnik in 1957, and the then US Administrations desire to catch up by substantially increasing the science content of school education, including Bioogical Evolution.

This brought the subject of evolution into the mainstream, and fundamentalist YECs were not happy. Then Henry Morris, usually accepted as the father of modern YECism wrote a book trying to prove an inerrant Bible, including a literal account of Genesis, and a world wide flood.

The rest is history. The conflict has been around ever since, but is still largely limited to America, although there are growing movements in Australia, and I think Canada and other areas in the subject.

(The above is an extremely simplistic explanation for this, and is not intended to be textbook or scholarship quality. There is lot's of literature and probably web sites out there on this subject, so if people wish to research it further, just look around)

Norm
 
Upvote 0

Victus

New Member
Jun 9, 2006
4
0
✟30,114.00
Faith
Atheist
Well Zerro,

Both systems seek the truth, or at least claim to do so. Religion does this by claiming a theory (and I use the term loosely) which is divinely inspired, and completely correct. Anything that contradicts this theory is, of course, deemed to be a lie, and the work of demons. As such, religion has a long history of violent reactions when science discovers evidence which directly contradicts its teachings (minor things, like claiming the earth revolves around the sun, can get you killed).

Science, on the other hand, works in very much the opposite manner. It observes reality, makes hypothesis, test them and adjust models based on new evidence. Most of the time, the evidence completely contradicts Biblical (and other mythological texts') account of things. Once upon a time, some kind of cooperation was certainly possible, and actually occured. Without much information, early scientists, it can be argued, may have been justified in falling back to "God(s) did it". However, in the late 19th century science started having enough models and information to effectively account for most phenomena, without refering to God(s). Obviously, this wasn't taken well by religion. While science doesn't directly refute God(s), it does seem to squarely contradict a literal interpretation of the bible, which is supposedly divinely inspired.

Your idea of God 'dumbing down' an explanation for human comprehension has been expressed before. One problem with this is that even if this is the case, there are contradictions in the Genesis account of things (night/day without the creation of the sun, or visa versa, I forget which). Surely, even a 1st generation punst like Adam can understand something as simple as 'Sun = Light, Light = Day'. So if this is true, God is not only condescending towards his creation, he's a bold faced liar.

Evolution doesn't require faith, it requires you examine the evidence that is available.I mean, if evolution is false, then I suppose you would have no problem not taking vaccines for avian flu, because bacteria can't change. I would argue that not 'believing' in evolution requires more faith than the reverse.
 
Upvote 0
F

freeble_dreibash

Guest
ZerroEnna said:
I have never quite understood why science and religion have always fought.
\


At one time there was no science and what men thought about the universe was part of religion. the conflict appears because religion is unable to change in the face of new data. This is the source of the problem. If religion would change to reflect reality there would be no problem.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 31, 2004
3,866
180
Everett, wa
✟30,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
freeble_dreibash said:
the conflict appears because religion is unable to change in the face of new data.

New data as in Einstein saying gravity doesn't exist? That there is no force pulling us down... everything just travels in a straight line through curved spacetime which always points down toward earth? That every time we jump up there is no attraction to the ground keeping us down, rather we just jump through curved space time which makes us land back on the ground... even though while we're standing in the SAME curved spacetime... we're not bent over?

Sometimes the 'new data' is wrong. No the bible doesn't discuss gravity, and there's nothing anti-christian about relativity... but when people wonder around and see some finches and say "hey... these finches are different... they must have evolved this way... so I must have evolved... from a monkey... which evolved from bacteria... so there must not be a God."

When science goes directly against what God says... science is usually wrong... like when science said the earth was flat, and the bible discribed the earth as an orb... science was wrong. Likewise, science says we evolved from a single celled organism which... appeared there... magically... by itself. The bible says life was created. Sometimes our assumptions about science are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The Gregorian said:
... but when people wonder around and see some finches and say "hey... these finches are different... they must have evolved this way... so I must have evolved... from a monkey... which evolved from bacteria... so there must not be a God."

Please, save your straw man for General Apologetics.

You know full well that there are plenty of TEs who would repeat the same train of thought you list with one exception, their last comment would be "...so isn't God's method of Creation wonderful?"
 
Upvote 0

MrGoodBytes

Seeker for life, probably
Mar 4, 2006
5,868
286
✟30,272.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The Gregorian said:
New data as in Einstein saying gravity doesn't exist? That there is no force pulling us down... everything just travels in a straight line through curved spacetime which always points down toward earth? That every time we jump up there is no attraction to the ground keeping us down, rather we just jump through curved space time which makes us land back on the ground... even though while we're standing in the SAME curved spacetime... we're not bent over?
My knowlegde in physics is limited at best, but I am pretty sure that's not what he said at all.

Sometimes the 'new data' is wrong. No the bible doesn't discuss gravity, and there's nothing anti-christian about relativity... but when people wonder around and see some finches and say "hey... these finches are different... they must have evolved this way... so I must have evolved... from a monkey... which evolved from bacteria... so there must not be a God."
No one has ever used evolution as a proof that God does not exist.
Provide sources or retract the claim.

When science goes directly against what God says... science is usually wrong... like when science said the earth was flat, and the bible discribed the earth as an orb... science was wrong.
I'd like to know when science said that, exactly.

Likewise, science says we evolved from a single celled organism which... appeared there... magically... by itself
Provide sources or retract the claim.

The bible says life was created. Sometimes our assumptions about science are wrong.
Well, yours are.
 
Upvote 0

tocis

Warrior of Thor
Jul 29, 2004
2,674
119
55
Northern Germany
✟25,966.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The Gregorian said:
...like when science said the earth was flat, and the bible discribed the earth as an orb... science was wrong. Likewise, science says we evolved from a single celled organism which... appeared there... magically... by itself. The bible says life was created.

Do you have anything besides long-debunked propaganda slogans? The bible speaks (in that one oft-abused verse you base your "round earth" claim on) of a "circle".
Now check out the difference between a circle and a sphere.

Also, if you think science claims that the first life appeared "magically... by itself", you haven't been studying anything besides heavily biased creationist propaganda. Basing all your reasoning on this propaganda won't do you much good in a discussion.

The Gregorian said:
Sometimes our assumptions about science are wrong.

Considering the dubious "quality" of the rest of your posting, this sentence reeks of involuntary irony...
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
When you're choosing a Medical Doctor, do you stop and ask them what religion they are before you take their advice?

What makes other scientists different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gregorian
Upvote 0
Jul 31, 2004
3,866
180
Everett, wa
✟30,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MrGoodBytes said:
My knowlegde in physics is limited at best, but I am pretty sure that's not what he said at all.
General relativity claims that gravity is not a force, celestial bodies eput a strain on spacetime bending it in (bowling ball in the trampoline type thing). Objects passing the earth shift their path toward the earth not because there is a force acting on them (gravity) but because they are going straight through curved spacetime. I.e. Gravity doesn't exist=flawed because gravity as a force explains the macro viewpoint just fine, whereas Relativity doesn't explain the micro worth crap (i.e. why you jump and come back down... if the space time is curved... why aren't we constantly bent over... if space is curved we should always be crumpled up on the ground.

No one has ever used evolution as a proof that God does not exist.
Provide sources or retract the claim.

Ummm... every highschool science teacher who teaches their class evolution as a fact and laughs at students who entertain the thought of creation because that's obviously just a myth and based on no facts whatsoever. Now... back to abiogenisis... the first cell mutated to form a duck... how did that first cell get there? MAaAaAAAgic.

I'd like to know when science said that, exactly.

When science said the earth was flat... You honestly don't believe the accepted theory was that the earth was flat? They thought so for a long time.

Well, yours are.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA shut up. What is it with discussions about science and people wanting to sneak in little rude comments like that? If you don't understand what I'm saying say "Gregorian, please explain" or if I'm wrong say "This evidence disagrees with you" But if I say "The earth is not flat" and you say "Your mom's not flat" that proves nothing other than your inability to make a point.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 31, 2004
3,866
180
Everett, wa
✟30,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
tocis said:
Also, if you think science claims that the first life appeared "magically... by itself", you haven't been studying anything besides heavily biased creationist propaganda. Basing all your reasoning on this propaganda won't do you much good in a discussion.

OK then spanky... explain abiogenisis to me. Of all the books I've read, of the hundreds of hours of research I've put into the topic, and of all the late night public access college classes on the topic that are for some reason always around on the 9000 channels of dish network... I've gathered one basic thing about abiogenisis.

The official accepted scientific standpoint is: "uhh... I dunno... but here's how it evolved."

According to most professors I've watched towards the end of their lecture they will admit "Science has NO answer for abiogenisis" There is NO reason the first cell became alive. Yes... under ideal conditions proteins can form naturally... When abiogenisis was thought to have happened the earth was NOT an ideal place. Temperatures fluxuated extremely between day and night, the atmosphere wasn't properly formed, the earth was bombarded by radiation... Nothing we know of today could have survived in that... why would a cell that just... came together out of the primordial ooze not only suddenly start living... but 'start living' and reproduce... and then have enough of them keep living through the night and day (two extremely different temperatures due to the crappy excuse for an atmosphere we had).

Or would you care to enlighten me? Before there was any life on earth... how did the first living organism come about. Even if evolution was possible... it has to start somewhere... how did the first life form... form? And why have we not seen this happen ANYWHERE else in the detectable universe? If abiogenisis is a natural process, why are there no other planets with life that we've observed? Even if the life is extinct, and cognitive thought is part of nature, should we not have found ruins? ... :scratch:

Considering the dubious "quality" of the rest of your posting, this sentence reeks of involuntary irony...

Hahahaha let's all laugh at the fat guy cuz he made a typo.
 
Upvote 0

MrGoodBytes

Seeker for life, probably
Mar 4, 2006
5,868
286
✟30,272.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The Gregorian said:
General relativity claims that gravity is not a force, celestial bodies eput a strain on spacetime bending it in (bowling ball in the trampoline type thing). Objects passing the earth shift their path toward the earth not because there is a force acting on them (gravity) but because they are going straight through curved spacetime. I.e. Gravity doesn't exist=flawed because gravity as a force explains the macro viewpoint just fine, whereas Relativity doesn't explain the micro worth crap (i.e. why you jump and come back down... if the space time is curved... why aren't we constantly bent over... if space is curved we should always be crumpled up on the ground.
Could somebody with more authority on the subject answer this, please?

Ummm... every highschool science teacher who teaches their class evolution as a fact and laughs at students who entertain the thought of creation because that's obviously just a myth and based on no facts whatsoever.
You claimed that evolution is used as an argument for the nonexistence of God, which is patently false. Now you claim that evolution is used to debunk creationism, which is of course correct, but irrelevant to your original post. What's it now?

Now... back to abiogenisis... the first cell mutated to form a duck... how did that first cell get there? MAaAaAAAgic.
If you refuse to learn, nobody can help you. It's really not that hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

When science said the earth was flat... You honestly don't believe the accepted theory was that the earth was flat? They thought so for a long time.
Then you should have no problem digging up some sources. The earliest idea of a round earth I can find is by Pythagoras, born approximately 570 BCE.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA shut up. What is it with discussions about science and people wanting to sneak in little rude comments like that?
If your assumptions about science weren't wrong, you'd abstain from stating things like "the first cell evolved into a duck" or "scientists try to disprove God via evolutionary theory."

Also, I'm not the one telling people to "shut up."


If you don't understand what I'm saying say "Gregorian, please explain" or if I'm wrong say "This evidence disagrees with you"
Okay. Gregorian, I understand what you are saying, and the evidence disagrees with you.

But if I say "The earth is not flat" and you say "Your mom's not flat" that proves nothing other than your inability to make a point
:scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟29,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
The Gregorian said:
OK then spanky... explain abiogenisis to me. Of all the books I've read, of the hundreds of hours of research I've put into the topic, and of all the late night public access college classes on the topic that are for some reason always around on the 9000 channels of dish network... I've gathered one basic thing about abiogenisis.

The official accepted scientific standpoint is: "uhh... I dunno... but here's how it evolved."

.

Did you sleep through all the lectures, fail to understand the books, and daydream through the television programmes?

There is plenty of information about abiogenesis out there if you want to find it.

Are you stupid? are you lazy? probably not so why haven't you found it? My guess is the above is all hyperbole and you have never done any indepth study on abiogenesis above what you have found on creationist web sites.

I just typed RNA world into google and got 9,080,000 hits, some of them may be able to put you on the path to understanding a bit about abiogenesis.

Also there is no disgrace in saying you don't know how something happened in science, the disgrace is to believe you know everything because goddidit all, becaus ethat negates the chance of ever finding out how it did happen.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

tocis

Warrior of Thor
Jul 29, 2004
2,674
119
55
Northern Germany
✟25,966.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The Gregorian said:
The official accepted scientific standpoint is: "uhh... I dunno... but here's how it evolved."
[...]
Even if evolution was possible... it has to start somewhere... how did the first life form... form? And why have we not seen this happen ANYWHERE else in the detectable universe? If abiogenisis is a natural process, why are there no other planets with life that we've observed? Even if the life is extinct, and cognitive thought is part of nature, should we not have found ruins? ... :scratch:

1. "dunno"... as in "know with 100 % certainty"? Of course not. Nothing in proper science is ever proven 100 %. As you should know if you really have studied so much.
2. I am not your biology teacher. There's plenty of information to be found on the web. Even I was able to find it - do you want to claim that you are soooo incompetent? :p
3. We don't exactly know that much about the universe. We even know damn little about our own planetary neighborhood. Your point here is comparable to someone claiming "I never saw Australia with my own eyes, so it can't possibly exist".

The Gregorian said:
Hahahaha let's all laugh at the fat guy cuz he made a typo.

Na schön kluger Bursche, laß sehen, wie gut du dich auf Deutsch verständlich machen kannst. Und Übersetzungsseiten im Internet zählen nicht - ich benutze auch keine.

Beeindrucke mich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tocis

Warrior of Thor
Jul 29, 2004
2,674
119
55
Northern Germany
✟25,966.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Baggins said:
(To Gregorian)...My guess is the above is all hyperbole and you have never done any indepth study on abiogenesis above what you have found on creationist web sites.

To get cynical for a moment - as long as there are creationists like this one out there, "we atheistic evilutionists" don't need to spend much effort to fight them. All we need to do is point to them. :D
 
Upvote 0
Jul 31, 2004
3,866
180
Everett, wa
✟30,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
bleh... Because I reject what the book says doesn't mean I haven't read it. I know all about lipids forming... may parts of a cell CAN form under the right circumstances... we've never formed them all at once.

If it's so easy to find out... why don't you explain it... I got the link to wikipedia and it said exactly what I said before... there are a lot of theories, and those who accept one theory see the other theories as utter rubbish... I mean ... but 'bubble' theory? We have multicellular organisms because.... they were swept together?! So if I just hang out with someone real close for a while, the two of us will form a single entity?

right.

I've said my point of view... I've explained it pretty clearly... the theories of abiogenisis out there are weak at BEST.... but since you know so much... go ahead... explain abiogenisis. No links... no copy and pasting... Type out a brief summation of how there was no life... and then there was life.
 
Upvote 0