This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Organized Religion, the Bible and the Will of God
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Ksero
Nicolaus Copernicus
Started the idea of heliocentrism.
Galileo Galilei
Refined heliocentrism, started the scientific revolution.
Francisco J. Ayala
Worked on evolutionary theory, was a catholic priest.
i can keep going
Post by
MyTie
The Bible doesn't state that the Earth is the center of the universe. Further, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, so that's nice that some guy who believes in the Bible worked on the theory of evolution, but none of this brings us to the point where we can say that the Bible is false.
The problem is, that the Bible is kind of an all or nothing sort of thing. The whole book hinges on the fact that it is God's word, and that God is perfect. To undo part is to undo all. Now, I've got a great head for asking questions, reading history, and studying the universe. I am an engineer, and have an engineer's mind. I also recognize the power of the Bible. Every contradiction, between science and the Bible, I have ever seen, comes from a misunderstanding of science, a misunderstanding of the Bible, or by refuting man made additions to the Bible, such as Catholicism.
Post by
Skreeran
Evolution has very much been proven.
Sorry, I've been mostly trying to stay out of this thread, because I'm trying to remain ambivalent to religion, but evolution is an established scientific fact, proven by mountains and mountain of evidence.
Post by
Ksero
The Bible doesn't state that the Earth is the center of the universe. Further, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, so that's nice that some guy who believes in the Bible worked on the theory of evolution, but none of this brings us to the point where we can say that the Bible is false.
The problem is, that the Bible is kind of an all or nothing sort of thing. The whole book hinges on the fact that it is God's word, and that God is perfect. To undo part is to undo all. Now, I've got a great head for asking questions, reading history, and studying the universe. I am an engineer, and have an engineer's mind. I also recognize the power of the Bible. Every contradiction, between science and the Bible, I have ever seen, comes from a misunderstanding of science, a misunderstanding of the Bible, or by refuting man made additions to the Bible, such as Catholicism.
Fair enough, if you believe that evolution is unproven, I don't see how we can go anywhere constructive from here.
Post by
MyTie
Evolution has very much been proven.
Sorry, I've been mostly trying to stay out of this thread, because I'm trying to remain ambivalent to religion, but evolution is an established scientific fact, proven by mountains and mountain of evidence.
That's why it is called the "fact of evolution". Because it is fact. All the science says so. Because science. Evidence. Fact.
Fair enough, if you believe that evolution is unproven, I don't see how we can go anywhere constructive from here.
Ok. Just keep in mind I'm willing to look at any part of the Bible you want for truth. =)
Post by
Ksero
That's why we have
"The Fact of Gravity"
Post by
Skreeran
Right, like the Fact of Heliocentricity and the Fact of Relativity.
You're confusing the colloquial definition of "
theory
" (an educated guess; a hypothesis) with a "
scientific theory
" (a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.)
In scientific terms, evolution is a theory, because it's not a physical
law
. In layman's terms, it is very much a fact.
Post by
MyTie
That's why we have
"The Fact of Gravity"
It's all fact! Why? Science! Why does anyone even question this? Because they are mindless zombies who don't question anything.
I had to temporarily turn off my screen, to stave off the continuous flow of irony trying to drown me.Right, like the Fact of Heliocentricity and the Fact of Relativity.
You're confusing the colloquial definition of "
theory
" (an educated guess; a hypothesis) with a "
scientific theory
" (a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.)
In scientific terms, evolution is a theory, because it's not a physical
law
. In layman's terms, it is very much a fact.
And what, exactly, does this have to do with the Bible? or religion?
Post by
Ksero
That's why we have
"The Fact of Gravity"
It's all fact! Why? Science! Why does anyone even question this? Because they are mindless zombies who don't question anything.
I had to temporarily turn off my screen, to stave off the continuous flow of irony trying to drown me.
I'm assuming you didn't see skrees post before you replied to mine, but that's what I was getting at.
Post by
Skreeran
Nothing. I was merely correcting an incorrect statement you made.
Post by
MyTie
Nothing. I was merely correcting an incorrect statement you made.
Could you quote what it was I said that was incorrect? (obviously sarcastic statements aside)
Post by
Skreeran
Further, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven. . .
Post by
MyTie
Further, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven. . .
Oh. I thought evolution was a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Could you demonstrate this proof, please?
I could offer the counterpoints, but I'll let
this
NYT opinion piece speak better than I could on the subject. The writer is a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University's School of Medicine. Why don't I just argue these for myself? Because, firstly, the topic bores the pants off me, and second, because of one big glaring thing here:
1) Proving the theory of evolution would not disprove that the Earth was created 6-8K years ago. We can "cut" the evolution debate entirely out of this discussion (because, let's face it, smarter people than both of us are on both sides of the debate, doing a finer job of the debate than we ever could), and we could still have the debate about the YEC theory. How? Well, there is no debate about the speed of light. A clever counter to YEC theory is that light has been traveling from distant stars for more than 6-8K years. So, why the hell should we bother to split hairs over evolution? Why bother with the semantical pissing match? Just cut to the light traveling point, and let's get on with the YEC vs Big Bang, or, if you prefer to call it such, God vs No God.
Post by
Skreeran
There are mountains of evidence against YEC, as well.
I don't care how religion chooses to adapt to science. I really don't. I don't care much about religion one way or the other really. As long as we can keep the science clear. Things like evolution and the age of the universe are well understood facts that have been put through the wringer again and again to try to prove them wrong and have stood up to everything we can throw at them, which it why they are accepted as truth. There are tremendous volumes of experimental and inferential data that these theories sit upon.
I don't care how religion decides to cope with these facts. Be my guest to figure out how the creation in Genesis is a metaphor for the forming of the universe and the origins of life on earth and it's evolution to modern day. Go ahead, I won't stop you. But once you start getting the science wrong, I'm going to be here to correct you.
Post by
Ksero
Further, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven. . .
Oh. I thought evolution was a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Could you demonstrate this proof, please?
I could offer the counterpoints, but I'll let
this
NYT opinion piece speak better than I could on the subject. The writer is a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University's School of Medicine. Why don't I just argue these for myself? Because, firstly, the topic bores the pants off me, and second, because of one big glaring thing here:
1) Proving the theory of evolution would not disprove that the Earth was created 6-8K years ago. We can "cut" the evolution debate entirely out of this discussion (because, let's face it, smarter people than both of us are on both sides of the debate, doing a finer job of the debate than we ever could), and we could still have the debate about the YEC theory. How? Well, there is no debate about the speed of light. A clever counter to YEC theory is that light has been traveling from distant stars for more than 6-8K years. So, why the hell should we bother to split hairs over evolution? Why bother with the semantical pissing match? Just cut to the light traveling point, and let's get on with the YEC vs Big Bang, or, if you prefer to call it such, God vs No God.
This wasn't about god vs no-god, it was about whether or not it was ok to teach YEC as a scientific theory, even though it does not have observationally verified supporting evidence, which is the main component of a scientific theory.
Edit: damnit skree, you post exactly what I'm trying to say but with 500% more eloquence, good on you.
Post by
MyTie
But once you start getting the science wrong, I'm going to be here to correct you.
Sounds good. Let's say, Skree, that I can get you to admit that YEC is a possibility. If I can do that, will you at least make an effort not to see past the science vs religion dichotomy? I don't believe there needs to be a "vs" there. What do you say? Do we have a deal?This wasn't about god vs no-god, it was about whether or not it was ok to teach YEC as a scientific theory, even though it does not have observationally verified supporting evidence, which is the main component of a scientific theory.
Yeesh. Now I have to debate with you what should be in schools? I didn't even mention teaching. That's an entirely different topic.
Post by
Skreeran
Well I will certainly admit that there does not need to be a science vs. religion dichotomy. It is certainly possible to be religious, even a devout Christian, without ever having to believe anything that contradicts the experimental and observational evidence supporting evolution from a common descent and a 13.7 billion year old universe.
If you want me to admit that YEC could
techinically
be possible and everything that suggests otherwise is a colossal hoax played by a higher being who has the power to speed up the rate of decay of particles and moves beams of light around the universe, then sure, it's
technically
possible, just like it's technically possible that the Earth is flat.
Post by
MyTie
How mature. I'm glad you could arrive at those conclusions, and in such a respectful manner. I'm very compelled to continue this conversation, but I'm gonna go watch South Park instead.
Peace out
.
Post by
Ksero
Yeesh. Now I have to debate with you what should be in schools? I didn't even mention teaching. That's an entirely different topic.
Actually, that's what brought up the entire YEC vs evolution debate, and the only reason I've been debating this with you...
Well I will certainly admit that there does not need to be a science vs. religion dichotomy. It is certainly possible to be religious, even a devout Christian, without ever having to believe anything that contradicts the experimental and observational evidence supporting evolution from a common descent and a 13.7 billion year old universe.
If you want me to admit that YEC could
techinically
be possible and everything that suggests otherwise is a colossal hoax played by a higher being who has the power to speed up the rate of decay of particles and moves beams of light around the universe, then sure, it's
technically
possible, just like it's technically possible that the Earth is flat.
I can completely agree with this
Post by
Squishalot
Well I will certainly admit that there does not need to be a science vs. religion dichotomy. It is certainly possible to be religious, even a devout Christian, without ever having to believe anything that contradicts the experimental and observational evidence supporting evolution from a common descent and a 13.7 billion year old universe.
If you want me to admit that YEC could
techinically
be possible and everything that suggests otherwise is a colossal hoax played by a higher being who has the power to speed up the rate of decay of particles and moves beams of light around the universe, then sure, it's
technically
possible, just like it's technically possible that the Earth is flat.
If the account in Exodus were true (as per YEC), the split second after God created Adam, how old would he be? Answer: possibly mid 20s? Non-zero, as he was a mature man at that point in time.
Therefore, if God created the world, how old would the world be? Answer: possibly billions of years old? Non-zero, as it was a mature world at that point in time.
Thoughts?
TO be clear, it's not that it's a hoax played by God, it's that if God is creating a universe, that's what the universe looks like. When you paint a picture of a garden, you don't start off by painting how the universe started, then evolved into a garden. You just paint the garden.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.