|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:50 am
Donegaru All I'm going to say is, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you want to know what scientists have to say about religion. you mean mainstream scientists. believe it or not, there are some out there who have a religion and believe in more than just the physical. they're not all atheists. of course, they're the ones who are ridiculed by the rest, but hey, scientists are people too. meaning, just because they're ridiculed doesnt mean they dont have a point or it doesnt mean that the ones doing the ridiculing are right.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:59 pm
Calypsophia Donegaru All I'm going to say is, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you want to know what scientists have to say about religion. you mean mainstream scientists. believe it or not, there are some out there who have a religion and believe in more than just the physical. they're not all atheists. of course, they're the ones who are ridiculed by the rest, but hey, scientists are people too. meaning, just because they're ridiculed doesnt mean they dont have a point or it doesnt mean that the ones doing the ridiculing are right. Of course, you're right, but the majority of scientists are nonreligious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:14 am
Donegaru Calypsophia Donegaru All I'm going to say is, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you want to know what scientists have to say about religion. you mean mainstream scientists. believe it or not, there are some out there who have a religion and believe in more than just the physical. they're not all atheists. of course, they're the ones who are ridiculed by the rest, but hey, scientists are people too. meaning, just because they're ridiculed doesnt mean they dont have a point or it doesnt mean that the ones doing the ridiculing are right. Of course, you're right, but the majority of scientists are nonreligious. to be non-religious doesnt mean to be without spiritual beliefs. even Einstein had spiritual beliefs. then there are those who ask non-conventional questions based on quantum theory (they are grouped with those on the 'ridiculed' side).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:58 pm
bubbahork i get what your saying it makes perfect sense so let me explain to all of you people who don't get what hes saying how can we prove the big bang theory without any proof we cant see it or the fallacy of evolution we cant see it in modern the modern day dude you do know that evolution and adaptation are two sides of the same coinm and saying that their has been proven examples of animals who have adapted to certian enviromental conditions, animals that live in a moderate climate will often have two different types of coats of fur that their bodys will develop to insulate them from their weather conditions, birds will develop certian beaks to help get into their food, squids have developed their ink cloud a diversion so they can escape. now prove to me that evolution has not happend, and i do not mean ape-man type either also answer to me this simple question. if a diety is so omni-potent,scient,and their. then why would said diety need humans to worship it? unless it derived its strength from said worshipers, which wouldnt make it omni-potent, and saying that it would require the worship of humans for its power why would it not come up with some way to make every human worship it instead of other dietys? which would make it not omni-scient. and stating that if both statements were indeed correct then it can not be onmi present. so answer the question please why does such a powerfull being need humans to worship it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:05 am
I sorta believe in both coz I'm catholic and I also, on day, dream to be a scientist so its complicated. But I also thought of this theory that God was the one that created the big bang, but idk...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:02 pm
xXd3ViLXx I sorta believe in both coz I'm catholic and I also, on day, dream to be a scientist so its complicated. But I also thought of this theory that God was the one that created the big bang, but idk... a lot of christians feel this way, and I have no problems with that. but a lot of christians see the idea that we evolved from a branch of early primates as refuting the idea that we descended from adam and eve.. a story they take quite literally. personally, I see it as myth and metaphor. now, I'm not christian, but there are many christians that see it the same way I do. and there are scientists with spiritual beliefs, as I've stated. so dont feel so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:26 pm
Calypsophia xXd3ViLXx I sorta believe in both coz I'm catholic and I also, on day, dream to be a scientist so its complicated. But I also thought of this theory that God was the one that created the big bang, but idk... a lot of christians feel this way, and I have no problems with that. but a lot of christians see the idea that we evolved from a branch of early primates as refuting the idea that we descended from adam and eve.. a story they take quite literally. personally, I see it as myth and metaphor. now, I'm not christian, but there are many christians that see it the same way I do. and there are scientists with spiritual beliefs, as I've stated. so dont feel so bad. personally, i beleive in god, and i see big bang and evolution as highly plausable. I see the adam and eve story, along with many of the bibles stories, and stories to teach us how god wants us to act. who says god could not have used the big bang to begin the universe? It is said he made it all in 7 days....... how bout one big, long, cosmic bang? and as for evolution, i say the same. Who says god could not have at first made apes, then decided they needed to become more than what they were?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:07 am
azrael the reaper Calypsophia xXd3ViLXx I sorta believe in both coz I'm catholic and I also, on day, dream to be a scientist so its complicated. But I also thought of this theory that God was the one that created the big bang, but idk... a lot of christians feel this way, and I have no problems with that. but a lot of christians see the idea that we evolved from a branch of early primates as refuting the idea that we descended from adam and eve.. a story they take quite literally. personally, I see it as myth and metaphor. now, I'm not christian, but there are many christians that see it the same way I do. and there are scientists with spiritual beliefs, as I've stated. so dont feel so bad. personally, i beleive in god, and i see big bang and evolution as highly plausable. I see the adam and eve story, along with many of the bibles stories, and stories to teach us how god wants us to act. who says god could not have used the big bang to begin the universe? It is said he made it all in 7 days....... how bout one big, long, cosmic bang? and as for evolution, i say the same. Who says god could not have at first made apes, then decided they needed to become more than what they were? well, according to the story, the animals did come first. man was the last thing made for this world, if my recollection is right. personally I think it hurts some peoples pride to think we are biologically animals, and descended from primates. perhaps it's demeaning to those who have an inner need to feel special in the bosom of the cosmos.. to feel like the buck stops with us and we are what it was all for. maybe evolution rocks their sense of security. *shrug* I dunno
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:40 am
well,i have no problem believing it, as barbaric as some of us can be. and we have basic instincts, same as any animal.
As for our being "special", i do not think we are all that special. We take over all corners of the world and use up resources. when we have used them up in an area, we take them from other parts of the world. and humans think they are the "only" sentient beings. However, we can not speak with other animals, so how do we know they can not communicate with each other, and we are the only ones who can't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:06 pm
azrael the reaper well,i have no problem believing it, as barbaric as some of us can be. and we have basic instincts, same as any animal. As for our being "special", i do not think we are all that special. We take over all corners of the world and use up resources. when we have used them up in an area, we take them from other parts of the world. and humans think they are the "only" sentient beings. However, we can not speak with other animals, so how do we know they can not communicate with each other, and we are the only ones who can't? I agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:33 pm
hey,i didnt say which special,ok. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:42 pm
Sorry to kind of bring this one back from the dead but I have Some important things to add that I hope might be helpful to you and if you answer helpful to me. I think one of the single most compelling points against evolution is the fact that there is so very few findings of a transitional organism. If you recall there were several hoaxes as while as some that were realized to be a deformity of the body. If evolution moved at a constant rate there should be over 1.2 billion transitional fossils. If evolution moved at a variable rate even with the minimum possible time between changes there would still be a vast amount more transitional organisms that there are(I apologize, I forgot the number). If I may recommend a book it would be More Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. This book is full of questions that evolutionists aren't able to answer. There is in fact a large amount of evidence that instead of supporting evolution it instead supports creation(I know its general but I'm just saying).
Thanks,
Benjamin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:03 pm
Card_King1 Sorry to kind of bring this one back from the dead but I have Some important things to add that I hope might be helpful to you and if you answer helpful to me. I think one of the single most compelling points against evolution is the fact that there is so very few findings of a transitional organism. If you recall there were several hoaxes as while as some that were realized to be a deformity of the body. If evolution moved at a constant rate there should be over 1.2 billion transitional fossils. If evolution moved at a variable rate even with the minimum possible time between changes there would still be a vast amount more transitional organisms that there are(I apologize, I forgot the number). If I may recommend a book it would be More Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. This book is full of questions that evolutionists aren't able to answer. There is in fact a large amount of evidence that instead of supporting evolution it instead supports creation(I know its general but I'm just saying). Thanks, Benjamin just because something hasnt been found, doesnt mean it does not exist. Troy was considered a myth.. a complete fiction invented in the mind of Homer.. until it was found. it is not being taught in elementary school history books. I believe in evolution because life *is* change. it's an on-going series of changes. without it, life could not be at all. I fail to understand the logic of the creationist that blatantly discounts evolution because they take the bible 100% literally. the world was made in 7 days. what if 7 days to this god is 1,000,000 years to us? please dont tell me you think the dinosaur bones were placed on earth by god when he created the world 6,000 years ago to confuse us and test our faith. that to me is a lame excuse.. sounds like grasping at straws. and if you truly want to believe there was a person named 'adam' and a person named 'eve', that's fine. once something evolves into a new species it ceases to exist as the former species, so you wouldnt have to view 'adam and eve' as apes.. they'd *still* be the 'first people' and the biblical chronology would still be the same.. humans being created *after* all the other species. I personally dont believe it (the story of genesis), I view it as metaphor.. but that's neither here nor there. again, god and evolution are NOT and dont have to be mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:38 pm
Quote: again, god and evolution are NOT and don't have to be mutually exclusive. Personally I do believe that God and evolution and contradictory because It says specifically in the bible(assuming it is true) that God created all the animals with his spoken word. Then he created man with his own hands and breathed into him life. If we evolved from animals then why would God take all that care to make man with His own hands?(Gen 2:7) Quote: I fail to understand the logic of the creationist that blatantly discounts evolution because they take the bible 100% literally. the world was made in 7 days. what if 7 days to this god is 1,000,000 years to us? please dont tell me you think the dinosaur bones were placed on earth by god when he created the world 6,000 years ago to confuse us and test our faith. that to me is a lame excuse.. sounds like grasping at straws. No but the fossil record supports the idea of a worldwide disaster(aka. the flood) and yes I believe that their was a time when man walked the land with dinosaurs.(Job, see leviathan). Science shows that 5000 years is enough time for something to fossilize. Quote: just because something hasnt been found, doesnt mean it does not exist. Troy was considered a myth.. a complete fiction invented in the mind of Homer.. until it was found. it is not being taught in elementary school history books. I believe in evolution because life *is* change. it's an on-going series of changes. without it, life could not be at all. Certainly, just because something has not been found isn't proof that it does not exist, but, for evolution to be plausible there are way too many things that should have been found but aren't. Thats all I said. Quote: and if you truly want to believe there was a person named 'adam' and a person named 'eve', that's fine. once something evolves into a new species it ceases to exist as the former species, so you wouldnt have to view 'adam and eve' as apes.. they'd *still* be the 'first people' and the biblical chronology would still be the same.. humans being created *after* all the other species. I personally dont believe it (the story of genesis), I view it as metaphor.. but that's neither here nor there. If evolution was compatible with the account in the bible. Then yes, that would be one way to think about it. Also a species cannot just disappear altogether their must be an equal amount of evidence to support the claim that it even existed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:57 pm
I see science as a study of how the universe works. I believe in god. I say they go hand in hand. As I see how perfectly things work in nature, i can not help but feel that nature is not just one big collection of "coensidences". It works too perfectly. so i believe that god created everything, but that he had a method by which everything would continue on without his constant interferance.
you want good examples, study nature. study biology. the inner workings of the human body alone are amazing.
I am not a major science buff or anything, but I am an observer and thus my theories come from personal observations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
