M
madisona
Guest
was not saying that religious beliefs do. merely insinuating that pots shouln't be calling kettles black.
Creationism
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
was not saying that religious beliefs do. merely insinuating that pots shouln't be calling kettles black.
Has this happened on this thread though?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that at least most critics so far are atheist/agnostic - in itself hardly a "religious" belief?
M
madisona
Guest
just wondering why belief in creationism and the flying Spaghetti Monster appears daft to some posters. Is it because we cannot give a rational explanation for them?In which case the origins of the universe, some quantum mechanics, love, hate etc would be daft too.
A point here, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is one of the most misinterpreted in history. Fittest here does not refer to e.g. healthiest or strongest as is often thought - it means most suitable - fit for the purpose.
Because to "believe in" them is to ignore the total lack of scientific evidence supporting their existence, possibility or efficacy etc. Obviously you cannot prove a negative.
Eh? There is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the generally accepted theories and models for the origin of the universe, quantum mechanics etc.
I don't really understand your mention of "love" and "hate"?
There is no one generally accepted theory for the origin of the universe, the big bang is only one of many theories and even then the theory doesn't hold to zero point i.e. the point of "ignition".
My point regarding quantum mechanics was that there are many unsolved mysteries, puzzles and apparent contradictions in this area which, whilst we believe in them, don't offer a rational explanation.
Love and hate? Can anyone offer a truely rational explanation for these, yet we believe they exist because we feel them.
John Paul accepted evolution more or less. Benedict rolled back a little and has added some comment which are slightly in favour in intelligent design:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
I know some Evangelical Christians here - the European ones seem to lean towards Michael Behe style intelligent design. (Based on a very small sample).
To Leghorn:
I hope you are joking regarding "it's a theory not a law". Otherwise someone needs to start writing to the Minister for Education.
The point is that that's exactly what it is, the theory of evolution.
We all have our creation stories.
Life goes from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps.
Mind? None. Purpose? None. Direction? None.
This, in two lines, is the creation story for atheists.
Z
z103
Guest
How many 'missing link' fossils are there? For the human fossil record, there are probably about ten purported examples (Lucy, Java etc) - many of these are doubtful. Hardly conclusive evidence when you consider there should be millions of examples.
Animals tend to be distinctly sub-divided, into species etc. It's discrete.
There aren't any half-ape creatures walking around. All domestic cats, for example, are the same.
GeneralZod
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,198
The chances of you, me, anyone, anything of becoming fossilised is very, very low. The amount of fossils that have been discovered given the billions and billions of living being who have ever walked this earth is minute. Most fossils have been discovered in particular areas where the conditions for fossilisation were right. The amount of human or humanoid fossilised bones that have been discovered all over the earth woulndn't fit the back of a white van.
PS If you would to become fossilised (after your death rather than in the local pub), the back page of the New Scientist had an engaging discussion about this a few years ago.
S
stir crazy
Guest
Take this quote for example from that webpage :
''GOD CREATED man and woman, either directly or after a long process of evolution.'' by an archbishop
What I find hilarious about religion is they claim to offer us certainty but when it comes down to it they dont know anything about what happened. Instead of reducing speculation by introducing the truth (which would be my idea/requirement of a genuine religion , if one existed), they only introduce even more speculation.
I think this is a thread that could go on forever. We will find out in the end, won't we?
...Look at all the evil out there and the disrespect humans give to each other, animals and the planet and ask yourselves, Do humans deserve a heaven to be waiting for us?
...Look at all the evil out there and the disrespect humans give to each other, animals and the planet and ask yourselves, Do humans deserve a heaven to be waiting for us?
Indeed. Like M-Theory - something like, 'two huge vibrating membranes (in the 11th dimension) collided, giving rise to the Singularity and the birth of our Universe'. And other nonsense about time travel and infinite parallel universes. I don't think that Science can explain, or that we can comprehend, everything; anyone who does must surely conclude that life is random and pointless.
I hear you can believe a lot of things exist if you partake in certain substances of a fungal nature.
Can there be any winners in the debate between science and 'belief'? I mean, if I want to believe that my Christmas tree is the reincarnation of George Bernard Shaw, then what is 'science' to tell me I'm wrong?
I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.
... and you have conclusive evidence or a hypothesis which can be tested to lead you to conclude that this is nonsense ? It may well be nonsense, but where is the evidence ?
I
Yet another rehash of an old argument which has been answered many times. Science is a method, the results of which form part of a wider body of knowledge which can be used to shape our understanding the universe, and can be applied via technology and engineering. People using science never claim to explain 'everything'. Its just the best way we have of finding things out.
By saying we cannot comprehend everything is like saying we could never, ever fly to the moon. Why put this limit on understanding ?
The alternative to the scientific approach is 'belief'.
Science and belief are opposite.
A scientific approach attempts to derive knowledge in the form of a scientific theory (which is NOT the same as the word 'theory' used in everyday language) using the available evidence.
A belief system decides what the answer is already and either ignores any contrary evidence, or makes evidence fit the belief.
As for evolution, many of the so-called points raised against it have been dealt over and over again, by people like Attenborough, Dawkins, Gould. The fact that people insist on bringing them up again just shows their distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.