Evolution and Religion

[*YoungGuyver]

A cool show from the BBC:

 

What do you think?

[*Jess♥]

that guys first point,

information doesn't arise from dead matter....

well the precise pulse of a pulsar certainly arose from 'dead matter', so why not other complex patterns, such as snowflakes or other crystalline structures. to argue that, is to ignore all the experiments that have been done concerning the formation of amino acids etc.

it just so happens, that *this* form of patterns, and *this* for of chain reactions and *this* nucleic acid and *this* genetic sequence, resulted in a sapient life, however that is no grounds to assume that other patterns, chain reactions, nucleic acids or gene sequences could not have yielded sapient life.

information requires a designer...

my eyes receive information in the form of light. my eyes measure that information and make judgements based on that information. that information does not have to have been designed. information does not need a designer.  designs need a designer. something which is clearly not present in the clumsy forms that we see in nature.

 

It's wonderful to see the religious people getting a chance to fully articulate their views. it's saddening on the other hand, to see the scientists getting cut off every time they start to make a point.

That guy in the glasses is starting to make me angry.

 

I think the other scientist dude got it spot on. scientists are willing to change their mind. some theories are a bit like dogma.. some scientists can get a bit too passionate, but the religious guys just seem to be ignorant.

 

it is an interesting program. though it seems familiar. I think I may have seen it before.

I shan't watch it all now, I may continue it later.

[LordSpleach]

As a basis, I have to point out that Agnostic, meaning I'm willing to say I don't know. I find it hard to say that there is a God just as much as that there is no God without any evidence. Also from what I've personally seen there is no proof to prove either scenario. I prefer what scientists because they prefer to make sure that they find prove to back there theories. I feel that creationists(as a broad generic term)keep forgetting the meaning of the word, theory. They keep attacking Evolution like it's a dogmatic doctrine. They don't realize that if scientists started finding evidence that goes against evolution, they would follow it up and go be to the drawing board to rework the theory to fit the new evidence.

 

Now, I have to put out a question. If God is omniscience(infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), wouldn't He/She have the patience to watch His/Her creation through the eons, instead of having the rather limited patience of a human and created everything in seven Earth days?

[LordSpleach]

On the side note, even though I'm more on the scientists' side, the host was too biased for their side instead of being truly neutral.

[*Jess♥]

A nice question could be, what is a day without the turning of the earth?

people also don't give allowance for ephemeral phenomena.

who says god did all these things in a physical space?

 

many religious people try to argue with scientists in absolutes when they can't even assert that authority since words can generally be open to interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really subscribe to the big bang theory, but I certainly don't ignore the evidence that exists. evidence which the creationists theory seems to ignore.

 

a person who wants to argue that theory, could say "is it possible the earth as it was 6000 years ago, actually blinked into existence at that time, along with all the history of billions of years, placed there for an as yet unknown purpose" I suppose the answer could be yes, it may be possible, but are we as intelligent beings to believe that, or should we instead go with what our evidence shows? A sensible person should indeed believe the evidence of their own eyes and investigations rather than a book. that doesn't mean allowances cannot be made for what the inner message of the book is trying to say. that is personal choice. was the book inspired by god, is it the word of god, maybe, if people want to believe that, fine. but then they need to reach a resolution, why are there other religious groups with a book of their own claiming the same thing. perhaps each is right, perhaps there is a god that inspired each book, but the way it has been perceived has warped the message.

and let us not forget that the pope sits in the vatican surrounded by riches and worshipped almost as a god. why would a person or group of people want the religion to be accepted by millions of people.

 

1. write a book

2. claim it tells the word of god

3. ???

4. profit (prophet?)

 

I'm not saying it's false, but I think to many are guided by others instead of making their own minds.

they call Jesus the shepherd because the followers are sheep.

well not all of them, but a great deal are unthinking livestock.

 

I have my own thoughts about what christ is. I don't get my thoughts from a book. I observe the universe and people in it, and formulate ideas based on observation.  I know a lot of people who do the same.

sorry to ramble.

[LordSpleach]

When it come to the Christian Bible, you do have to note that, different denominations have different versions of the Bible. In fact, many versions of the Bible have been made by 'personal' edits or mistranslations from different languages. The earliest versions were in Hebrew, and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Koine Greek for the New Testament.

 

With all these different versions of 'The Good Book' as Christians say, it's why I could never be a man of faith. I subscribe to the reason of looking for evidence as proof. So, unless I see evidence to prove something one way or the other, as far as I'm corcerned, I don't know.

 

Also, I like how my roommate puts it, "Everything's a theory."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

[durendal]

I have absolutely nothing to contribute here as I have no in-depth knowledge of the scientific realm.  But I do know that many religious followers are blinded by their faith.  I do not blame the religion, but rather the people who brandish religion as their weapons and tools for manipulation.  I do not like to generalize, but recent events have made my perception that most of the heads of religious sects are hypocrite.  How can using a condom be equivalent to abortion?  Sometimes, you'd wonder that they are thinking using their "little head" instead.

[*PrimalNemesis]

People should be able to find their own path in life. They do not need some spiritual leader to lead them around by the nose. Mankind has not made it this far without applying some form of logic and common sense. Religion is not necessarily bad for it does serve a purpose in some people's lives. People just need to think on their own and make their own decisions. 

[*YoungGuyver]

Strangley enough, (since the Judeo Christain Muslim faiths share the same source) it was when Isreal was taking into Babylonian captivity that the bible was first written down.  And also went into a few revisions.  Deuteronomists added some of the rules, saying to worship only Yahweh.  They believed only th god of their temple should be worshipped, and used Babylon as evidence.  Afterwards, in Ezekial's time it was altered even further, such as taking Leviathan out of Genesis-God didn't have to battle and defeat anyone in order to create the world.  A peaceful creation, unique among other religions.  These Religions ignore that their own accounts have changed over time, and not just by translation.

What is interesting also, is that writing a religion down usually makes the student take the words literally.  During any Axial age, the most spiritual in a religions history, the 'doctorine' is not literal but rather used to push the person inward for an experience.  These followers of god are missing out on the spiritual component in order to attain a historical reward.

 

Strangly enough, I thought we'd talk at least a little about evolution in this topic.  Oh well

[*Jess♥]

I think we are talking less about evolution because in these sorts of debates, it is usually the ignorant vs the open minded.

it's not so much a debate about evolution, rather the open minded knowledgeable people, trying to communicate what we have already established.

 

I actually had a good conversation with mirabilis on facebook about evolution.

you can read it here if you like, it is a public post on my wall. (edit: it's gone)

[durendal]

Well, the Pope just resigned.  That's gotta mean something....

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-benedict-xvi-resigns-age

[LordSpleach]

Maybe

[Aether]

maybe someone finally told him about all the bad press the catholic church has had in the past 10 years.

speaking of evolution and religion in the same sentence.... maybe some organised religions should just evolve instead of remaining the antiquated farce they have become.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Aether

[*Jess♥]

religion can be a very good tool. far more effective than soldiers at controlling the people you have conquered. you don't even have to supplant the governments any more.

why would the religious leaders want to change that?

[durendal]

This has much to do with the evolution as well.  People are now more enlightened to the real world and how it works.  You could say the the mental capacities of man has evolved. And since religious leaders are chosen by humans, that in itself is already a flaw.  To be a religious leader, you have to be infallible, which no human is infallible.  Funny too because there is actually a dogma called papal infallibility.  

 

Speaking of the original subject, I find it strange why religious leaders are not willing to accept evolution.  Could they not see this as God's will to protect his creations?  I mean, why do we evolved?  It is because we need to adapt to our environment.  If we do not adapt, then we would all be extinct.  

[*YoungGuyver]

I believe it is the literalists.  They want the word of god to be literally true, word for word.  Though the evidence has mounted up to such a degree, that some of the young Earth creationists have even adopted it, but call it by another name so they can still keep 'man' separate from evolution.  Egotism I think.  Some of us must view ourselves superior in some fashion, even down to our origins.  Pathetic I think