OT: Yes We Can

[spinedoc]

-= original quote snipped =-



That's fine if you come to a different conclusion, as long as you keep an open mind.

Always. Just so you know, the bible is riddled with inconsistencies too. I disagree with you about needing the same kind of faith in the bible as you do with science though. Its not on the same level at all, but I do understand what it is to have faith and I wouldn't try to destroy that for you. Remember, you need to do the same thing and keep an open mind when it comes to science as well. It works both ways. I personally believe in evolution and Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. There is just way too much evidence there for me to discount, and that will always make more sense and has more foundation for me than the bible's version of creationism. That's a far bigger leap of faith than I can muster. But for many, the bible brings comfort, and I can understand that aspect as well. You have to find your own balance I suppose.

[spinedoc]

Honestly, spinedoc, you went way too easy on playjredz

Nah, I don't think he's looking for a knock down drag out fight about it. Its ok to have some deep seeded roots in religion, as long as he isn't intentionally being oblivious to any other thought. He just needs to do some more investigating about it on his own. I do have a ton of things swirling around in my head that I can use, but I won't. Its not all about faith, there are plenty of facts on the issue. The bible helps to fill your heart, but the science books help to fill your head. Its up to him to choose which one he wants or needs to feed.

[Catledge]

-= original quote snipped =-



Very well put Cat and whole new angle to the conversation with the purpose of science. You didn't want to read about ancient Roman politics anyway did you? The Greeks had it more right than they did.

The Greeks were last month, and they're not as useful for writing a dissertation that draws parallels to modern political rhetoric. Cicero in particular can teach us a lot about why we vote the way we do, about why tags like "elite" can carry more weight than what others might see as superior logic.

[ivDT]

That being said, evolution is not much different. We can run tests and experiments all we want to see what COULD have happened, but in the end none of us were there so we don't know if it really did. There are plenty of alternatives to the theory of evolution that just as easily could have happened, and since we cannot actually prove that evolution happened, it is based on faith just as much if not more than Christianity and other religions.

Actually, we can see what happened. Fossils give us snapshots of what happened. Name one alternative to evolution. There aren't any. You're just making this up. Like I said, we know that evolution happens. We see it at a smaller scale though since real evolution takes millions of years. Look at drug-resistant tuberculosis for example. It probably will be replicated in a lab one day, but it's hard. Evolution requires small mutations to ensure that the organism doesn't die coupled with an environment that fosters it. Since the mutations are small it takes many, many mutations before an organism can become a new species.

Just to clarify I do not think that Christianity should be taught in science class. I would go the other way and put evolution in a religion class.

lol If you knew anything about evolution, you would never make that statement.

the "evolution is a religion" spiel is actually a pretty common theme among the creationist/ID crowd.

weird terms like "darwinism" are a reflection of this thinking.

if creation "science" has no place in a science class then neither does "darwinism", they argue.

it's all a last gasp attempt to keep the TOE from being taught in science classes since attacking the actual science behind it has proven a bit too difficult for people who are inclined to believe that the earth is only 60000 years old.

[Duradero]

What does any of this have to do with Barack Obama?

[MagiChamps]

Really, where's that evidence? I'm not denying that some aspects are true, but there's no evidence for it.

That book focuses mostly on what reasons we have to trust the gospels, and on what evidence there is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. It has been four years since I read that book and the evidence it has is not exactly simple so I won’t butcher it by giving any examples from the book. You seem to place a high value on archaeology so if you want to read about some archaeology that corroborates the Bible you can visit this site:

http://www.biblehistory.net/

If you don’t like those then just type “bible archaeology” or “jesus evidence” into Google and you will get a lot of different sites. Here are some sites that talk about the evidence for Jesus, the second one is archaeology but I like the first one better, IMO reading secular authors is the way to go for finding biblical evidence:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

Actually, we can see what happened. Fossils give us snapshots of what happened. Name one alternative to evolution. There aren't any. You're just making this up. Like I said, we know that evolution happens. We see it at a smaller scale though since real evolution takes millions of years. Look at drug-resistant tuberculosis for example. It probably will be replicated in a lab one day, but it's hard. Evolution requires small mutations to ensure that the organism doesn't die coupled with an environment that fosters it. Since the mutations are small it takes many, many mutations before an organism can become a new species.

I did not do a very good job of explaining that. When I said evolution I was referring more to the “big bang” theory and how life began than to the actual process of evolution. I am not denying that evolution takes place. It is a proven fact that evolution happens on a smaller scale. I really think that all of that mutation stuff is irrelevant to the debate between Christianity and evolution and here is why:

The Hebrew word “yom,” which means day, is used in Genesis during the story of creation. This word has two meanings. The first meaning is a literal day, meaning that God created the universe in less than a week. The second meaning is an age or a time period. Under the second interpretation, God could have taken billions of years to create the sun, moon, stars, earth, plants, animals, etc. There is even a view called “theistic evolution” that takes the position that God used evolution to create life. The Bible does not say how God created all things; it only says that He did. Because the Bible is unclear on the issues of the age of the earth and how man and animals were created, the debate really comes down to how things got started. Here is something interesting that you may want to read about the issue of how things got started:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/bang.html

Yes it is probably a little one sided but it is still thought provoking. Ultimately, the question of big random bang or creative design is more philosophical than anything else. If everything came into existence as the result of a giant black hole, the question remains, where did the black hole come from? Similarly, if life began as some kind of sludge, and gradually evolved into what we see today, did it happen by random chance, or was God behind the scenes controlling everything? As far as the laws of physics that resulted in what we see today, are they just the way things are or did an intelligent creator set them in place?

Alternatives to evolution: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Greek mythology (jk), etc. As far as the big bang theory, yes there are other possibilities, you can read about some of the scientists who disagree with it here:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

lol If you knew anything about evolution, you would never make that statement.

You mistake me for someone who didn’t go to school. I know about evolution within species, fossils, carbon dating, the old appearance of the universe (not just the earth either), the simulations of the big bang that scientists have been able to duplicate on a smaller scale, the expanding universe, etc. My point is that there is so much about the past that we do not absolutely KNOW. All evolutionists know is that the earth appears to be really old, they don’t know how it got that way. For all we know God could have created the earth with age built into it. IMO we should not teach what we do not know as fact. Yeah we can go through science and say based on carbon 14 the earth appears to be this old and based on the fossils it looks like this is how we could have gotten here, but we should not say that 100% this is truth like we were really there. Like I already said, science makes the assumption that the universe has always operated the same way as it does now, and ignores the possibility of any kind of divine intervention.

[MagiChamps]

Just so you know, the bible is riddled with inconsistencies too.

Yes I know. I think you will enjoy that book, it addresses some of those. In general I think God tells us what we need to know. If there are any inconsistencies, it is not something that is essential to our faith.

I disagree with you about needing the same kind of faith in the bible as you do with science though. Its not on the same level at all, but I do understand what it is to have faith and I wouldn't try to destroy that for you. Remember, you need to do the same thing and keep an open mind when it comes to science as well. It works both ways. I personally believe in evolution and Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. There is just way too much evidence there for me to discount, and that will always make more sense and has more foundation for me than the bible's version of creationism. That's a far bigger leap of faith than I can muster. But for many, the bible brings comfort, and I can understand that aspect as well. You have to find your own balance I suppose.

Yep. I think you might find above that I have thought this through a little more than you expected. Trust me there are a lot of intelligent people on both sides of the creation/big bang debate, and it's not just because they haven't done the research. I have definitely enjoyed our conversation. Hope that book is helpful and I will keep an open mind whenever I read a book or talk to someone about evolution. If my faith is real then there is nothing to worry about.

[spinedoc]

Yep. I think you might find above that I have thought this through a little more than you expected. Trust me there are a lot of intelligent people on both sides of the creation/big bang debate, and it's not just because they haven't done the research. I have definitely enjoyed our conversation. Hope that book is helpful and I will keep an open mind whenever I read a book or talk to someone about evolution. If my faith is real then there is nothing to worry about.

Me too. I understand better where your coming from now, and your right, we don't really know how it all got started. Teachers need to remember that point, emphasize facts when they exist and then also when a theory gets extrapolated because of those facts, there is a distinction there. I don't enjoy dogma from either side of the argument actually. I did think you were refuting evolution early on however, and because of this conversation, I even made a point to watch a program on HD about the Gallapogo's last night. I don't know if there really is a God or not, but I remain open to the possibility of one though. Like I said, I lean towards being an agnostic not an atheist.

A couple other points I've found interesting with regard to this debate that I've had on my own journey however. Scientists have actually done experiments where they have created matter in a vacuum where there was previously nothing, its really an amazing thing. That sways me one way, but then I think about the fact that our solar system is practically the identical makeup of an atom, even down to the newly found quark which strangely mirrors that of a moon of a planet, then I become swayed the other way because it seems so organized. Maybe its an infinite repetition of the same thing over and over again. For all we know our solar system is nothing more than an atom in someone else's universe. Anyway I digress, I'll try to check out some of your references. The only problem that I have with some of this stuff though is that it puts too much emphasis on proving the existence of Jesus, who is supposedly the son of God, but not on the actual existence of God itself. It requires even further faith without evidence, and It gets to be a slippery slope. Heck, look at how many have warred and died amongst the varied religions based on this one little aspect alone. Sadly, I honestly feel that this planet would be better off without the concept of religion. For all the good that it has brought to people, there have been far more wrongs because of it. In my view, that is because the approach to religion is usually the polar opposite to that of science.

[spinedoc]

What does any of this have to do with Barack Obama?

Obama is a God perhaps, and that this country still has some serious evolving to do? lol, sorry its the best simile I can come up with.

[aleZ]

Sadly, I honestly feel that this planet would be better off without the concept of religion. For all the good that it has brought to people, there have been far more wrongs because of it. In my view, that is because the approach to religion is usually the polar opposite to that of science.

There's much more ppl following religion than science just because it doesn't need as much education, that is the single reason why the same approach is impossible. You either understand science or do not, but you can be an illiterate fool and still follow any religion out there (and that's the main reason a lot of crap has happened over the centuries).

As for religion being the source of all evil, I think it's just human nature: the vast majority of ppl need idols and icons: be it a god, a president, an athlete or someone else, everyone of us needs something in his life to give it some meaning. Too bad a lot of individuals are also inclined to violence, and the two things often lead to horrible results.

[MagiChamps]

A couple other points I've found interesting with regard to this debate that I've had on my own journey however. Scientists have actually done experiments where they have created matter in a vacuum where there was previously nothing, its really an amazing thing. That sways me one way, but then I think about the fact that our solar system is practically the identical makeup of an atom, even down to the newly found quark which strangely mirrors that of a moon of a planet, then I become swayed the other way because it seems so organized. Maybe its an infinite repetition of the same thing over and over again. For all we know our solar system is nothing more than an atom in someone else's universe. Anyway I digress, I'll try to check out some of your references. The only problem that I have with some of this stuff though is that it puts too much emphasis on proving the existence of Jesus, who is supposedly the son of God, but not on the actual existence of God itself. It requires even further faith without evidence, and It gets to be a slippery slope. Heck, look at how many have warred and died amongst the varied religions based on this one little aspect alone. Sadly, I honestly feel that this planet would be better off without the concept of religion. For all the good that it has brought to people, there have been far more wrongs because of it. In my view, that is because the approach to religion is usually the polar opposite to that of science.

That book focuses a lot on the resurrection. It's not really debated whether Jesus existed so much as whether the stories the gospels tell about him are true and whether he actually rose from the dead. His resurrection from the dead is important because it cannot be explained by science, so if he did in fact rise from the dead, then there must have been some sort of supernatural force involved. If you are more interested in proving the existence of God then you should look into reading some St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. A lot of philosophers have come up with arguments for the existence of God. You can read a quick summary of Augustine and Aquinas' arguments here:

http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rzgh.htm

I know what you mean about the problems religion has caused. The early crusaders really hurt the perception of Christianity. I think a lot of the problems happen when people aren't really educated about what their religion teaches, but there are exceptions like the Islamic Jihad. Christianity teaches that we should love both our neighbors and our enemies, so I would say that people like the crusaders were a little misguided. Also, I believe that Satan is very real, and he tempts people to use good things in a bad way. There have been a lot of problems even for nonreligious reasons though (e.g. Hitler, Napoleon), so it is hard to say that problems would disappear without religion, we would probably just find different things to fight over. I know that my life would be miserable without religion, and when I visited Africa it was a lot of people's only hope in the middle of poverty, sickness, and a corrupt government, so it is hard for me to bash the net effect that religion has on the world.