what color skin did adam and eve have......

[Care4all]

there is a scientific Adam and Eve....forget the biblical story....and geneticists have been studying such for a bit now....the project is still going on....National Geographic and IBM are the sponsors of the project....

there is some great info in this article about what is going on:

The National Geographic and IBM's Genographic Project: Charting the migratory history of the human species

...The advantage of the Y Chromosome is that it is handed down only by the male parent unmingled with a woman's DNA. So it can stay the same from generation to generation. It can only change with a mutation which is an accidental but natural change in the genetic code. This can happen to strengthen the immune system from newly emerged diseases.

Wells says that the project uses this molecule, DNA, which is contained in every cell in our body. (Our red blood cells kick out the nuclei when they become mature, so they don't actually contain any DNA, but pretty much every other cell in our body does.) This is the blueprint to make a version of you. You have to pass on half your DNA to your child in a shuffled way, a process called recombination. DNA is very long. It's made up of four nucleotide bases - A, C, G, and T - and it's the order of those that provide the information. Because it's so very long - it's three billion of those in length - you occasionally make a mistake when you're copying it and passing it along.Those are called mutations, and everybody carries some mutations that distinguish them from their parents, roughly 30 of them per genome per generation. When those are passed on through the generations, they become markers of descent. They occur very rarely, so the odds are that most sites are not going to have any. When they do happen they occur uniquely at a single site. You hardly ever mutate the same site twice. So when two people share these markers in common, it's a sign that they share ancestry at some point.

Dr. Wells says: "What we do is start in the present with DNA from people who are alive today and trace back through these lineages that are defined by the markers that have been passed on through many, many generations, back to the point where they share a common ancestor. When we do that with people who are members of the same family, we very quickly reach a point where they share a common ancestor. But, it turns out, we can also do that with people all over the world. By asking a really stupid question (it's pretty much hypothesis-free): 'Are we related, and if so, how are we related?' we trace back to a single ancestor on the Y chromosome, which, it turns out, is the most recent ancestor we all share. This man, this Y chromosome, existed 60,000 years ago. And it turns out he existed in Africa. That means our species was still limited to Africa in its distribution 60,000 years ago.It's only in the last 60,000 years, or 2,000 generations, roughly, that we have left Africa to go out and take over the world."

He says that the present-day inhabitants of Ethiopia, Sudan and southern Africa carry the clearest signals of our earliest ancestry, signals that have been lost in the rest of us. So they give us a glimpse of our 60,000 year-old Adam. Adam would have been fully modern, both in terms of his appearance and his brain function.

Wells says that DNA sequencing undergoes mutation every generation. It is because of this complete gradual mutation between 31,000 and 79,000 years ago that first Eurasian Adam, the ancestor of all non-Africans, came into existence. The latest spread of Y-chromosome lineage is known to have taken place nearly 10,000 years ago.

Spencer, on the basis of the study of mitochondrial DNA(passed on through the maternal family line) and the Y chromosome (passed from father to son), says that the modern-day man is not a descendant of Neanderthals and that the human race can trace its origin to one Adam and Eve.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

there is a scientific Adam and Eve....forget the biblical story....and geneticists have been studying such for a bit now....the project is still going on....National Geographic and IBM are the sponsors of the project....

there is some great info in this article about what is going on:

The National Geographic and IBM's Genographic Project: Charting the migratory history of the human species

The National Geographic and IBM are not sponsoring a search for a literal Adam and Eve so much as a metaphorical, genetic Adam and Eve. And really all they are researching is genetic migration in human beings, not proof of the Bible's stories. So don't take Care's statement literally to your dogmatic heart.

 

[Care4all]

there is a scientific Adam and Eve....forget the biblical story....and geneticists have been studying such for a bit now....the project is still going on....National Geographic and IBM are the sponsors of the project....

there is some great info in this article about what is going on:

The National Geographic and IBM's Genographic Project: Charting the migratory history of the human species

The National Geographic and IBM are not sponsoring a search for a literal Adam and Eve so much as a metaphorical, genetic Adam and Eve. And really all they are researching is genetic migration in human beings, not proof of the Bible's stories. So don't take Care's statement literally to your dogmatic heart.

sheesh, a bit too chiwawa like (a sign of insecurity in what you think you believe?)......why does this SHATTER you so much...?

I REPEAT, there is a ''SCIENTIFIC (or genetic as you put it), ADAM AND EVE'' FORGET, the biblical story... did i not say, forget the biblical story?

THIS is what the program ITSELF on tv labeled them, when put together....I did NOT come up with the term, ''SCIENTIFIC, adam and eve''....I can't take credit for that....though it is quite an appropriate term, and wish I had....!!!


care

 

[TAS]

Adam in the Quran

It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; then He turned to heaven and made them into seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge. (29) Behold thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said "Wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? Whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." (30) And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels and said: "Tell Me the names of these if ye are right." (31) They said: "Glory to Thee: of knowledge we have none, save that Thou hast taught us: in truth it is Thou who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." (32) He said: "O Adam! tell them their names." When he had told them their names, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?" (33) And behold We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject Faith. (34) We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." (35) Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden) and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down all (ye people) with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood for a time." (36) Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration and his Lord turned toward him; for He is Oft-Returning Most Merciful. (37) We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you guidance from Me" whosoever follows My guidance on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (38) "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein." (39)

Quran 2:29-2:39

 

[Care4all]

Please do not confuse microevolution with macroevolution. They aren't the same thing, and the existence of one does not prove the existence of the other.

1)Actually, it does. If there is any kind of evolution, one the mechanics of evolution: survival of the fittest, is random genetic mutations which just happen to benefit an organism's rate of survival and chances of reproduction. If this allows for a single species to diversify, as in human beings, dogs, and cats, etc. etc. then it also, over millions of years, allows for diversification of species into multiple species. Accordingly, when applied to the Book of Genesis in the Bible, how can evolution play a part if God created man in his own image? If there are so many different kinds of humans, which one is God's image? All of'em? Any of'em? If humans evolve, then does God's image also change?

2)And, more importantly, isn't somewhat silly to try and apply scientific reasoning to Biblical mythology? What about the devastation of Sodom and Ghomorra, and Lots wife changing into a pillar of sand? Or the myth about Noah and the Ark? Or Jesus' miracles? Or Moses parting the Red Sea?
.

1)God's image is not a physical image my dear....

2)also, you obviously do not watch the Discovery Channel, the History channel, or the National Geographic channel frequently, huh?

why so upset that some believe something you don't believe....do you feel left out or something? What is it that gets your goat on all of this, and for goodness sakes, why?

care

 

[Coloradomtnman]

sheesh, a bit too chiwawa like (a sign of insecurity in what you think you believe?)......why does this SHATTER you so much...?

I REPEAT, there is a ''SCIENTIFIC (or genetic as you put it), ADAM AND EVE'' FORGET, the biblical story... did i not say, forget the biblical story?

THIS is what the program ITSELF on tv labeled them, when put together....I did NOT come up with the term, ''SCIENTIFIC, adam and eve''....I can't take credit for that....though it is quite an appropriate term, and wish I had....!!!

care

Sorry, Care, just re-iterating so that those who believe dogmatically wouldn't take your metaphors literally. The comment wasn't directed at you.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being insecure about one's beliefs. In fact, one should be insecure about them so as not to cling to them despite all contrary evidence and experiences.

And the reason I get so riled up about religious beliefs is because of how irrationally those beliefs have shaped our civilization and how those beliefs have lowered the potential of my quality of life and restricted and threatened my liberties and the liberties of those for whom I care.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

1)God's image is not a physical image my dear....

2)also, you obviously do not watch the Discovery Channel, the History channel, or the National Geographic channel frequently, huh?

why so upset that some believe something you don't believe....do you feel left out or something? What is it that gets your goat on all of this, and for goodness sakes, why?

care

1) Well, then what does it mean in Genesis when those very words are used? Is it metaphorical? In what way?

2) No, I watch tv very infrequently. I don't completely trust the information one receives from the tv, or the world wide web, or through scientific publications, or even my own senses (Read: Nieztche "Beyond Good and Evil"). The degrees of trust change, but there is nothing I trust completely.

And you probably already read my reply for your question in my previous post. We can discuss that more if you wish...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Adam in the Quran

It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; then He turned to heaven and made them into seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge. (29) Behold thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said "Wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? Whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." (30) And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels and said: "Tell Me the names of these if ye are right." (31) They said: "Glory to Thee: of knowledge we have none, save that Thou hast taught us: in truth it is Thou who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." (32) He said: "O Adam! tell them their names." When he had told them their names, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?" (33) And behold We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject Faith. (34) We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." (35) Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden) and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down all (ye people) with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood for a time." (36) Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration and his Lord turned toward him; for He is Oft-Returning Most Merciful. (37) We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you guidance from Me" whosoever follows My guidance on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (38) "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein." (39)

Quran 2:29-2:39

TAS, you are a Total Ass Sandwich dude.

Take your islamic brainwashed crap elsewhere.

 

[manu1959]

it is just a likely that ....

POOF man sprang from nothing ....

as

POOF man sprang from the garden of eden .....

one group uses reiligous tomes to explain it another uses science books ....

i guess it all depends what you have "faith in" .....

 

[TAS]

And here is another part in the Quran about Adam and Eve (peace be upon them)

And verily We made a covenant of old with Adam, but he forgot, and We found no constancy in him. (115) And when We said unto the angels: Fall prostrate before Adam, they fell prostrate (all) save Iblis; he refused. (116) Therefor we said: O Adam! This is an enemy unto thee and unto thy wife, so let him not drive you both out of the Garden so that thou come to toil. (117) It is (vouchsafed) unto thee that thou hungerest not therein nor art naked, (118) And that thou thirstest not therein nor art exposed to the sun's heat. (119) But the Devil whispered to him, saying: O Adam! Shall I show thee the tree of immortality and power that wasteth not away? (120) Then they twain ate thereof, so that their shame became apparent unto them, and they began to hide by heaping on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. (121) Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him. (122) He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief. (123)

Quran 20:115-123

 

[editec]

what color skin did adam and eve have......

We don't know. It's your fantasy. Why don't you tell us?

 

[Gunnen4u]

LMAO.

TAS, did Adam put Eve in a burka so she ate the apple just to spite him?

 

[TAS]

LMAO.

TAS, did Adam put Eve in a burka so she ate the apple just to spite him?

Gunnen4u,
Islam doesn't blame Eve for eating from the tree; Islam blames both, as you can see from the above verses

Regarding the burka, it's different from one country to another. What Islam asks is that women should wear clothes that are not transparent (or sheer) nor descriptive (of their bodies). Some Muslims take it far by wearing burka like in Afghanistan and Saudi arabia but what most devout Muslim women wear is the hijab
http://www.thefashions.org/sitebuilder/images/hijab11-285x291.jpg
http://www.robink.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hijab.jpg

 

[Gunnen4u]

No wonder they rioted over cartoons....it was a joke TAS.

And I know enough about the Quran and Islamic culture, Middle East, whatever as it is. No need for an education.

To me, the hijab or the burka, is a symbol of oppression. Modesty has its places, but not the way it's used by Muslims.

We're going to butt heads alot, I can see it coming.

 

[TAS]

No wonder they rioted over cartoons....it was a joke TAS.

And I know enough about the Quran and Islamic culture, Middle East, whatever as it is. No need for an education.

To me, the hijab or the burka, is a symbol of oppression. Modesty has its places, but not the way it's used by Muslims.

We're going to butt heads alot, I can see it coming.

Ok, sorry, i didn't get it lol and I hope that would be the only misunderstanding between u .

so, where did get your education about Islam and the Middle east from?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

it is just a likely that ....

POOF man sprang from nothing ....

as

POOF man sprang from the garden of eden .....

one group uses reiligous tomes to explain it another uses science books ....

i guess it all depends what you have "faith in" .....

As a skeptic, I don't put faith in science. Neither do scientists. Faith, as I've heard it defined, is believing in something you can't prove. Science is testable and provable, and changeable as new discoveries are made. Unlike The Bible, The Quran, etc. If science relied on faith, then how is it we have airplanes, electricity, television, microwaves, modern medicine, etc., etc.?

And I don't believe man POOF sprang from nothing. I don't know where humans come from, nor life, but it would seem that human beings are descended from primates. There is too much evidence to ignore. It certainly seems a possibility, and a likely one at that. So I think humans evolved. As well as all other life on this planet. There is a system of knowledge, research, and logic that all goes together and is testable. And provable.

Evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is an observation and a scientific fact (meaning open to revision upon further discoveries). Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

That is why evolution is taught in public schools whereas religious beliefs aren't. If Intelligent Design explained creation, and the Earth is only 4,500 years old (or whatever arbitrary number of years chosen), why does the Grand Canyon and other geologic features appear millions or even billions of years old? Why is it we can prove that beyond reasonable doubt? Where are dinosaurs in the Bible? Am I expected to believe that Satan created these fossils to lead humans astray from the True Faith? If Intelligent Design explained life's phenomena, then why do I have to wipe my ass? If I were designed with any intelligence I wouldn't have such an issue: the shit would come out nice a clean. Not too mention near-sightedness, cancer, hemorrhoids, ingrown toe nails, sun burns, or acne, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I was not alone, i was happily married....I was just not part of an established church or bible study or anything like that...

Well you had said "alone" and I took that to mean single. In any case, one not need to be vulnerable or brainwashed to embrace faith, it's just more likely in those situations. I've seen a few people who were atheist by default, i.e. they didn't have an opinion, who decided to be religious after a loved one died. To me it seemed they felt a need to convince themselves their loved one was not gone forever but just in a better place. Death is ubiquitious on TV if not in one's personal life. Why do people fear it so much if they really think chosen ones like themselves and their loved ones are just going to a better place? Sometimes I wonder how successful they are at lying to themselves.

and in addition to this, my personality can not handle things that just don;t seem feasible...as example, my husband laughs his butt off watching movies like AIRPLANE, and I just don't because AIRPLANE was too unrealistic, it wasn't possible to happen....so it just wasn't funny to me....it has to have the possibility in being real or I just don't click with it...

Didn't you acknowledge your faith isn't based upon reason though? I don't mean to attack you, I actually want to understand. How can you believe something based upon a feeling alone? There are plenty of ridiculous and non-feasible things in all religions that have no parallel in modern experience. Whenever something good and poorly understood happens, people call it a miracle; filling gaps in knowledge with faith instead of inquiry has greatly undermined human progress. I see nothing in science or my everyday experience that would indicate a higher power. The universe is not made for us. Not even the world was. Prayer does not work. The world operates under sets of increasingly well-characterized sets of equations, not a divine hand. Life's purpose is individually defined and subjective.

Why does the Bible have to be the PERFECT word of God in order for God to be a just God?

If God were just then he would want to pave the way for those who seek him. Allowing his official book to be full of errors and contradictions will turn good, rational people away from religion.

Even the Bible itself gives warning about one word being taken out or one part having words added in to it.....and what the fate of those that mess with it, will receive....THAT right there tells us all that MAN would mess with it in my opinion....

But if god is omnipotent and benevolent, why would he/she/it allow it, let alone the myraid other pointless and terrible things that happen in the world that are not products of mans' will? If the Bible can't be relied upon, then what do you rely upon? Feelings and voices in your head? How would you distinguish that from delusional insanity?

then the Bible goes on to say that we need to TEST scripture to see if it is truth, if it is truth it comes from God, then another part tells us to put scripture against scripture in order to make certain it is true or consistent, if it isn't consistent with other scripture, then we are not getting the meaning correctly or it is not from God...

That would pretty much rule out the major religions from what I've seen. Though the existence of the supernatural in the first place would need to be evidenced.

sure it could be embellished, but a true story, NONE THE LESS.

Being based upon something that happened does not make it a true story in every way. The best lies are half-truths, after all. Suppose a city were destroyed by a volcano and a book claimed that the city was destroyed because the people in it offended some evil spirit who demands burnt virgins. Instead of learning about volcanoes, people then opt to follow whatever arbitrary rules their imaginary friend supposedly laid out. In reality they have become tools of those who claim to have a direct line to the divine. This is counterproductive at best and highly detrimental at worst.

The same could be the case with the written scripture of the different books of the Bible...we have given Homer the benefit of the doubt, searched for troy and atlantis for centuries now...

It's one thing to suppose that Troy existed, it's another to say the war happened because of a competition between goddesses over the Apple of Discord.

NOOOO, genesis says the heavens were created before the earth.

PLANTS did occur according to our science before animals, same in genesis, so i have no idea what this is talking about?

It also states we had our Sun before our Moon...and i believe this is what science says as well... about our formation

Day 1: God creates the heaven and earth. God then creates light and darkness, calling them Day and Night.
Day 2: God makes a "firmament," calling it Heaven.
Day 3: God makes the ocean and continents. Then he makes plants, including those with seeds and fruit.
Day 4: God creates stars, the sun (greater light), and the moon (lesser light).
Day 5: God creates animals, explicitly mentioning birds and whales.
Day 6: God makes more animals, explicitly mentioning cattle and people made in "our image."

There are also some odd references to "waters" in Genesis:

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

and:

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

I found where that came from:

The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the Firmament as follows:

"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some obvious problems: 1. Day and Night occurs 3 "days" before the stars or sun exist. 2. The Earth exists before stars or the sun. 3. Fruit exists 2 "days" before animals. Flowering plants (angiosperms) did not exist until the Cretaceous. 4. Firmament refers to a solid surface, which is not what the sky is even if ancient people thought it was. 5. The moon is not a light - it reflects the sun. etc. etc.



There are a great number of contradictions between the Bible and what we know from science, as well as between the Bible and itself. If the Bible isn't a science book, it should not have talked about origins of life. If the Bible were anything more than a collection of tall tales, it would not be loaded with contradictions.

Were humans created before or after the other animals?

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a habitable zone that is specific to the star/s in question based upon the generally unfounded assumption that life can only exist where there's liquid water on the surface due to energy from a star. Mars is just beyond the edge of this zone for our star, and it had liquid water at one point probably due to a combination of contributers in addition to sunlight like volcanic activity, an impact, or a larger moon that created tidal heat. But its weak gravity could not hold on to a thick atmosphere. Earth is the only planet in our solar system in that zone, but there are many other systems in the galaxy. Another alternate heating source, such as that produced in massive moons around massive planets as in the case of Europa. They are pretty sure there's liquid water there, but don't know about life yet.

And...? also, i beg to differ that astrology(which was more like astronomy of today), was not a key part of societies at that time and that they thought they knew the number of stars and planets at the time....

You made the point that water had been gathered on earth alone as proof of the validity of Genesis. My point was that's not true, not even if you limit it to liquid water.

As for the number of stars thing. Those writing the Bible knew that there were many stars in the sky. The fact that it says they are countless in one passage and equal to the current number of descendents of Abraham in another shows that was all they knew. Personally, I can look up at the sky and tell you the number of stars appears countless. You being impressed by that seems to suggest you are looking for something to be impressed by.

That would be a flip of the coin weighted towards the sexist side that doesn't make up for other inaccuracies in the Bible. XY-sex determination originated before mammals but is present in most mammals today, one of many things we inherited from evolutionary ancestors. Less closely related animals use different systems such as ZW (birds, heterozygous = female), and X0 (bees, monozygous = male). Preceding these systems sex was determined by things like environment and organisms using that system still exist today.

I can NOT stress enough that the Bible was NEVER, EVER meant to be a Science Book...never!!!! Why people try to make it out to be a science book is beyond me.

Why people use it for anything besides understanding Christians is beyond me.

I don't see it as sexist, I see it as FEASIBLE....it would be unfeasible for man to come out of woman, with her XX.

The motivation for writing it that way was likely sexist, to show that women were created for man as the animals were. You seem to imply that the fact that they guessed something feasible without sufficient knowledge was proof of divine inspiration. I find that doubtful. Furthermore, the current model is that the Y chromosome was derived from autosomes that more closely resembled the X chromosome.

The X and Y chromosomes diverged around 300 million years ago from a pair of identical chromosomes[1], termed autosomes, when an ancestral mammal developed an allelic variation, a so-called 'sex locus' - simply possessing this allele caused the organism to be male.[2] The chromosome with this allele became the Y chromosome, while the other member of the pair became the X chromosome. Over time, genes which were beneficial for males and harmful to (or had no effect on) females either developed on the Y chromosome, or were acquired through the process of translocation

Y chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except the implication of the story is that knowledge is bad and obedience is good.

Is that how YOU take it? Homo erectus had it good, being dumber and homo sapiens became to big for their britches and evil prevailed?

Do you have an alternate interpretation? I am sorry you equate stupidity with happiness and knowledge with evil. Being stupid makes life meaningless and makes it less viable to improve life for ones self and offspring. Original sin should be called original virtue. If things had happened as the Bible says it would not have been a fall from grace but a rise to meaning. What's the point of sitting around in a garden without cares? If heaven were a return to that state I would say no thanks. It is the religious ideal of obedience to authority combined with rendering real life inconsequential due to the afterlife that has allowed religion to be both a tool of injustice and obstacle to progress.

 

[Gunnen4u]

As a skeptic, I don't put faith in science. Neither do scientists. Faith, as I've heard it defined, is believing in something you can't prove. Science is testable and provable, and changeable as new discoveries are made. Unlike The Bible, The Quran, etc. If science relied on faith, then how is it we have airplanes, electricity, television, microwaves, modern medicine, etc., etc.?

Of course scientists don't, they need you to believe them and then they need to believe themselves. Knowing for sure sounds better than "we believe" when it comes to running experiments or discovering things. Especially when it comes to getting grants from the gov't or just keeping a job somehow making up studies (yea, scientists as people have me a bit jaded these days).

Science and Religion used to be deeply intertwined through the Renaissance era up till about 150 years ago or so. The Catholic Church was a proponent of research in various areas, and the general understanding was that it was good to have science in order to explore and know God's world.

Now, back to faith in science: science is a faith based gesture, for how do you know that what you percieve with your senses is really all that is there? What is ether? Just nothing? Are you sure? You do not know that you are gathering all the information that is possibly out there, nor can you have a starting point in relation to creation in science. If this came after that, what came before the thing that came before this? How far can you answer it, or is the big bang (made up of whatever), the best we can do? Science isn't totally concrete and you really place too much faith in the abilities of mankind to "know".

This is not just meant as a simple mindfuck in lieu of any real argument, it's a generally accepted concept among Professors and Scientists. I suggest this below, it wasn't strictly religious, or scientific, just an enlightenment on the relation between science and religion, and neither can do without the other logically. It's a bit long, but enjoyable and worth the money I paid for it.

Science and Religion, by Prof. Lawrence M. Principe

-------------------------------------

As for Adam and Eve, the general theory me and a few other people have explored on another forum is that alot of laws, and stories in the Bible are often based at least in some reality or have some factual event that caused them to be created.

People could say they are black through the history of evolution, or as I think, semitic (Middle Eastern, or originally from the Middle East). Just as Noah's flood was most likely the ice dam collapsing and filling the Black Sea/Meditereanean, Adam and Eve might be the story of how God created the modern world. Just a thought, worth looking into if I had more time.

------------------------------------

TAS,

My education came from there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Of course scientists don't, they need you to believe them and then they need to believe themselves. Knowing for sure sounds better than "we believe" when it comes to running experiments or discovering things. Especially when it comes to getting grants from the gov't or just keeping a job somehow making up studies (yea, scientists as people have me a bit jaded these days).

Science and Religion used to be deeply intertwined through the Renaissance era up till about 150 years ago or so. The Catholic Church was a proponent of research in various areas, and the general understanding was that it was good to have science in order to explore and know God's world.

Now, back to faith in science: science is a faith based gesture, for how do you know that what you percieve with your senses is really all that is there? What is ether? Just nothing? Are you sure? You do not know that you are gathering all the information that is possibly out there, nor can you have a starting point in relation to creation in science. If this came after that, what came before the thing that came before this? How far can you answer it, or is the big bang (made up of whatever), the best we can do? Science isn't totally concrete and you really place too much faith in the abilities of mankind to "know".

This is not just meant as a simple mindfuck in lieu of any real argument, it's a generally accepted concept among Professors and Scientists.

Let me, instead of using the word faith, use the word trust. When my senses are stimulated and that information is transferred to my brain, there is a disconnection: reality becomes perceived reality. Read Nieztche "Beyond Good and Evil". Furthermore, when perceived reality is then put into language it becomes even more removed from actual reality. And then when that language is read or heard by another party, that distance grows again because the senses take in the words which are re-interpreted by the receiver's brain. In other words, nothing can be completely trusted.

However, because we have computers, airplanes, satellites, electricity, particle accelerators, etc., some trust can be placed in the ways of science. It has shown itself to work to some degree. That doesn't mean science should be trusted completely. And the great thing about science is that it leaves itself open to revision.

Now, scientists are human beings and therefore subject to the same whims and faults to which all human beings are subject. But since scientists must publish their research and experiments and that nothing is taken as scientific fact (meaning open to revision) until the tests have been duplicated more than once, we can trust the scientific community more than we should distrust it.

And, according to science, the really big questions like: where did the Universe come from? haven't been answered. We only have ideas which may be accurate or may not. But there is evidence that lends validation one way more than others.

Science isn't a political idea, its the search for knowledge. Should science be used in politics? Absolutely. Its much better than superstition.

Are there flaws in the above reasoning? Yes. But is there a perfect system? No. Can there be a perfect system. No fucking way! And at least science can be tested, whereas religion can't. And I don't see any scientists killing each other in wars. At least science is based in human logic, reasoning, and rational thinking.

 

[Gunnen4u]

Let me, instead of using the word faith, use the word trust. When my senses are stimulated and that information is transferred to my brain, there is a disconnection: reality becomes perceived reality. Read Nieztche "Beyond Good and Evil". Furthermore, when perceived reality is then put into language it becomes even more removed from actual reality. And then when that language is read or heard by another party, that distance grows again because the senses take in the words which are re-interpreted by the receiver's brain. In other words, nothing can be completely trusted.

We are in agreement then. So science based in human reasoning vs. a faith in an omnipotent God, there is no clear winner but what you choose. It is subjective in a way.

However, because we have computers, airplanes, satellites, electricity, particle accelerators, etc., some trust can be placed in the ways of science. It has shown itself to work to some degree. That doesn't mean science should be trusted completely. And the great thing about science is that it leaves itself open to revision.

Now, scientists are human beings and therefore subject to the same whims and faults to which all human beings are subject. But since scientists must publish their research and experiments and that nothing is taken as scientific fact (meaning open to revision) until the tests have been duplicated more than once, we can trust the scientific community more than we should distrust it.

And, according to science, the really big questions like: where did the Universe come from? haven't been answered. We only have ideas which may be accurate or may not. But there is evidence that lends validation one way more than others.

Science isn't a political idea, its the search for knowledge. Should science be used in politics? Absolutely. Its much better than superstition.

Of course, but my whole point was that it has its failings and to "trust" in science as it were, because it is more concrete and therefore better than religion, is subjective and open to further debate and conclusions. Personally, I put trust in both of them at the same time. Can't go wrong there, and besides, it doesn't really have to contradict unlike what the contemporary thinking of today.

Another thing we could discuss is when science and religion supposedly butt heads. Perhaps it is because people take the Bible too literally and fail to see the main point or context of any of the Books in the OT and NT.

Are there flaws in the above reasoning? Yes. But is there a perfect system? No. Can there be a perfect system. No fucking way! And at least science can be tested, whereas religion can't. And I don't see any scientists killing each other in wars. At least science is based in human logic, reasoning, and rational thinking.

And the powers of that are indeed fallible. And science is not used in war? Religion may to blame for the acts of its adherents (causing them to think like they might), but when it's adherents use it for human means, is it religion's fault? Example would be the Pope during the Middle Ages and Renaissance (the whole Catholic order and hierarchy, it's garbage, why I am not a Catholic).

Your last statement, I think that is perhaps why many people love science over religion, it gives them control and soothes the human ego that they have ultimate truth and knowledge. It's not always the case, or we just don't always see it on the outside, but perhaps, subconsciously, it is.