Creationism v Evolution, Compressed

[Toro]

 

[Big Black Dog]

I was created by God and in His image. My wife, on the other hand, evolved from monkeys!

 

[JBeukema]

Christianity: that a racist god that hates non-jews sent himself as a his own son who is him to earth to die and come back as a zombie so that all could be saved because he fucked up the first time

 

[KittenKoder]

The two are not exclusive.

 

[JBeukema]

The two are not exclusive.

biblical creation is mutually exclusive with science. Are you thinking of Deism?

 

[KittenKoder]

The two are not exclusive.

biblical creation is mutually exclusive with science. Are you thinking of Deism?

Not really, aside from a vague timeline given in the christian bible, it does not answer the details, and science does not answer the "why".

 

[JBeukema]

The two are not exclusive.

biblical creation is mutually exclusive with science. Are you thinking of Deism?

Not really, aside from a vague timeline given in the christian bible, it does not answer the details, and science does not answer the "why".

When man was made in god's image, was that an amoeba? Ida? Or was it AMH?

And what the heck do you mean, 'why'? It is the result of the laws of the universe and the interactions of chemicals and forces.

 

[KittenKoder]

biblical creation is mutually exclusive with science. Are you thinking of Deism?

Not really, aside from a vague timeline given in the christian bible, it does not answer the details, and science does not answer the "why".

When man was made in god's image, was that an amoeba? Ida? Or was it AMH?

And what the heck do you mean, 'why'? It is the result of the laws of the universe and the interactions of chemicals and forces.

Purpose is not something science gives us. Also, it doesn't explain in any religious teaching (not just christian now) the details of how humans were "made". We "make" crystals, by growing them and mixing in elements to alter their color as they grow, evolution is much the same thing in many ways. So the two are not exclusive, they can co-exist, it's the fringe zealots on both sides that won't see this because they are too busy butting heads and trying to prove one being right or wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

Purpose is not something science gives us.

There's no such thing as 'a purpose' beyiond that which brings the individual contentment.

Also, it doesn't explain in any religious teaching (not just christian now) the details of how humans were "made"

.

Actually, they do. Bible says we were made from dirt and some Vedic radiations say we devolved from godly beings

We "make" crystals, by growing them and mixing in elements to alter their color as they grow, evolution is much the same thing in many ways.

No, it's not. One requires intervention to prevent natural development whereas the other one is natural development.

So the two are not exclusive, they can co-exist, it's the fringe zealots on both sides that won't see this because they are too busy butting heads and trying to prove one being right or wrong.

They cannot coexist unless theists stop being idiots and become deists or begin claiming their book is only mere allegory and innuendo not to be taken seriously as a source of any real information.

 

[KittenKoder]

Purpose is not something science gives us.

There's no such thing as 'a purpose' beyiond that which brings the individual contentment.

Also, it doesn't explain in any religious teaching (not just christian now) the details of how humans were "made"

.

Actually, they do. Bible says we were made from dirt and some Vedic radiations say we devolved from godly beings

We "make" crystals, by growing them and mixing in elements to alter their color as they grow, evolution is much the same thing in many ways.

No, it's not. One requires intervention to prevent natural development whereas the other one is natural development.

So the two are not exclusive, they can co-exist, it's the fringe zealots on both sides that won't see this because they are too busy butting heads and trying to prove one being right or wrong.

They cannot coexist unless theists stop being idiots and become deists or begin claiming their book is only mere allegory and innuendo not to be taken seriously as a source of any real information.

... and where did the first amoebas come from ... technically the "dirt". Still, the two do not exclude each other.

 

[ST34]

It is 15:25 (3:25 PM) in Denmark now (I am writing about it because there is a huge time difference between Denmark and US)

in Europe whole this discussion about evolution and creationism seems comical

this makes the impression on tops of the ignorance to be so much insolent to subject laws of the evolution under the doubt

it shows also that the education in USA stands on very low level (this is the effect of the pragmatic pedagogics which arose at the beginning of XX century and on which one leant US education - only the practice, only the practice and in the effect of the almost no theoretical knowledge - the illiteracy, so to say)

this reminds situation if somebody began to doubt in heliocentric theory and tried to go back to the geocentric theory - so begun discussion would be comical and plaintive, and persons which denied truths of the heliocentric theory with reference to the planetary system, should be account as the complete ignoramuses and even illiterates

first arose very simple organic compounds from inorganic compounds, in gas-dust cloud whence came into being later the Solar system
later, they were delivered on surfaces of cooling Earth, about 4,5 billions of years ago, by the raid of meteors whose were a great many in the first period of the formation of the Solar system

in this period arose more composite organic compounds such as aminoacids from which arose albumens, and then first cells - about 3,5 billions years ago; and on this level are protozoans (among them amoebas - they are protozoans)

 

[editec]

Okay, that's pretty damned brilliant.

Faith doesn't get you though times of no science any better than science gets you through times of no faith.

 

[HUGGY]

The two are not exclusive.

Way to take a stand!

 

[garyd]

The notion of evolution is entirely dependent upon the trustworthiness of human senses and reason.

The universe appears to our human eyes to be quite old. Does that of necessity mean that it is indeed quite old? Of course not, no more so than David Copperfield really made the Empire State Building disappear.

 

[code1211]

It is 15:25 (3:25 PM) in Denmark now (I am writing about it because there is a huge time difference between Denmark and US)

in Europe whole this discussion about evolution and creationism seems comical

this makes the impression on tops of the ignorance to be so much insolent to subject laws of the evolution under the doubt

it shows also that the education in USA stands on very low level (this is the effect of the pragmatic pedagogics which arose at the beginning of XX century and on which one leant US education - only the practice, only the practice and in the effect of the almost no theoretical knowledge - the illiteracy, so to say)

this reminds situation if somebody began to doubt in heliocentric theory and tried to go back to the geocentric theory - so begun discussion would be comical and plaintive, and persons which denied truths of the heliocentric theory with reference to the planetary system, should be account as the complete ignoramuses and even illiterates

first arose very simple organic compounds from inorganic compounds, in gas-dust cloud whence came into being later the Solar system
later, they were delivered on surfaces of cooling Earth, about 4,5 billions of years ago, by the raid of meteors whose were a great many in the first period of the formation of the Solar system

in this period arose more composite organic compounds such as aminoacids from which arose albumens, and then first cells - about 3,5 billions years ago; and on this level are protozoans (among them amoebas - they are protozoans)

I never stop being amazed at the reach of the internet. That the thoughts of a person in Denmark and the thoughts of a person in Indiana who are not related or introduced can intersect with this immediacy is stunning to me.

Science is beyond my comprehension as is the thought of eternity and of most matters of faith. As such, it is easy to confuse the two areas. I must accept both on faith and therefore, both can be understood by me as some sort of superstition. I never walked on the Moon. I accept that the scientists who say they have done this are explaining rather than lying.

Science allows prediction, though, while religion does not. At least not for me. In this way, while I do not understand the processes of either, the results are very different. Science seems to be the study of a hammering, relentless force. Religion seems to be the study of a capricious all powerful force.

I prefer to be hammered in a predictable way rather than to be capriciously played about. But, as the song says, "I swear the ain't no Heaven and I pray there ain't no Hell."

Can a world of hammering and consistant regularity really be the result of a capriciously all powerful being?

 

[editec]

Science allows prediction, though, while religion does not. At least not for me.

Actually religion does make some kind of predictions but they're very different than scienctific types.

An example of a religious prediction:

Pride goeth before the fall.​

Now that prediction certainly doesn't have the same certainty as many science predictions, but it does have a long long history of turning out to be a human truth, doesn't it?​

Trying to compare science to religion is fraught with problems because, really they mostly are addressing very different kinds of understandings.​

Science is the study of physcial universe and religion usually is talking about the human subjective experience in relationship to his society and his God.​

 

[Agnapostate]

That isn't a "religious prediction"; that's a tenet of etiquette/ethics that could just as easily be secular in nature.

 

[editec]

That isn't a "religious prediction"; that's a tenet of etiquette/ethics that could just as easily be secular in nature.

Sorta my point, Ag.

The things they're really involved with are so different that comparing them as in " Science allows prediction, though, while religion does not." doesn't really make much sense.

 

[garyd]

Yet absent Christianity the West is a wholly different less free less caring place.

 

[HUGGY]

Yet absent Christianity the West is a wholly different less free less caring place.

That is not provable. How do you know that those that think religion is a crock don't care more about the human race than you do?