Quote:

---

That claimed bio major

---

Quote:

---

So, sure, he can voice his opinions, on this board, but we can't allow debates without evidence to happen in the scientific community or we end up with democracy of thought, or, in other words, mob rule.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Quote:

---

there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

---

look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

---

I should have responded a long time ago, and maybe you'll miss it because I waited so long. Sorry about that.

Your statement about athiests who post here is what you believe I'm sure, but I don't think the facts back you up, any more than if I were to say 'people of religion on this site hate science'.

I am an atheist myself,or when I want to sound more scientific I say I'm an agnostic, because I can't disprove the existence of a God. I believe there's no God, but this belief is not a strong or unbending one. The prospect of a belief system as bleak as atheism is hardly ideal. if there was any evidence I could look to to convince me of the possibility of something supernatural, I think I might just latch onto it.

As to faith's connection to science, there are really two options here. Either faith has no bearing on empirical evidence whatsoever - that is, it deals with a higher plain of thought or knowledge, in which case, faith has no business dictating scientific understanding because the two realms are absolutely distinct. There should be no religeous intervention into science because no matter what science proves, science is some illusion dealing with only the profane and not the sacred, and faith is the real truth that deals with the sacred but not the profane,

or else,

we glimpse the sacred through the profane, in which case our understanding of our faith should be led by our empirical understanding of the world. When our empirical understanding debunks one literal aspect of our faith, our faith should adjust accordingly. You do not throw out the evidence that doesn't support the hypothesis, you throw out the hypothesis, or else, tweak it.

Either Way, science should not be molested or manipulated by religious belief, either because it is not related, or because it is the very method through which we can get closer to seeing God.

Which of the two do you subscribe to? or if there's a third option, I'd be interested.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.

---

Why start now?

From what I've read, you haven't done any thinking so far in this thread; it'd be a wonder of wonders (and would probably make your brain happy) to get those neurons firing for once.

...well it's true.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

---

Self-assembling is a far cry from reproduction. And I'm the idiot.

---

Quote:

---

kaneman wrote:

I do not believe in god, never claimed to. I do not buy into to this evolution shit when there is no truth to it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third.....

---

Quote:

---

Kaneman: I'm the idiot.

---

Quote:

---

7% Then what, exactly, do you believe?

---

Quote:

---

7%: there appear to be three options on the table

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
i agree, the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration of evidence for the proof of God;

---

Quote:

---

i dont think that was its purpose,

---

Quote:

---

and in that way doesnt belong in a side-by-side comparison with the latest scientific theories

---

Quote:

---

but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair.

---

Quote:

---

you may not be a theist, but take it from me.. i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist.

---

Quote:

---

now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate? or is it that because every religion is believed to be a fairy tell, it doesnt matter what the specifics of the message are?

---

Quote:

---

as a theist, the bible has a clear message, which is why Jesus' himself says to be aware of false doctrines and their destruction. well, such debates have no place in the scientific secular world, because to you all, mans earliest origins have just been discarded as elaborate fantasy.

---

Quote:

---

well, i hope youll concede that in this way, only theists can debate theists, as it takes a comprehensive knowledge of the scriptures to form a thorough understanding of its message.

---

Quote:

---

maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology,

---

Quote:

---

when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame).

---

Quote:

---

i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist. now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Show me where the scientific proof of God rests within the Bible. Using the Bible as its own argument is a tautology, a fallacy of the most basic order.

---

Quote:

---

You're in effect saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Show me where you can verify within the Bible that God created the world in 6 days, or that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, or how Jonas survived in the belly of the whale. Show me that - but know this - the minute you use the word "metaphor," you've already proven yourself wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Its purpose was to give a particular people a shared history and a moral compass for living, not to serve as a scientific manual in the 21st century.

---

Quote:

---

No it isn't. Let's do what this thread is about, and debate debating. If I say 2+2=4, you saying "but God said 2+2=5" does not change the fact that 2+2=4. Period. It may in your mind, but not in reality. That's the problem with Creation Science. You want to toss your hat into a debate where it doesn't belong. And, let's face it, the vast majority of evolutionary science does not seek to tell the origins of life, it just seeks to explain how it got to where it is now. You want to inject religion into a debate that is about science. Theology is philosophy, which is a TITANIC difference.

---

Quote:

---

I'd like chapter and verse on that one, thank you. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have read the Bible (several times; you have to know your Bible to teach literature) and attend church regularly. I'd like chapter and verse on where it says Zeus or Odin are fallen angels.

---

Quote:

---

Then have those debates as a matter of philosophy or theology, but keep it away from what it isn't, which is science. Morality, whose God is better, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are all nice arguments - where they belong, in a debate about religion. Why Abraham nearly knifed Isaac doesn't belong in a Chemistry class.

---

Quote:

---

Bzzt, sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
First, the Bible is a walking contradiction, and no one has been able to agree on a clear message in, oh, what, 4000+ years, counting the OT?
Next, you're trying to tell me what the evolution debate clearly is not - a debate about the origins of life. Scientists say, "we know what the processes are, we know the time frame, let's do some research and see how it all started, because we don't know yet. But we're curious, and want to advance the knowledge of mankind." Creationists, and IDers turn it around and say, "it was all God, you don't need to be curious (because God did it), and anyone who says otherwise hates Jesus and is a blaspheming bastard who is going to burn in hell."

---

Quote:

---

If your faith is strong enough, it can survive the theory of evolution. Mine has. But you're convinced that there is an occult conspiracy to make everyone fry in the eternal fires and evolution is the first link in the chain - and you want us to include you in a scientific debate? Pffft. That's why you're marginalized - you're one dog away from the Son of Sam.

---

Quote:

---

I take it back - we agree again, but I don't think you mean what you're saying. Yes, exactly - theists (and theologians) debate theists (and theologians). Theologians should not debate scientists about biology or chemistry.

---

Quote:

---

Last time I checked, the goal of science was to study the natural world and all its forms - not chase God with a PKE Meter.

---

Quote:

---

but likewise, maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology, when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame

---

Quote:

---

i refer you to Genesis 6, and the book of Enoch for further details; also, look up Nephilim and Elohim, and compare that with the stories of the Sumerians, and Mayans, and other polytheistic beliefs.. youll notice some profound archetypical similarities

---

Quote:

---

Jesus' warned about occult perversions and the synogogue of Satan; but 10 years from now you will be eating your words about this occult conspiracy when the world just so happens to be facing a fascist global government

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CAUTION: Purely gratuitous grenade-lobbing follows! >>> If Kaneman is a bio major then I'm Bill Gates <<< END CAUTION

DT, I think there are debates.... and then there are debates. Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate. So, does religion belong in ANY debate? On what grounds can one "debate" a religion? How do you "prove" a religious tennet anyway? You cna't even look for logical inconsistancies within a religion because it's all a matter of faith: Believe, even if it doesn't match what you see with your eyes or make sense.

But there are other kinds of debates besides scientific, for example debates about ethics or philosophy which one can tackle using logic.

And then there are political debates where mud is slung and facts don't count. Unfortunately, mud-wrestling is a lot more entertaining than scientific debate. A candidate who sticks to the high road and cites facts is a candidate who'll probably lose.

I guess my point is that there are different categories of "debate". Some people are trying to have a scientific debate while others are having a no-holds-barred mud wrestling match.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


There is no common point of reference, and worse, there is no way to "prove" whether your religion or mine is "true". We could start poking around in the historical authenticity of the books in question, and I would bring up some recently discovered gospels and show how they contradict at least parts of what you currently believe, and some parts of the Bible that contradict others and then you'll have to start picking and choosing... do I believe this part but not that? It all becomes a matter of what you chose to believe and what you chose to reject/ re-interpret. And then you attach divinity to your opinion and claim that you speak for Jesus. Isn't that just a wee bit self-important?

TO be utterly ridiculous about it, I could claim by divine inspiration that the Universe was made by the of-cited Flying Spaghetti Monster and the only real difference between your beliefs and mine is social acceptability.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
im sorry i misunderstood the meaning of "makes no bones", ... i also apologize if i come off as contradicting, i should probably reread my statements better

---

Quote:

---

scientifically, we have no way to determine which religion is correct, if any; whether a God exists, whether somehting percieved as a God, or 'gods' could exist, or if all of that was in actuality, baseless superstition.

---

Quote:

---

id like to incorporate it all somehow into my worldview, including evolutionary processes.. im just not ready to exlude the two from eachother

---

Quote:

---

as for the fallen angels, the common understanding among the more advanced christian scholars have accepted that the Sons of God could only be the fallen angels; that their offspring with the "daughters of man" (human), and their nephilim suprerhuman offspring, happens to fit in with other myths around the world.

---

Quote:

---

is it at all possible that these events actually happened? all we have are stories handed down; but there are many things that we cant prove, like UFOs, but thats open for debate

---

Quote:

---

i think there something underlying these human archetypes, because they all spawned incredibly civilized and advanced cultures out of now-where it seems.

---

Quote:

---

it doesnt mean i flat out reject all evolutionary discovery though.

---

Quote:

---

cant we share knowledge, without being excluded from the discussion as in "religion is not debateable-period"?

---

Quote:

---

as in religion and science are exclusive? i just want to know if that is what your saying

---

Quote:

---

We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third....."

Uhhmm ... now I know you're not a bio major. Bacteria, fungi - binary fission or budding (same basics, different relative sizes) is their main reproductive mode. 1 + 0 = 2

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.

---

Is the truth of religion to be decided on how far back it goes? Then the Vedas go back even farther, and animism even farther back than that. Or do we decide on religion based on popularity?

But that's not the same as debating them. A debate is where you take a sides. And once again, how do you "prove" your point? You may think you're "debating" your religion with other people but you're prolly just badgering them.

------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

my point has always been that there COULD be some collaboration globally for the fallen angel hypothesis. and actually Sevenpercent i could confidently debate you on the the biblical support for this, only i want to be thorough and give it some time, plus i dont have my bible in front of me right now....

---

Quote:

---

"A "debate" can only occur when both sides use the same set of assumptions "

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe we came from bacteria

---