Science has punched many holes in christian believes.Go ahead and say I'm going to hell I don't give a shit.

CommunistFox
Science has punched many holes in christian believes.Go ahead and say I'm going to hell I don't give a ****.

First: A discussion does not mean a flamewar.

And now to the topic at hand.

The evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design debate is a long and bitter one that goes back to Darwin's first discoveries. An interesting fact- I have some friends not of the Christian faith that still believe a higher power was involved in creating the Universe, so ID isn't necessarily a Christian belief. On the contrary, I have some Christian friends who believe that God himself created Evolution. There's a wide range of theories related to both sides of the debate, and it's important to be well-informed (or at least well-informed in what you believe in) when discussing the topic.

Well, I believe its a mixture of the two. I sincerely doubt that we just appeared in an instant, 'cause thats just stupid. Now, that being said, the universe and nature is in complete and perfect organization and harmony. What are the chances of that happening randomly? Try shaking up a can of alphabits and see if you can get a dictionary, or even cat in a hat. Even if it is in a huge span of thousands of millions of years you'd think something would happen to disrupt the balance. Its just very hard to believe that a huge series of coincidences created this universe perfectly, with incredibly complex organization. And in fact, the only thing that could really disrupt the balance of nature, and actually is disrupting the balance of nature is humans. So, Intelligent design probably makes more sense, if it's seen as God (face it, thats who they're talking about) is guiding evolution to make sure nothing gets f*cked up.

CommunistFox
Science has punched many holes in christian believes.Go ahead and say I'm going to hell I don't give a shit.

It all depends on which side of the hill you're standing on. I'm Catholic but I have no trouble with science or the idea of evolution. To many Christians, science tells you about the heavens while religion tells you how to get to heaven. In other words, religion does not necessary contridict or collide with science.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the Vatican is actually okay with evolution. So long as the soul comes from God, then the Vatican has no objections.

.: Black Kitty :.

Oh sure, just take the illusion that we're convincing other people to believe what we believe away why don't you. I guess its for the best for me, 'cause once people start throwing research and proof at me, I start to cave.

AlmightyNam
Well, I believe its a mixture of the two. I sincerely doubt that we just appeared in an instant, 'cause thats just stupid. Now, that being said, the universe and nature is in complete and perfect organization and harmony. What are the chances of that happening randomly? Try shaking up a can of alphabits and see if you can get a dictionary, or even cat in a hat. Even if it is in a huge span of thousands of millions of years you'd think something would happen to disrupt the balance. Its just very hard to believe that a huge series of coincidences created this universe perfectly, with incredibly complex organization. And in fact, the only thing that could really disrupt the balance of nature, and actually is disrupting the balance of nature is humans. So, Intelligent design probably makes more sense, if it's seen as God (face it, thats who they're talking about) is guiding evolution to make sure nothing gets f*cked up.

That is good and I respect your idea.However there is a problem with that.God only created humans but you also believe that he created this universe.So we,we are the only things that live on this whole universe.So why did god give us ALL this space when we can't hardly get off the planet.I believe that every thing in this universe is all a fluke and our lives are fulkes.

Phantom_Penguin
Meh, Im not a christian anyway. So i couldn't careless.

But i have mixed feelings. Evolution makes a little bit of sense to me, but i can't abandon my belifes.

Out'a curiosity, what are you then? Jewish? I'm just wondering 'cause usually when people say they aren't christian they mean they're atheist.

MechaShiva
as far as i know the Vatican and the Catholic Church has been always
adapting to circumstances at their convinence through history as soon as they
found a large number of believers threatening with forsaking their
beliefs in it. but it's also true that they've been having it tougher and
tougher everytime, cause it's hard to keep all the christians satisfied.
what the Catholic Church has to say is no other than the changing decision of a group of people, and due to this, they lost credibility.

If the Catholic Church was truly concern with pleasing their followers, then certain issues such as women priests, birth control and gay marriage would not be an issue today. It's also questionable whether a conservative Pope like Pope Benedict XVI would have been elected if the Vatican was so interested in buying their followers.

We always fault the Catholic Church for not changing with the times but when they do, we fault them for doing so. In a sense, the Catholic Church is quite liberated because no matter what they do, people will disagree with them anyway. While I'm sure there's a lot of issues that they have changed their stance on in the last 2000 years, I don't think their core has really changed all that much. It's also worth noting that the Catholic Church is a human institution and they're still as fallible as ever much like everyone else.

as for the thread itself, i'd rather discuss why we all have our beliefs
so proudly attached, that nothing will ever make us change our minds
unless the change comes from personal process inside of ourselves.
note that on this kind of debates, our beliefs remain unchanged all
through them to the end. does it really matter what everyone of
us believes?

I've always view these kinds of debates as a sharing of ideas. While I may be a bit too passionate and insistent at times, I never really expect anyone to change their minds all that much.

I don't see why it's all that surprising anyway. Your beliefs/spirituality is in a way a personal matter.

.: Black Kitty :.

CommunistFox
Science has punched many holes in christian believes.Go ahead and say I'm going to hell I don't give a shit.

But maybe God just WANTS us to choose between science and religion as a way of testing out faith to Him.




...


...heh. Actually the Universe, in my view, is probably formed upon a series of set rules which have little or nothing to do with a godly figure who resembles humans, but rather has more to do with some universal concept beyond our understanding. For humans, at least, current relgion is more like a drug to escape from the rigors of life and have faith in something else, except unlike drugs it's widely accepted (well...I suppose that depends what kind of drug). Heck, look how the non-illegal drug market has evolved. Religion is like tylenol, only it's spiritual relief instead of physical.

MechaShiva
Church's fallibility is what makes it not credible. if Catholic Church
is as they claim God's word on Earth, why should it fail at all?

Because they're a human institution and humans are falliable creatures. If God's an omniscient divine being supposedly beyond the construct of our reality and human beings are falliable creatures that sin (and are born with original sin,) then it wouldn't be too surprising that a human institutions like the Catholic Church would be falliable.

Certainly as religious figures they possesss a great deal of knowledge and have responsibilities towards their followers to guide them on religious matters. However just because the Pope sits in for Jesus as the head of the Catholic Church, it doesn't mean he's actually Jesus.

after all debating may have a use. finding holes on eachother's beliefs
may help create a more unified homogeneous and sound view of the
reality. something we don't perceive today, but weighs in the long run.
hm... humble thought.

Additionally, even if people ultimately agree to disagree, people may find that debating and discussing their own beliefs help strengthen it as well as lead to an understanding of other people's point of views.

what kind of stupid god would give us reason, and tests our faith instead?

A God who wants love freely given to Him?
Although it's possible that God created the world through science so I don't see why we have to choose between religion and science.

MechaShiva
what kind of stupid god would give us reason, and tests our faith instead?

Actually it's a pretty smart idea. It gives human's choice. Now I'm not saying there is a God, but if there is it's damn smart.

MechaShiva

what kind of stupid god would give us reason, and tests our faith instead?

A God who wants love freely given to Him?
Although it's possible that God created the world through science so I don't see why we have to choose between religion and science.

and what kind of stupid god would stay away from people's sights,
wouldn't give a single sign of His existance and expect to be loved?
do you love your uncle that lives in Chile, you don't know what he looks like, never comes for Christmas and never ever calls you on the phone?
why don't you? he's expecting you to love him! love him!
if He's the kind of scientific god (what all in all, is what would make more
sense in the end), why would He expect us to act through our faith instead? that would be acting against His own principles.

hmm... I think that one of the major things atheists face is that they assume they know what God, who has infinate knowlege would do. And I think that your analogy is somewhat flawed, especially if you try to consider what the bible actually says.. It would be more like God is a Father that you ran away from 20 years ago when you were a rebelious teenager. And he calls you everyday, but you never answer any of his calls.

As for your first comment.. try to consider it in human relationship terms (because christianity is really about a relationship) not just in science-textbook terms. Consider this: you have a 4 year old son.. his current capacity for reasoning and logic states that the more toys you give him, the more you love him. But wouldn't you rather he learn to love you because you want to keep him safe, and want what's best for him and him to be successful? I hope that you would agree that it is a more mature and genuine form of love to trust someone than to have someone place themselves in a position where you would HAVE to love them unless if you were brain-damaged.

MechaShiva

ccs1989

MechaShiva
what kind of stupid god would give us reason, and tests our faith instead?

Actually it's a pretty smart idea. It gives human's choice. Now I'm not saying there is a God, but if there is it's damn smart.

tho' i like thinking i still have freewill, i'm a determinist which implies that i think our choices are determined and are not a product of our free will.
so i cannot say God gave us any freaking choice, therefore he shouldn't judge us at all.

That is a very bold statement to stand by... if you are really determined to believe that there is no free will, you would also not be justified in judging anyone. Someone could come to your home and kill your whole family and it wouldn't be their fault because they had no choice.. and if you got angry at them your anger would be unjustified.

MechaShiva
knowledge? is that what Catholic Church has? and don't believers expect
from the Catholic Church a little bit more than just plain knowledge?
like hmm.. a kind of dunno, bond between Church and God for example?
what makes them be the Official Trademark Catholic Church on the Earth if they can't exchange a single word with God? some believers still think
such a bond exists, that's why they are so strongly and blindly attached to the Catholic Church... .... when they find out that popes are just jesters playing God-sent... with knowledge...

I think anyone that devotes practically their whole life to a religious calling would know a thing or two more than I would about the Catholic faith. I think one of the things many Catholics expect from the Catholic Church is guidance and knowledge from a lifetime devoted to their calling. Much like even though anyone can familarize themselves with the law, getting a lawyer is still a great idea since their job is devoted to the law.

I don't think I'm the best person to be talking about this as I'm not exactly your typical Catholic, but my understanding is that anyone can talk to God. You're suppose to be forging a relationship with God, not the Catholic Church. A Catholic's prayer for example, is not directed at the Church but at God.

and what kind of stupid god would stay away from people's sights,
wouldn't give a single sign of His existance and expect to be loved?
do you love your uncle that lives in Chile, you don't know what he looks like, never comes for Christmas and never ever calls you on the phone?
why don't you? he's expecting you to love him! love him!
if He's the kind of science god (what all in all, is what would make more
sense in the end), why would He expect us to act through our faith instead? that would be acting against His own principles.

But religiously speaking, God has shown signs of His existance. He's created the universe. And if God is responsible for the creation of everyone's souls, then He has also created you.

People have always suggested that if God just shows up in front of them, then they can start believing. What I've always wanted to know is how much of a spectacle do you want God to appear in front of you as before you start believing?

And this brings up the interesting question of whether or not you'll be forced to believe in Him afterwards. If all God really wants is your love freely given, then would your love be freely given if you realized that the whole Catholic package is real? Are you freely believing in God or has God cornered you into believing in Him by appearing in front of you?

.: Black Kitty :.

I like to think that if God is the master of the Universe, then he thinks human's are interesting as his creations, but because of the sheer expanse of what he rules, he must not identify with them lest he fall down to their level or start to care only about them. I'd like to believe that he forgives all humans and welcomes them into heaven, and that they gain infinite knowledge, see the errors of their ways, and are given eternal life. And that all humans eventually end up in heaven.

I think that the grand karma of the world, the beauty that the real ardent religious people see, would not allow humans to burn forever in Hell like it's seen in Dante's Inferno. Such cruelty is torture. Endless torture. I just can't see any justice in that. And so I view 'hell' as a figment of human fear, the same kind of fear that God would hate.

Besides, it's awfully arrogant of humans to think that the ultimate being cares about them. Maybe 'He' does, but he also must care about a whole lot more as well. I think people need to realize that their own shallow beliefs that God takes on a human form and carries a vendetta against anyone who is evil which is so strong that they're banished to be tourtured for eternity...is just plain ridiculous.

Anyway, those are MY thoughts, as disorganized as they are.

Instead of boring you people with what I personally believe, here are two points that I think would do everyone well to put some thought into:

1. Anything is equally possible. Therefore, all faiths are potentially equally valid.

2. A religion needs to be truly believed in, however, in order to function correctly-- one needs to take a "leap of faith".

These two points may seem contradictory. This is because I'm still kind of working on them right now. Besides, what isn't contradictory these days? Try not to worry about it too much. I'll keep you posted.

~IJ

ccs1989
Actually the Universe, in my view, is probably formed upon a series of set rules which have little or nothing to do with a godly figure who resembles humans, but rather has more to do with some universal concept beyond our understanding.

I've recently read a book called "The Theory of the Big Bang" by Simon Singh. Near the end, he explains that if in the beginning (assuming the universe was created by the singluar speck of infinite mass) there had been a 0.001 of a difference in how much Hydrogen there was, this universe would not exist, because the balance of how stars created heavy elements would be upscaled.

That seems to give a pretty big proof that God had to have created us, don't you think? If a change that small could spell doom for the universe... it can't be coincidense that our universe worked out, could it?

But then again, how do we know that we're the "first" universe? It's far-fetched, but there could have been infinite universes before this one, created and destroyed until it has come to a balance of life today.

However, that does seem rather unlikely, doesn't it?

Mazoo
I've recently read a book called "The Theory of the Big Bang" by Simon Singh. Near the end, he explains that if in the beginning (assuming the universe was created by the singluar speck of infinite mass) there had been a 0.001 of a difference in how much Hydrogen there was, this universe would not exist, because the balance of how stars created heavy elements would be upscaled.

That seems to give a pretty big proof that God had to have created us, don't you think? If a change that small could spell doom for the universe... it can't be coincidense that our universe worked out, could it?

But then again, how do we know that we're the "first" universe? It's far-fetched, but there could have been infinite universes before this one, created and destroyed until it has come to a balance of life today.

However, that does seem rather unlikely, doesn't it?

Not really, because science is very precise. And if 'time' is infinite, there's a huge chance that we're the billionth of THIS universe. There could be so many other billions of universes out there that this might just be one of the ones that happened to work.

I just happened upon this forum a second ago, and I've read almost all of your posts(skimmed MechaShiva, too hard to read), and I realized your(group's) approach to this is very different than every other forums. It usually starts with some ID person saying "its jsut a theory" or "if we evolved from monkeys, how come theres still here?" or something to that effect, to have it followed up with an evolutionist ripping those arguments a new one. The scientific definition of theory is almost equal to fact, and you don't understand evolution, we came from the same creature as apes. It isn't usually an argument on the existence of "god", its an argument about the scientific provability of "god"(which is none, I might add), and therefore scientific credability of ID(also none). Basically, some of you people don't understand that science involves facts and natural laws, while faith in religion is just that, faith, no need for observable evidence or anything. For the record, I have no problem with religion, just religion posing as science.

P.S. Sorry if I sounded condescending or rude in any way, just I've done a ton of reading and arguing on the subject at hand.

Kurasuke
Basically, some of you people don't understand that science involves facts and natural laws, while faith in religion is just that, faith, no need for observable evidence or anything. For the record, I have no problem with religion, just religion posing as science.

That's not to say that most of us don't believe that the evolution theory is mostly correct, and that intelligent design IS nothing but a new name for creationism, but that argument has gone over too many times and always ends up with one person quoting the bible and another person quoting their college text book and one person saying (in capital letters) "You're all going to Hell."

So why go over what has turned into one giant, quote filled flame war on other boards when we can discuss things that are more interesting? For example the validity of religion, theories on the universe, life, the idea of heaven and hell, souls, ect. It just seems more interesting, even if all these discussions are cliche'd, than to talk about some hot topic like Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.

As a devout athiest, and a scientist both by nature and profession; I'm more inclined twords evolution.
There may still be holes in the theory of the, but that is why science is not a static thing. It is a process by which we gater information. If at any point part of the theory of evoluton is proven to be untrue, the theory is simply adapted to fit what we now know. We may not understand every detail about the process of evolution at this time, but we continue to study and uncover new information all the time. One day we will.

It also stands to mention that evolution has nothing at all to do with how the universe was formed. All evolution is is the process of how life as we know it developed, not how the rock we're standing on came into being.

The apes we evolved from are not here. The apes today also evolved from those apes, and took a different route. They may seem primitive, but they were successful nonetheless, until we came along.

As for the big bang, it's just a theory. Look to quantum physics for answers on that one, an entire genre of science that is completely theoretical.

People misquote Darwin. That happens a lot. :roll:

He never said we evolved from apes, he states, explicitly in The Orgin of the Species that we likely shared a common ancestor. So in response to the Carlin quote... just because evolution struck one branch doesn't mean it has to strike another. The evolutionary path of humans, when looked at shows that certain triggers in the environment forced a change in the anatomy/intelligence of one branch, meanwhile other branches who were not exposed to these factors had no reason to change. It's all logic, honestly.

So pull your heads out of your asses and research before you put other people's words into his mouth.

Jadedwinter71
Oh lets all remember

evolution is a "Theory" not a "fact" so we can't really take it seriously ^^

Dear god I hope that's sarcasm on your part.

With such a slew of evidence in it's favor, it's odd evolution is still considered "theory", we've even seen it in action and we still consider it a theory.

Quite confounding.

I assume you mean why is it "scientific theory" and not "scientific law" as oppossed to why is it "theory", whereas ID can at best be described as a "hypothesis" and not even a scientific one. I just want to clear that up.

Anyway, the difference between law and theory in this context simply deals with complexity. A law describes a single action, for example lets take Newton, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It's a simple statement of fact as opposed to (and we might aswell stick with the same fella) The Theory of Universal Gravitation. Universal Gravitation describes a complex system involving many laws of motion, some of which Newton came up with, other laws (Kepler's Third Law for Earth Satellites for example) are used to explain different aspects of the model. Universal Gravitation is a theory, it will always be a theory, feel free to not believe in it if you don't want to. You're not suddenly going to float away.

It's not very different for evolution, for example initially evolution was made up of five, at the time, verifiable laws.

Evolution as such
Common descent
Multiplication of species
Gradualism
and ofcourse the mighty Natural selection

All of these were observed in nature and historical record and all of these shape what is called "evolution theory."

Both theory and law are accepted as true in the scientific sense as both can be correctly used to predict results and push forward technological development.* I hope this clears up the misconceptions atleast slightly, if I've just confused people even more or want an explanation as to why ID is hypothesis... then feel free to ask.

*Disclaimer: Laws and Theories are subject to change at the will of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or failing that the discovery of tighter more provable defined laws is also acceptable.

I forgot about the scientific definitions of theories and laws, let's just chalk that up to being on an extended academic break on my part.

hpkomic
People misquote Darwin. That happens a lot. :roll:

hpkomic
The Orgin of the Species

And everybody else just gets the title wrong.

The Origin of Species

Just yanking your crank, it doesn't make your point less valid but it irritates me no end.

Damn, I really slipped up didn't I?

Just wait until I can point or your numerous faults. Yeah, then we'll see whose laughing.

:lol:

I really hate these evolution debates.
They just turn into "the smarties who know about evolution Vs the dummies who don't" :P
And then we get some definitions of theory thrown in as well.

I have a gene in me or something that makes me go for the underdog, so I feel this compulsion to stick up for the non-evolution side! I don't want to do that... We should just change the evolution debate to be something like: "Why creationism shouldn't be taken literally" or "What are the subversive religious aims of proponents of so called Intelligent Design theory"
Hey, I know those two headings seem slightly biased, but they're more appropriate in an educated, enlightened environment.

Well you sure showed me. I'm really sorry that researching my points in my arguments and attempting to articulate myself in such a way as to be fully understood hurts your sense of fair play. I'll try not to do it again.

But I'm glad you said it, now I can just go ahead and say that I'm right and they're wrong and now I don't have to back up my claims with any kind of evidence!

Such a relief, I thank you Ozone and in the spirit of honesty and opinions as opposed to debate I think your 'underdog' gene is stupid.