Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Evolution forum

Evolution VS Religion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2009 4:15:52 PM PDT
John A. Gerling says:
"Our problem is that the fifth gene is mutated and non-functional so we can't make vitamin C, just like apes and chimps."

I know this is hairsplitting, but saying "just like apes and chimps" is kind of like saying "just like canines and wolves"...the second one is a subgroup of the first. It should be "just like other apes", or if you prefer to highlight chimps as our nearest relatives, "just like chimps and other apes". Sorry...things like that just jump out at me!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2009 9:00:51 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
Sorry for the error in description. It derives because creationists always make denials that they descended from an ape or a chimpanzee.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2009 5:09:08 PM PDT
Permit another idea. The conflict is not simply between science and religion, but between science and history. Evolution asks us to discard thousands of years of history in favor of what some of the academics are now calling science.

I'll take eye witness records any day.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2009 7:50:12 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
Including those of Sasquatch, Big Foot and Hobgoblins?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2009 10:37:14 PM PDT
Zeitgeist says:Evolution is simply the process by which God creates. What is so hard to understand about that ?

How do you know that? If that is the case, why then creationists reject evolution?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2009 10:59:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2009 11:02:24 PM PDT
<<Science is a very limited form of knowing.>>

What other method of knowing more powerful than science do you know?
When has this method been invented or discovered? I am really interested in this new method. Is it new?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2009 11:16:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2009 5:12:13 AM PDT
T. Morrill Sr. says:
<<Permit another idea. The conflict is not simply between science and religion, but between science and history. Evolution asks us to discard thousands of years of history in favor of what some of the academics are now calling science.>>

Not science nor religion are thinking beings, and they do not fight. Humans are the thinking beings, and the organ for thinking is the brain: if you get your brain severely damaged you will not be able to think, and you will not remenber that god exists. Some humans think scientifically: they accept only logically and experimentally validated ideas; other humans think religiously: they accept or produce unvalidated ideas, just by faith. Which of this two groups of people is more reliable? The one that validates its ideas? Or the one that does not validate?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2009 6:30:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 5, 2009 6:31:50 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2009 6:39:48 PM PDT
When spontaneous generation went the way of the other foolish ideas concerning origin of life, Lyell, Darwin, Hutton, etc came to the rescue. Let's assume a much longer age for the earth. You see, things that can't happen before our eyes, MUST have happened so slowly that no one could see it. How foolish do they think we are?

Progressive creation is easy to understand. The problem is that it didn't happen that way!

The creation of life is a miracle which cannot be explained by science. The Bible is a record of hundreds of miracles. Science is impotent when it comes to miracles. It can only explain things which occur in the natural.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2009 9:27:44 AM PDT
A. Sircom says:
T. Morrill Sr. says:
"Creation was recorded, not only in the Bible, but in other ancient works as well. The ancient book of Jasher, mentioned twice in the Bible, is certainly not a religious book. It is simply a written record of the early activities of mankind. It frequently varies significantly from the Biblical record, but agrees with the Bible concerning the fact that God created."

If we go with that concept, then why aren't you a Hindu? There are many more cross-referencing texts within the Hindi pantheon than there are to support the Bible.

In addition, if you have studied creation myths, you'll know there are many, many variants. How does the Judeo-Christian creation myth draw succor from Eurynome coupling with the North Wind to separate Chaos from Oceanus, or Ymir growing frost ogre people out of his armpits, or Di Jun summoning the Divine Archer to shoot down nine of the ten suns in the sky?

As for your dismissal of evolution... you've heard of the common cold, I take it? That's called a coronavirus. Every time you get a cold, you build a set of antibodies that give you life-time immunity against that strain of coronavirus. So, how do you get another cold? The coronavirus mutates (evolves)... and you get another set of antibodies. There are all kinds of other coronaviruses that afflict man and other animals and they keep evolving to keep virologists on their toes.

Occasionally, those existing coronavirus evolve into something very, very different from the common cold or stomach flu in pigs. They evolve into wholly new forms of coronaviruses, including nasty things like SARS. Funny how there was no such thing as SARS prior to November 2002. How did that happen? Did God intervene and create a new organism, or isn't this evolution enough for you?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2009 2:03:07 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
T. Morrill, you need to stop reading creationist sources for your science. You owe me a dollar.

They have already observed speciation in nature and the lab.

Further, there is a fossil record that documents very well the evolution of life on Earth.

Please explain to me why we don't find large land dinosaur fossils above the K-T layer. The K-T layer denotes the impact of the asteroid that killed the dinos some 65 million years ago. Not only do we not find large dino fossils above this layer but we don't find any hominid fossils below it.

Start explaining or send me my dollar!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2009 2:28:26 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
T. Morrill says:

"Science is impotent when it comes to miracles."

The eradication of smallpox was a direct result of science. Is this not good enough to classify as a miracle? There are many more examples like this I could cite. If you get sick are you going to see the doctor or will you just say a prayer. I suspect I know the answer but I want you to answer truthfully.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 2:54:36 AM PDT
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Of course science has provided many benefits to society. However, I would not classify the near eradication of smallpox as a miracle. That was simply the result of a lot of hard work.

What I meant was that science cannot legitimately be used to change history. If science comes up with dates that contradict known and established history, it is the science that is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 3:04:43 AM PDT
What you call creation myths was, at least in the western world, established history until a small group of atheists/agnostics determined it change it so that they could live a lifestyle that is unacceptable in any civilized society. They determined that if they could get control of the information media, newspapers, radio, TV, the education systems, the churches, etc., they could change the perception of history.

How long do you think we are going to be able to have discussions like this over the internet? Soon that will be squelched also.

As far as your discussion of the coronavirus is concerned. When it " evolves " your words not mine, what does it become? Isn't it still a virus? What your are describing is called microevolution. Yes there are small changes, usually at the species level, but you never see a change from one kind of organism to another, what is called macroevolution.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 3:14:52 AM PDT
No John,

What is the dollar stuff? Maybe you mentioned a dollar in one of your previous posts, but I didn't see it. I don't have the time to deal with nonsense like this.

You need to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by the pro evolution propaganda. The " fossil record " is just one part of this propaganda. The only fossil record exists in textbooks, which is obviously where you're getting your information.

Dinosaurs are rare, but still exist in remote areas not well explored, the amazon basin, the swamp in the Congo that is the size of the state of Georgia. Marine reptiles, which many would call dinosaurs still exist in deep water lakes and in oceans. You need to pay a visit to Port Henry, NY, on the shore of Lake Champlain. There is a bulletin board filled with names of people who have seen the Champ creature. I saw one personally in May of 1996.

Layers ( strata ) obviously exist. But they are density related, and species related. Did you know that humans can swim, and therefore would not be expected to be in the lower strata?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 3:48:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2009 8:25:42 AM PDT
A. Sircom says:
The problem with calling one creation concept 'history' is that there are a number of other creation concepts that remain 'myth'. What makes your creation concept so special?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with your 'small group of atheists/agnostics'... I'm talking about the billion or so Hindus, the half-billion or so Buddhists, the millions of Jainists and Sikhs. Their creation concepts do not tally with yours, and that means either they are right and you aren't or you are right and they aren't. Or maybe, just maybe, none of them are right and there's another hypothesis that actually holds.

What makes you right?

Further thought on this matter points out a glaring hole in all of this. What does 'The Creation Event' have to do with evolution? OK, the following schema isn't in your particular book of instructions, but that does not logically cancel the concept out: A world could be theistically created and still have evolution by means of natural selection as a mechanic to get to where we are today. And beyond... we are not an end-point to evolution, although we could be our own extinction event, which might at least give us some aura of uniqueness, I grant you.

The term 'microevolution' is a bankrupt term. It is still evolution, just adding a weasel-prefix doesn't get you off the hook. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen at all - God made all the things in seven days and that is how it is. Now we can have God made all the things +/- 'small changes' (like one virus becoming another virus).

A few hundred years ago, you'd have been burning yourself at the stake for such heresy.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 5:47:04 AM PDT
SciGuy says:
T. Morrill,

I'm afraid you are the one that's been duped.

The evidence is all around us for evolution. I don't find that means I can't believe in God, I do. I just accept the findings of science such as evolution. You, on the other hand, would believe in the geocentric solar system and a flat Earth if faced with the evidence back when these subjects were controversial. You would have toed the line of religious orthodoxy and been wrong.

Your explanation for why we don't find human skeletal remains with the dinos is interesting. You say humans can swim so this explains it. Well, how long can the average human swim? Did all humans back then take swimming lessons or would there have been many that didn't know how to swim like today?

Your mind is open to any explanation, no matter how illogical, for Earth being only 6,000 years old and there having been the Noachian flood. Wake up and join the modern age.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 6:25:47 AM PDT
Rasih Bensan says:
It is amazing to see how the most intelligent species on the planet ; humans can be caught up in dogmatic irrational thinking that refutes scientific method of thought. The fundamentalist Christian belief that creation by God took place in 6 days as described in the Bible not as Charles Darwin explained in his book named The Origin of the Species 200 years ago is a dogma that some people are brainwashed with since early childhood. In the documentary by NOVA called "Evolution : The Mind's Big Bang and What about God ? " we see that even if these people become scientists in adult life and are exposed to scientific evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs about evolution they still hold on to their dogmas. Scientific evidence is not enough to change the irrational beliefs formed early in childhood as a result of fundamentalist religious education. Only a few of them are able to question the dogma and accept the possibility that perhaps Darwin may be right. As seen in this documentary the fundementalists try to dock the first amendment of the American Constitution that stipulates the separation of church and state by claiming that Intelligent Design is not a religious teaching but another scientific theory that should be taught alongside Darwin's theories in schools. However, their intentions are religious. I recommend that you also watch the documentary named " Judgement day : Intelligent Design on Trial " which clearly demonstrates underlying hidden motives of Creationists.

It is ridiculous to equate the study of and belief in Darwin's theories with atheism. A person can believe in God and Darwin's theory of evolution simultaneously. He / she does not have to believe the 6 day creation dogma with no scientific basis to be a believer in God. Perhaps God designed evolution the way Darwin described it. Perhaps not. The only way to find out if Darwin was right or wrong is through scientific research. Not by refuting the scientific method and replacing it with some kind of religious dogma. Darwin's theory of evolution does not imply that God had no role in evolution, just that God's role is not the way Creationists describe it. It is amazing that the human mind which developed so much that it made humans the most intelligent species on Earth can be so conditioned in early childhood that it becomes a self imposed under achiever of its intellectual potential.

The mentality that has been trying to replace Darwin's theory of Evolution with Intelligent Design since the beginning of the 20th century is the same mentality that convicted Galileo hundreds of years ago for claiming that it is the Earth that revolves around the sun not the other way around as claimed by the church.

I don't know if fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Moslems around the world who hate one another so much realize that they are 100 % in agreement on this issue. It is not in just the USA and not just in the Christian world that Darwin gets regularly attacked and Intelligent Design tryes to take hold of education. For example just a few weeks ago as I am writing these lines the following things happened in Turkey, a Moslem country with a secular State that was visited by President Obama today (April 7th 2009 ) : anti- Darwinist Islamist Creationists made a move against Darwin in Turkey ; the monthly magazine of a government sponsored Turkish Scientific Research Organization in Turkey put Darwin's picture on the cover of the March 2009 issue and devoted 16 pages to him in commemoration of Darwin's 200th birth year. Immediately after this, the director of the organization purged the editor from the organization and had Darwin erased from the cover of the magazine. His justification was that the current situation in Turkey was too sensitive to tolerate Darwin on the cover of the magazine. For many days after this event a strong reaction continued from the secular organizations and press in Turkey and internationally. Some Turkish secular organizations conducted protest demonstrations demanding the resignation of the directors of the government sponsored Scientific Research Organization who they claimed were Islamist Creationists. The directors backed down and denied they had anything against Darwin. But the editor of the magazine who was purged subsequently claimed that the directors were lying, that she was told that she was fired for putting Darwin's picture on the cover of the magazine and that she would take the matter to court. Several days later under severe pressure from the Turkish secular community the editor was reinstated.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 9:47:37 AM PDT
A. Sircom says:
"What I meant was that science cannot legitimately be used to change history. If science comes up with dates that contradict known and established history, it is the science that is wrong."

That's precisely the kind of mind-set that kept the medieval period so, well, medieval: Bacon famously wrote "In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For 13 days the disputation raged without ceasing..." Apparently, a young man counted the number of teeth in a real horse and the debate raged because it contradicted the known and established teachings of Aristotle.

I also question the 'known and established' part of the history you are calling out. If you are using the Bible to confirm the historical credibility of the Bible, that's a viciously circular argument.

Many aspects of historical evidence are at best anecdotal, but those anecdotes seem to become more real in time. I have 'well-documented' evidence in my family record of brother fighting brother in the Battle of Naseby. This was taken as such documented 'fact' that the journals of Wm. Furze were quoted in historical texts for about 150 years. Unfortunately, more recent research shows that one of these brothers had been dead for at least a year by that time, having died of fever in the Siege of York.

So much for 'known and established' history.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 11:42:59 AM PDT
Rasih Bensan says:
Science has no goal to change history. Most people think history is a branch of science. The study of history does not qualify as a science. Because historical events are not falsifiable by observation. For something to qualify as scientific it has to be falsifiable or provable by observation or experiment. Economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology and political science are social sciences in this regard but history, archaeology and law are not science however systematic methods of analyses thay may utilize. Mathematics also is not a science but a valuable tool used by science. If we base our arguments about history and science based on conceptual errors our discussions will get off the right track.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 11:51:28 AM PDT
And your evidence is?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 11:59:08 AM PDT
In a flood, whether local, or worldwide, humans would swim, or if they couldn't, they would cling to floating logs, trees, etc. as long as they could, while other animals would die before them and become part of the fossil record. Surely, you can understand this.

I guess you haven't seen the three photos of the three pieces of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat that are posted on the web. Yes, they are there. And every decade or so, when it is warm enough and dry enough they can be photographed.

I have had a lifetime of people who tried to deceive me into thinking about the popular theories of strata formation. The first that I remember was the chairman of a geology dept that told me that animal fossils could be dated by the strata in which they are found, and the strata could be dated by the fossils in them. That was back about 45 years ago when I wanted to believe in the evolution myth.

No. I'm not stupid enough to believe that, and you shouldn't be either.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 12:01:41 PM PDT
And your evidence for evolution is....?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2009 12:06:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2009 12:07:33 PM PDT
A. Sircom says:
The evidence for evolution is unremittingly well documented, and spans about half a dozen different disciplines in science, not just bio-science. To miss one could be understandable; to skip over the whole lot is willfully ignorant.

Posted on Apr 7, 2009 12:10:23 PM PDT
The truth about creation is found in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings, which are full of miracles. If you ASSUME that processes have always been the same as they are now, and that God didn't intervene with miracles, yes, you will come up with evolution. However that is an ASSUMPTION BASED UPON ASSUMPTION. Get yourself a Bible and read 2nd Peter chapter 3. Peter prophesied that there would be people like you in the last days. He called them scoffers!

The Jewish people ( more accurately, the Children of Israel ) experienced many miracles, beginning with the plagues, the passing over of the first born, the crossing of the Red Sea, the crossing of the River Jordan on dry ground, and many others.

You mean you have never experienced a miracle? I feel sorry for you.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Evolution forum (659 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Evolution forum
Participants:  54
Total posts:  1625
Initial post:  Mar 6, 2009
Latest post:  Dec 8, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions