Evolution vs Religion

Science is just an inference to the best possible explanation that we able able to conclude. Yes there is an avalanche of evidence in favour of Evolution, but who knows. What I do know is that I'll be long gone before this debate ever reaches a climax. I've always managed to find myself in one of these discussions every time I get onto a forum, and I just grow more apathetic either way. It would be nice to finally discover whether or not I come from a long web of interconnected living organisms that changed over millions of years or if I was the product of the procreation of idiot man and woman that were kicked out of paradise. Hell, I could care less if there was a God but if there in fact was one that created the bare mininum of life only to have it evolve into something more complex I wouldn't mind that. But in the end I'm not going to find out.

 

That is all so true!

But I find it a little sad that we can never fully know, there is so much about the world and who we are that I don't understand and it kills me that I'll never find the answers, people have gone to war in search of the truth but in the end no-one wins, the fight just moves into a new generation. Science and Religion, religion and science wouldn't it be amusing if neither existed and that there was something completely and utterly different!

 

I love how people can take my posts however they want to see it, not how it was so blatantly meant. O.o I never said people experienced God, buddeh. And I never said scientists received their knowledge from God. I don't even know where you got that from... And yes, it is completely possible that EVERYTHING we are told to be true is a conspiracy. Perhaps genetically engineering crops to grow is false, perhaps the crops just grew that way themselves and scientists took credit for it. It's all entirely possible. To say that it isn't is ignorance, to put a limit on the universe is also ignorant. I believe in God and I believe in creation, but I also know that it's possible I'm wrong. Do I think I am? Not in the least. But I leave it open as a possibility. You should try it sometime, y'know, having an open mind? It does wonders for the soul. Or shall I say conscience for those of you who don't believe in the soul.

Also, in debates it is proper etiquette to shake hands and to be open to the other person's belief. Use of words like "stupid" and "idiot" will often get you kicked from a debate.

 

Objectivity is the way to go. Here, here.

 

Evolution is NOT a fact...it's a theory.

 

I will be sure to keep all of your advice in mind then. My sincerest apologies if you interpreted my text as being closed minded when I was speaking my point of view.

In regards to the "word of God" is used by scientists, that was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to get across was, if it is not scientifically done, does this automatically mean it was an act of God?

As for the possibilities, yes many things are completely possible in many ways...but keep in mind that "possibility" can be eliminated when there is enough solid proof. (Crude Example: Are you going to drop an egg off a building to see if it will survive? There is a possibility that it will crack or that it will remain unharmed, but one possibility is more likely to happen. etc.) There obviously isn't enough pro-evolution evidence if it cannot convince people- but the important part is, will you accept it when it is put forth? In terms of being proven, evolution is a theory closer to being proven objectively then the theory of creationism.

It should also be noted that anytime that any religiously recorded event is supposed to be proven, scientific methods are used. (ie: they are conducting genetic research to supposedly find "Adam" and "Eve", yet when this same genetic method is applied to other searches, it is disregarded) I find it slightly ironic and a bit hypocritical, but that's probably a tangent....

 

is it just me or are people forgetting an important fact - religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive. there are plenty of religious scientists. religion and science are not at war, they are just two different ways in the pursuit of truth in our existence.

science is not out to disprove God, not to any stretch of the imagination. scientists use reason, observation and experimentation to explain the world around them, and if this makes the idea of God seem weaker then so be it. the truth can hurt but its still the truth, although not all science is completely proven there is still evidence to support it. religion does the same thing except basically takes a different path to reach the same end.

i hate when people generalise, on both sides of the argument

 

(I have no idea if it was directed at me so...)

Sometimes on an arguement as "grand scale" as this, some generalizations must be made (if it was done on a case-by-case on such an informal debate such as this, we would be here until we all had agreeably died at some point). It's wonderful that some people can take science and religion as equals and find some sort of balance between the two, but there are far fewer examples in comparision to those who take a 'side'. Unfortunately, most of the debates covered by these two sides are done by the most....I suppose passionate would be the right word, to speak their minds. So it gives others the impression that yes, they are at war.

However, not to be taking any shots at any scientist's (who also have religion) credibility, but if their belief obsures their ablity to look at the situation objectively, then they are negecting the reasoning aspect of science. This really shouldn't need to be pointed out, but when that happens there obviously is a problem.

The main conflict from my perspective is that some people don't like the idea of God being any less then 'he' is perceived now. And as they say, when you see you're about to 'lose' something, you tend to hold onto it even tighter.

 

How can anyone lose their belief in God due to science? If they do, they weren't really followers of God to begin with. Just because someone tells me they can prove there is no God doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. Frankly, it doesn't matter how much proof you have against religion, I'll never believe there is no God. But that's getting more into personal opinion and less into debate of ideals. Anyway...

I agree that science and religion often intermix, but at the same time they are fighting furiously against eachother. Scientists often claim to have found the bones of Jesus Christ simply because they feel it will finally prove that he was not some savior, but I hardly like to rely on evidence that has aged for a couple thousand years, at least. Besides, how can they prove it was Jesus Christ? I don't think he ever gave blood or put a cotton swab in his mouth for saliva. But again, I'm getting on a tangent.

I don't know if scientists are right or wrong, none of us do.. Well, okay, I lied, many of us know in ourselves that scientists are right just like many of us know in ourselves that God is real, but there will never be 100% of proof in any directin, or at least I don't thnk say. Yes, you can say that "proving" something automatically means that scientists were right, that because an apple falls to the earth it means there is gravity, but it's not 100%. Of course, I always like to leave myself open to -any- possiblity, on the off-chance there are forces out there working against us and our beliefs.

And look, I'm not saying ALL of science is wrong. I believe in gravity and I believe that they are at least close enough to knowing what it does. But some parts of science I simply cannot believe, just as you simply cannot believe in religion (I'm not aiming this at anyone in specific, just those of you who don't believe in religion). Either way, I don't think the whole evolution vs. religion debate can ever be won. Religious people receive proof of their faith through death, and scientists never receive completely 100% factual evidence of their claims.

 

Somewhat irrelevant to the debate: Depends on what faction of faith. Personally I believe that there was an origin, aka a "creator" who was indeed guiding, but mortal and not omnipotent. You're perfectly within your rights to hold your beliefs just as I am. We can try to share our views, but we shouldn't force them on others.

To answer the tangent: There are almost always two sides to that sort of usage of science (or really any other sort of knowledge or subject to be opinionated on). I have yet to have seen the "proven not to be Jesus Christ" one, so I can't comment on that. However the "Adam and Eve" one, I recall that they are conducting genetic studies where they are looking for the mitochodratic code common in all people (they are collecting various samples from as many people to find this genetic link).

Response to the gravity-esque example: Well up until they find that possbility that turns the tables irrevocably, it will probably at best, remain at 99% "correct" for the time being.

No debate is ever, truly, completely won. There will always be some person or group out there that exists otherwise. Unfortunately the "truth" of this debate (evolution vs religion) is one that is silent to its own debators and can only be hopefully touched on in the near future.

As for the last line, you might want to rephrase the 100% factual evidence of just "scientists"; it is 100% factual that you need oxygen to live ("dumb fact" but this is a 'just cause' example).

Anyway....from the looks of things, I think this debate is once more winding down to the typical draw that this debate always seems to simmer down to. "No gains no losses, temporary truce/recess until the next debate."

 

The part about disproving Jesus Christ's link to God was either on the history channel or discovery channel, I don't remember which. But it was an entire hour of them talking about how they found the bones, then proceeded to explain why this disproved christianity. It sounded more like a load of gappa, but that's just me.


And for the record, maybe we don't need oxygen to live. Maybe there's a substance that we have yet to uncover. xD Okay, now I'm just bein dumb. ;P

I agree that this debate is pretty much wrapped up, least on here... Everything's already been said, or so it seems. >.>

 

That sounds like a load of bull to me too. -Did they have the ghost of Mary or Joseph to verify via satellite? 8O

Hmm yes, I think this debate is pretty much covered (well the coherent sides of it anyway)....

It was enjoyable to have a philisophical discussion with you. *virtual hand shake* :]

 

Ghosts don't even exist...
No one should be able to find Jesus' remains...he went up to heaven.

 

Well, you can't prove that iPraise, that's the whole reason that them finding the bones is a big debate right now.

 

Oh really? Try telling that to the two little girls reading this over my shoulder. I've been able to see/hear/smell/feel them for years.

But that's another subject entirely.

My point is that just because you think it doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't there. But it also goes the reverse, being if you believe it exist doesn't mean it is there.

Allow me to explain,

Take me and the paranormal. I believe ghosts/aliens/Mothman etc exist because I've seen ghosts and what I believe to be The Beast of Bay Road {IM me if you'd like the story of that one.} but to another person these may just be stories.

Same with religions in general, believing in it doesn't necessary mean it is or isn't there. God/Bhudda/Shiva/Allah etc may be a supreme and all knowing being to some and just stories to another.

Evolution on the other hand,

I agree that science is not about proving religion false. Science is about learning how the world around us works. Learning how to understand everything from the smallest single celled organism to stars out in space. Me being the Discovery Channel child I am, am able to comprehend Evolution better than I can comprehend the possibility that all life just appeared on the world in six days time.

One last thing,

Can you give me some evidence of how you know this? Without the aid of horribly Christian biased websites this time perhaps?

 

I think they do! I've seen them! Been able to sense them since I was a little kid, I'm sorry because I like you so i don't want to be mean but that statement just kind of makes you lose, because you don't believe in ghosts and say that they dont exist but when people say God doesnt exist you get majorly defensive.


Anyway sorry all that was a little off context :o

 

iPraise, I'm sorry but how can you say you believe in god, but not in ghosts? The two subjects are so closely related it's not even funny.

 

Ghost don't exist.....but how can you say that and still believe in Christ. If there can be a christ then there certainly be ghost. This is excluding that that my my paranormal experiances.

 

Can you tell me why it CAN'T be true, first?

 

ORIGINAL CONTEXT

RESPONSE:

Ok, listen up iPraise, COOL OFF. If you can't see the sarcasm in my line, then please, SEE IT NOW. I wasn't even arguing against Squishy, I was agreeing with him in a mutually understood way. (You an even SEE the smilie emoticons!)

But no, you took the liberty of interpreting it with your overactive standpoint; I respect that you have different views, but you can not, I repeat, can not distort my words to start up another UNRELATED DEBATE. That is utterly insulting to the concept of debate.

Now what I'm about to say will most likely come off as an insult, but it is NOT. I assure you, this is an assessment from what I have seen so far from your contributions to this debate.

iPraise, you are like so many of the people who are so deeply rooted to your own side that you are BLINDED by your conviction to really SEE anything else. You are not conducting yourself in a manner fit for debate, you are acting as if you are one playing the part of the converter (you can do that in your free time, but the arena of debate is NOT where your 'two-lined sermons' are supposed to take place). You are using solely opinionated WORDS in that you are not even bothering to examine the other side's evidence whatseoever. The fact you are not even seeing the very CONTEXT of what some of the lines are said in is PROOF of this. You are taking every single line very much as what you THINK they sound like, regardless of the CONNOTATIONS.

Anyway, iPraise and all the other people trying to counterargue/agree with iPraise's ridiculously off-topic arguement of "ghosts don't exist". Please return to your REAL topic of debate, "EVOLUTION vs RELIGION" or move your "Ghosts existence, YAY vs NAY" to another thread if you haven't done so already!

(PS iPraise, if you are going to discuss the Ghost topic in another thread, don't forget to mention the Holy Ghost/Spirit, I heard he/it was important, but I could be wrong in that the Holy Triad is only the Holy Father and the Holy Son.)