Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
I like that.
Do you believe in evolution ?
- Thread starter kaka4200
- Start date
- Status
I like that.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
And yet science opens up more questions all the time and disproves theories held in acceptance with new theories. Science isn't infallible.
Despite being a scientist/engineer I can accept that I don't need a reason or theory or fact for everything I see. The best scientists I know are the ones able to say "I don't know".
To think we know it all is pretty arrogant. I'm happy to accept that my belief and faith may one day be disproven but it enhances my community and those I interact with and add even more richness to my already very fortunate life. Could I still do this without my beliefs? Of course. But why would I take something away from my life which makes it better?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
But when your divine books have more holes in them than a sieve and with around 1000 known religions told over time each contradicting each other, there is no reason whatsoever to believe anything in them.
So your work for the community can only come because of your religion? It would sure tell the true story of people who do good if they were not just following orders.
Who really would be the do gooders without the threat of judgement day. "Have I done enough to get into the pearly gates, better help this old lady across the road".
So your work for the community can only come because of your religion? It would sure tell the true story of people who do good if they were not just following orders.
Who really would be the do gooders without the threat of judgement day. "Have I done enough to get into the pearly gates, better help this old lady across the road".
Last edited:
You do realise when I say that I get accused of being a creationist supporter.
Sadly there are some 'militant' believers in science who attack anyone who expresses reservations or refuses to follow the science defines reality viewpoint. The irony being those people usually have very little understanding of science itself.
So all scientists agree with each other all the time, there are no competing or contradicting theories, hypotheses and ideas in science? Just look at any scientific field, it is filled with competing theories, contradictory conclusions, different hypotheses from the same basic premise and data.
What Dolph said is correct, both about Evolution and the people who either believe in it or disbelieve in it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Doctors come up with differing reasons for diseases and symptoms. Which do you believe?
You put your faith in the one you want to believe in.
I personally am not a fan of the old testament and even then I believe that the new testament is just an interpretation of people's perception of what was asked of them. Have people really spoken to God or a higher being? I don't know. Perhaps people see God in different things in life and are able to extrapolate from that.
It isn't all about heaven and that sort of stuff. And do you have to be so rude about it? I get it you think it is daft and stupid. Being rude about it isn't really acceptable.
I'm happy either way.
Typically one theory will become the accepted one if we have enough knowledge on the matter, as evolution is at the moment.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
Difference is Science is the best it can be the way we know it today.
If a theory doesn't hold water it is thrown out. If a new way of doing something is found to be more efficient, it is corrected and sets a new standard.
Example, a plane gets struck by lightning and brought down which happened during the 60's I think. Back to the drawing board lets fix this.
You cannot compare the two, it's silly as religion are all none proven theories which cannot be tested. Theories I'll say when we didn't even have a clue what was going on. Try reading a book on space just 50 years ago to what we now know. Yet your holding the teachings true of a book more than 1000 years ago.
What your saying is just clutching at straws.
Last edited:
That's a very blinkered and naive view to be fair...science can be pretty badly used and is not always the best we or it can be...
As I wasn't comparing them, that strawman is all yours.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
You were basically saying because Science and Religion have different theories, we should treat them with similar respect. Ridiculous.
But science is highly dependent on untestable assumptions when defining theories. Even the best and most settled scientific theories do not define reality, they describe reality, unless you make a leap of faith on those untested assumptions.
In addition, scientific theories don't get thrown out even if we know they are wrong providing they are predictively accurate when used for the right purpose. This is why Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity all remain in use despite knowing that the the rules laid out in the models certainly do not define reality and the models are irreconcilable.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
If anything Freefaller the old testament should be more accurate because of less Chinese whispers down the line. But because it doesn't fit today's society then lets ignore that one, this one sounds better.
Again more holes than a sieve yet people refuse to see through it.
Again more holes than a sieve yet people refuse to see through it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
Sure but again with the Jigsaw analogy. If it looks like the Eiffel Tower, don't turn it into the Big Ben.
Science has gaps and each time they are getting found God doesn't seem to be hiding in any of them thus far.
Evolution is a set of comparative theories that have been combined to create a methodology over a significant period of time, and it is as Dolph stars an accepted method that explains what we observe and the data we have..it is no more nor less than that.
The better scenario to illustrate this premise is if we look at Climate Science where there is significant issues with both our knowledge and the assumptions we make based on the interpretation of that limited knowledge and the data as perceived by different Authorities within the discipline itself. The same is seen in my own field of Cognitive Science, a huge disparity on theories and conclusions based on similar data is often the norm.
This goes to the assumption that Science is infallible somehow, or that Science is an inherent force for good as opposed to Religion, which is not...the point to illustrate is that in both, the operating factor in how each is interpreted and the benefit of each is in the delivery. And that delivery is controlled by one thing, and one thing only.....Mankind. It isn't a comparison of Science against Religion, because the two address different things in different ways, they can be both complementary or contradictory to each other, again dependent upon one thing...Mankind.
Each is a tool, they do different jobs and trying to use one tool to the job if the other is at best foolish and at worse dangerous.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
No holes at all really. It's just a personal preference to me. I'm not saying I'm correct.
they disagree until enough physical evidence is obtained that points to one obvious explanation - evolution is one of those.
Things that we know to be wrong, and no longer useful or relevant, are thrown out. Miasma theory for example.
I'm saying that Science and Religion are different entirely, they are not competing theories. And each should be treated with the respect each commands in its delivery and benefit thereof...if a preacher preaches hate then there is no respect earned in that, if a scientist produces a weaponised virus, there is no respect in that. Equally the opposite is true, respect and acceptance should be in the application of the respective tools, not the blind adherence to either.
You seem to think that both are comparative and competing with each other. They are not.
Last edited:
- Status