Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[cofton]

I think this is very debatable.

Hitler was a catholic and condoned (and instigated) the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews especially (amongst other tortures and murders of other people)

Nazism's main points of emphasis were the racial superiority of the "Aryan" people, the annihilation of the Jews, seen as racially inferior.

However, Hitler rejected the church completely and stated "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."

Now in my mind the connotations suggest that it was indeed about religion in which case Nazism was religion related. Therefore my original statement that religion is responsible for more deaths than anything does have substance.

Religion is indeed responsible for too many wars, too many deaths, too many contradictions. There are parts of the bible that say things that suggest that if someone does not follow 'the way' or believe in what they believe then it is okay to kill them.

The Koran (or Quran) is notorious for instructing to kill none believers or people that disagree with their rules. Just Google or go to You Tube and type in 'Fitna' or check out 'Islam-What the West Should know' on You Tube and watch with disgust.

Unfortunately 'Power and dominance' is related to religion in a big way whether you like it or not. Politicians use religion and religion thrives on it, in fact much religion survives financially on political support, i.e. why is it that religion does not pay the same tax as any other business ?

So I am afraid this is the way it is and has been for many hundreds of years and it shows no sign of change.

Religion and politics and the Media are the puppets of the Illuminati and the the New World Order. These are the ones who have and maintain power.

Do your research and then tell me I am wrong.

In the meantime, Be Happy :clap:

Cofton

This is not correct. More people were killed under Nazism and both Soviet and Chinese communism than all religious wars put together and these were not religions. It is not religion that causes this, it is the seeking of power and dominance under the banner of idealism whether religious or not that has resulted in so much killing.

With regard to those who believe in God and think that God and trading are mutually compatible, in my view they are about as far apart as is possible. Any activity that profits someone by making someone else worse off is contrary to almost every religious concept possible and counter to the creative concept for those who understand it.


Paul

 

[new_trader]

hmmmmmmm . . . . . not quite right. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical construct that has so far be experimentally successful, even though there are some anomalies to sort out.

Science and religion CANNOT stick together for the following reasons:

1) Science is about experiments and falsifiability. Religion is about faith and "feelings".
2) Science works in a framework, or resorts to a frame of reference, devoid of emotional hindrance/personal superstition/cultural bias etc . . . (i.e. cold hard logic). Religion does not, nothing in any religious texts will ever withstand close scrupulous logical analysis. We would only end up in circular arguments with people shouting their heads off
3) Science does not give any "solace" to anything. Never has, never will. It cannot tell you how to live your life, or what morals to hold, or how one should behave to others - they are different issues entirely. However, you can deduce certain things from science, like if you smoke a lot for a long time there are is very high chance you'll get lung cancer, and whether that puts you off smoking is entirely up to you

Evolution, to what we know of it, is now beyond all doubt. If you want to understand new_trader's point, it's that evolution meliorizes through the generations. The animal that evolves is not necessarily the best possible, it has to take into account of historical progress that has occurred to where it got now. Getting it wrong is a necessary fact of evolution, but this "getting it wrong" is always in the context of the present situation/condition/environment.

Darwin was never an atheist. He ended his life an agnostic. Being an atheist is a very strong position indeed.

There are many religious groups/organisations who try to turn the Darwinian Theory to see it their way, like Creationism. Unfortunately for them, none of what they spout make any logically consistent sense in the framework of the theory, and some have the downright audacity of invoking unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts/entities into the mixed to fiddle the figures so the results come out right. All this may be well and good for these Creationists, but it helps no one because science cannot deal with unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts - because that's not how science works.

For example: if I claimed that the number zeta(5) was irrational (look Riemann Zeta Function if you're curious), and my proof depended on that fact that "God" told me that such and such a step in the proof was valid and that was my only reason, of what use is that to anybody? If I publish I would be laughed at and ridiculed over the step because it depended on "God" telling me. And yet that is what these Creationists have done to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and that is why they are are small minority who will always be ridiculed by the scientific community, even though they have a huge following in the general population.

I agree. But there is a point where science ends and speculation begins, such as what occurs inside a black hole, right at the point of singularity. What happened before the big bang...etc. At these points you either put your faith in the explanation science provides or in the ones religion provides.

 

[Trader333]

Nazism was religion related. Therefore my original statement that religion is responsible for more deaths than anything does have substance.

Nazism was not in any way religion related other than it was a belief system. Your correlation is inaccurate and this still does not cater for the deaths through communism. Just check how many people were killed in China under Mao as it is staggering.


Paul

 

[cofton]

'Nazisim was a belief system'
And what do you think religion is ?
If anything ever was a belief system it is certainly religion.

If we disregard atheism for a moment, communism has all the trappings of an organized religion: its messiahs and saints–Marx, Engels and Lenin; its sacred scriptures–the writings of these men; a band of apostles and prophets–the Communist Party; an. elect nation–the Russian (or Chinese) people; sin–defined as rejecting communism; conversion–becoming a communist; and above all faith–that complete trust one must have in the truth of communism’s holy dogmas.

Most people seem to assume that because people like Mao abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. They did what they needed to in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source, which is why they abolished it. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him (from here). Religion simply got in their way, and they eliminated anything and anyone that got in their way.

Nazism was not in any way religion related other than it was a belief system. Your correlation is inaccurate and this still does not cater for the deaths through communism. Just check how many people were killed in China under Mao as it is staggering.


Paul

 

[PKFFW]

'Nazisim was a belief system'
And what do you think religion is ?
If anything ever was a belief system it is certainly religion.

If we disregard atheism for a moment, communism has all the trappings of an organized religion: its messiahs and saints–Marx, Engels and Lenin; its sacred scriptures–the writings of these men; a band of apostles and prophets–the Communist Party; an. elect nation–the Russian (or Chinese) people; sin–defined as rejecting communism; conversion–becoming a communist; and above all faith–that complete trust one must have in the truth of communism’s holy dogmas.

Using that line of reasoning you could pretty much state that any form of belief is a religion.

Generally what defines religion is when the belief system is an attempt to define the "supreme being" and all that goes with that such as the meaning of life, morality etc etc.

Communism and Nazism do not attempt to do that. As such they would both be considered societal constructs rather than religions.

As others have pointed out, the problem is not so much religion, nazism, communism etc, it is how these ideologies are used to influence the masses into doing what those in power want. All have been used to inflict terrible tragedies.

In the end it really matters very little which has caused more deaths than any of the others. If nazism has been the cause of less deaths than religion does that mean nazism is preferable to religion?

Unfortunately there will always be those who seek power and influence and riches at all cost. There will also be those who allow themselves to be influenced to do terrible things they would not normally consider doing. When the two meet it doesn't matter what they believe, the one will seek to use the other for their own ends and tragedy ensues.

Hopefully one day this situation will change.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[frugi]

 

[AgentZ86]

Have you even read the post ?

Oh no. The dark ages have reached T2W. Thank any deity that cares to be thanked that George W (I've seen the light) Bush will soon be gone and hopefully the religious right with him.

America, land of innovation, has become land of science deniers.

Just some tiny points in the prior post ... as long as I can bear to read it.

1. Evolution is a theory and currently the evidence supports it (the facts don't invalidate it at all). In its simplest form evolution states that the most adaptable survive ... and that this drives the development of the earth's species.

2. Nowhere in respectable scientists definitions will you find a stupid (creationist) statement like: "at one stage there was nothing and out of nothing there was something"

Like most creationists you mix poor science with stupidity and confusion to create rubbish. Feel free to provide references out of a non-creationist source (and don't just quote their sources as they tend to mix lies with untruth to capture their fan base).

3. Man has not "killed off the whales." I saw a couple the other day and they were very healthy.

I can't even bring myself to read the rest of it. No wonder the markets are going down.

I'ts obvious by your post that you are emotional about this and want to lash out and call people stupid etc.I'm only stating the facts, not blind faith as with many evolutionist who believe every bit of information that comes up the pipe.
You see it's a sort of reversal of what many people think that all. They think most people believe in God out of blind faith and in fact when putting the evolution theories under the fine microscope it is certainly the other way around. Many who believe evolution believe it in blind faith. And I would be happy to challenge any theories and supposed evidence on the subject. As I've pointed out in previous posts that most of the evidence that was taught has now been trumped buy hard facts. Now that we have DNA testing and especially now that the DNA testing also shows that there is a gene / chromosomes in the structure of the DNA of each species that is specifically there to protect against the kinds of drastic changes that would allow one species to transform into another. As I've said this is just hard science. And as I've pointed out the evidence is all there. You lash out and accuse people of being emotional but won't look at the science. There is currently no evidence that exists today that supports evolution at all. No Transitional forms of one species to another, and not fossil record that would proof any of this. But I would add that they still teach the theories which are based on evidence that is now been disproven as I've pointed out.

You wrote:

1. Evolution is a theory and currently the evidence supports it (the facts don't invalidate it at all). In its simplest form evolution states that the most adaptable survive ... and that this drives the development of the earth's species.

Response:
You are confused about the theories of evolution, you have misstated the simplest form of evolution. I find it ironic that when putting the theory of evolution under scrutiny that people actually try to change the theory of evolution and then try to defend their now new define definition. This is the trouble with all this.Evolution in part only talks about the most adaptable survive. But mostly evolution talks about transformations and not adaptations.And especially since there are no transitional form in existence as shown in the fossil record it would appear to have no scientific support.As I've said redefining evolution then defending the new definition. Evolution is the slow adaptations of process which transforms a species from one to the next.And not adaptation which would simply continue in longevity and the weak die off. NO in fact evolution specifically states that there are transformation from one species to another, however slow the process may be. Evolution as I've pointed out starts with the Big Bang which in itself has no proof at all and also as I've pointed out start from cosmic dust which has no origin at all. This is the beginning of the problem.
Then goes to the gelatinous gue theory which has no basis in science at all but somehow people believe it with no scientific support what so ever. In addition to that as I've stated that in the evolution theory the gelatinous gue could only have formed with no oxygen present(non-creationist view) on the earth according to evolutionists. But as I've pointed out that the science which studies the earth has determined that oxygen was always present on the earth(non-creationist view) even during it's formation and the formation of the oldest rock formations known to science. So you have on science saying that the gue could form only if no oxygen is present, and another science saying oxygen was always present. ?
These views are from the actual science no creationist view stated at all, just the science that is not and accepted across the board. However I've put the 2 together in the same place for evaluation. Would be a good idea to go back and review the actual studies on this.

You wrote:

Nowhere in respectable scientists definitions will you find a stupid (creationist) statement like: "at one stage there was nothing and out of nothing there was something"

I do agree that the definition of evolution itself does not specifically say this and my response was to another poster that as I pointed out, changed his own definition of evolution to make a point then goes on to try to support that definition:
PKFFW wrote:

The theory of evolution simply states that life(in all its current forms) evolved from something. Simple logic dictates this must be true. Even religion states that at one stage there was nothing. Out of that nothing came everything, inlcuding life. Life as we know it did not spring into existence exactly as it is today. Hence, evolution

The response to this post was what I mentioned in my previous post regarding the something from nothing, And so you see from the text above the poster stated here (evolved from something) but continues in error about religion then concludes (live did not spring into existence exactly as it is today)And that is the problem life did not just spring into existence? That is a farce. When you pry into the subject further to ask evolutionist that exact theory the conclusion is they all express the same thing. That in the beginning there was nothing. Because the theory starts as the Big Bang and the cosmic dust in which they have no current working theory on where the dust came from. and if fact where did the elements come from if you want to get even deeper into it. Or where did 1) single atom come from ? Why would there all of the sudden for not reason at all would the nucleus of an atom all the sudden on it's own create a condition that would cause electrons and protons to orbit around it ? It is an impossibility for this to have occurred by random change. So the evolution theory is under scrutiny by science.
The science just does not support a random process which could have caused the atoms to align themselves and form into elements and later cosmic does. These atoms are complex and even 1)single atom has order to it. And cannot have occurred by a random caotic process. In other words when you see a painting you know there is a painter. It did not occur on it's own.I don't have to know the painter or have someone tell me it was painted to know there was a painter.

You wrote:

Like most creationists you mix poor science with stupidity and confusion to create rubbish. Feel free to provide references out of a non-creationist source (and don't just quote their sources as they tend to mix lies with untruth to capture their fan base).

Here is the part where things get interesting, again with lashing out and calling people stupid for making not blind faith decisions, but educated decisions based on science alone without even talking about creation or God at all.THe sources are the sources. What do you mean references out of a non-creationist source? The references is the simple finding of the current studies ? The source is the source what do mean by this ? I'm simply pointing out that evolution theory which uses non-creationist sources in fact the science of evolution itself has concluded these topics not some creationist. As I've stated the DNA testing of Java man and Lucy man confirm that the so called link of evolutionary chain which evolutionists once claimed was the evolutionary links that shows one species transforms to another. The DNA testing confirms these evolutionary links are nothing more then a tooth from an extinct bore, and bone from a monkey and man. In which these monkey bones which according to the original manuscripts were found over 200 feet away on a separate dig, and 50 feet deeper. How you call that science and say these monkey bones are part of a man from a separate dig is beyond blind faith but just irresponsible. These are the kinds of things that are constantly being uncovered and have no place in science at all.
I don't care if someone believes in evolution and they have some methodology to draw a conclusion, however as I pointed out most do no even know the actual theory of evolution and yet they have desire to defend it without a full working knowledge of the subject at all. And hence the term blind faith.In fact you must have great faith to believe in evolution without having any facts to support it in science. That is the topic in a nutshell. If you believe in evolution then you should have the facts straight. And when you question someone about it they get defensive because their whole world view becomes under scrutiny and so they lash out and call people stupid.
The evolutionary theory is purely subjective and has not business being called science at all.Without any supporting evidence people believe this in blind faith which I think is the overall point here.
You wrote:

. Man has not "killed off the whales." I saw a couple the other day and they were very healthy.

I can't even bring myself to read the rest of it. No wonder the markets are going down

You are incorrect and do not understand my statement regarding killed off the whales. I will clarify for you. Man has killed off the whale. I'm talking about the extinct whales that man has killed in context with the response of my previous post.
Not all whales mind you, but the subject was a response to a previous poster who mentioned a topic regarding a shorter man in the past, however mentioned that Taller man now exists. I pointed out the taller could have overpowered the shorter men perhaps something similar to man killing off the whales.A basic survival of the fittest statment here. Of course speaking of the extinct whales and even currently there are several endangered whales which are at risk of extinction from simple hunting and harvesting process. Your response on this is inadequate.
Why do you lash out anyhow ? If I provide evidence/proof that it would do you any good anyhow. I'm not sure exactly why, but it sounds like not matter what the evidence would provide you would not except it unless is only support evolution. And thats not right the evidence whatever it may be should be excepted regardless of the implications.

Well, I hope I've responded adequately and would be willing to get some other recourses together for anyone who would like know.

Happy trading to all, and I wish you all nice gains.

 

[AgentZ86]

Ongoing blog about everything

what started as a religico-rant has turned into quite an interesting and informative thread. (usually its the other way round)

anyway.....

just because Darwin may, or may not, have turned to religion on his deathbed doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. in the same way that Galileo having to renounce the sun-centred view of the universe, on pain of death, (before we recognised that other galaxies existed) didnt make the earth jump from an orbit back into being the centre of the known universe.

truth exists independently of faith and truth has an intrinsic value of its own, irrespective of belief.
EDIT2: experiment: drop a Christian, Jew, Hindu and Muslim from the Eiffel Tower. Irrespective of faith, they will all hit the ground at the same time. Try it. :cheesy:

re: RNA/DNA and oxygen. the basic bulding blocks of life may have formed in space, and not necessarily on earth; the panspermia theory of life, where earth is seeded by complex proteins from dirty comets. (Fred Hoyle?)

the one major characteristic between faith and scientific inquiry is the willingness to be proved wrong. the times when scientists were very arrogant (the "Laws" of Motion, the "Laws" of planetary motion, etc), hopefully have been replaced with "Theory of...", even if the theory is a pretty good explanation of the natural world.
science has/should have an in-built means of proving its value, through experimentation.

faith requires an unquestioning acceptance of ideas that are not open to discussion.

evolution CAN be proved wrong through thought, analysis and evidence.
faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, even in the face of evidence.

PS: my understanding of evolution is that it is "random" mutations that occur and prove themselves to be useful will continue through to further generations.
the idea that doorways were shorter and are now taller isnt proof of evolution, anymore than future doorways have to be wider to accomodate fatter people is evolution.
however, genetic immunity to HIV may result in more HIV-immune progeny may be thought of as evolution. (random benefit filtering into the population.)

"design" implies an idea that there is a logical progression of genetic or species development, whereas evolution is just a random process.
EDIT: some people cant past the idea that there is no great design, no real order. life is just random. sorry.

Hi

You wrote:

just because Darwin may, or may not, have turned to religion on his deathbed doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. in the same way that Galileo having to renounce the sun-centred view of the universe, on pain of death, (before we recognised that other galaxies existed) didnt make the earth jump from an orbit back into being the centre of the known universe.

Response:
I agree this, but my point was only that the conclusion of the full evolution theory and Darwin's conclusion is not being mentioned at all. And that much of the science which now has been uncovered similar to the fact that we now recognize that there are other galaxies etc.We could not now still continue to teach that the earth is the center of the universe that would just be silly in the face of the new evidence. We now uncovered evidence that disproves much of theories of evolution and yes we are still teaching the old disproved evidence and old support for evolution without teaching the new. Thats exactly my point. Why not start teaching the evidence that is not uncovered ? I think it's fear. Back in the Days of Columbus only about 500+ years ago if someone said the earth was round they use to cut off peoples heads ? Because they were suppose to be so stupid and threatened everything in science. As it turned out they were right.

truth exists independently of faith and truth has an intrinsic value of its own, irrespective of belief.
EDIT2: experiment: drop a Christian, Jew, Hindu and Muslim from the Eiffel Tower. Irrespective of faith, they will all hit the ground at the same time. Try it. :cheesy:

Response :cheesy: LOL

You wrote:

re: RNA/DNA and oxygen. the basic bulding blocks of life may have formed in space, and not necessarily on earth; the panspermia theory of life, where earth is seeded by complex proteins from dirty comets. (Fred Hoyle?)

Response:
This is a viable theory, and I'm aware of this as well;and I like discussing things in space.However, similar to evolution on earth there are other problems in space as well. When in space there is not much oxygen if any., not to mention the super frozen conditions. RNA and DNA are very very complex strains of molecules. 1 molecule itself is pretty complex depending on the compound or material.It would not only be an impossibility for a random process of RNA or DNA to have occurred on earth but also anywhere in the universe according to any type of science. Random process does not create a system or order.
Think about this, let say you have all these elements in the universe and they bombard into eachother they come in contact with one another over trillions of years by random chance etc. The chances of it forming into anything that makes sense or creating live are very very very impossible. It's similar to saying that if you put some paper and some ink into a big bag and shake it up over trillions of years that it would or could eventually turn into a dictionary this would never happen no matter how many years you shake up the bag.
The set of instructions required to form an RNA strain is about 500,000 times more complex and intricate then a dictionary maybe more.
At face value it's a nice theory of discussion, however when put under scrutiny it's just not very believable and there is again no evidence to support any of this. It's a sort of grasping at straws theory. Not to sound insulting, I hope that it does not. I'm simply pointing that in the so called science there is suppose to be the search for the truth, and that is the definition of science if you had to some things up in one sentence. But when you start to evaluate the data as it comes in and if it contradicts the theory then either a new theory should be extrapolated or perhaps ditch it all together. And what seems to be happening is that new data is coming in which disproves evolution and yet it's still being taught in schools.Why ?

You wrote:

the one major characteristic between faith and scientific inquiry is the willingness to be proved wrong. the times when scientists were very arrogant (the "Laws" of Motion, the "Laws" of planetary motion, etc), hopefully have been replaced with "Theory of...", even if the theory is a pretty good explanation of the natural world.
science has/should have an in-built means of proving its value, through experimentation.

Response:
I agree with this, and it does as far as I know, however there appears to be a cover up of the proven value of many of the experimentation and now found conclusions or at least an unwillingness to revise the theory to meet the new evidence.

You wrote:

faith requires an unquestioning acceptance of ideas that are not open to discussion.

Nice concept, but it's just not true.This is a misconception of faith.Faith does not require an unquestioning acceptance of ideas that are not open to discussion. First let me express there are 2 kinds of faith a real faith and a said faith. You can you have faith in something or perhaps blind faith with no evidence or method to draw a conclusion. This type of faith I mostly agree requires unquestioning acceptance of ideas etc.I happen to think that many people do this with evolution theory. Which I don't subscribe to. I'm more of the doubting Thomas so to speak.
However not in every case but in most cases that is considered to be the blind faith type.Typically it's emotional faith.
But then there is real faith for example: lets say you believe you can run 1 mile in 6 min. because you have done it before, and you have experience doing it. However there are circumstances that may not allow you to run that 1 mile at all, perhaps you will break your angle in the process.But in faith you go out and with confidence you can run that mile in 6min. ;and that is faith the substance of things that have not been realized. You believe you can do it, because you have in the past, and you know you can, but there are still things that can happen that would be unlikely but they could still occur.However all things considered you still believe you can run that mile.Much different then blind faith. But if you never ran a mile and said I can run a mile in 6 min. and you are over weight and smoke cigars everyday. It would be highly unlikely that you could do it. Not impossible but unlikely and your faith. Even the Bible indicates that people should study thy self approved. Not just a blind faith.

You wrote:

evolution CAN be proved wrong through thought, analysis and evidence.
faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, even in the face of evidence.

Response:
I like the idea here but with blind faith I would say this I agree partially.
However, as I've pointed out that many who believe in evolution do so on faith alone and not by evidence. Which creates a major problem and as you pointed out that if faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, then what do you get when you cross a faith in evolution without such evidence ?
I think you get a big mess, and an emotional one at that.



You wrote:

PS: my understanding of evolution is that it is "random" mutations that occur and prove themselves to be useful will continue through to further generations.
the idea that doorways were shorter and are now taller isnt proof of evolution, anymore than future doorways have to be wider to accomodate fatter people is evolution.
however, genetic immunity to HIV may result in more HIV-immune progeny may be thought of as evolution. (random benefit filtering into the population.)

Response:
The subject of random mutations has never caused one species to evolved into another in fact when there has been any such random mutations typically it's involves a death of the mutated.Or perhaps it mutates into something that can't survive such as a cow with 2 hearts and 2 heads etc. But again a nice theory, however the transitional forms of these mutations over a slow and long period of time would have left behind.There would be lots and lots of transitional form of life to prove this subject. And the fossil record simply does not show this. In fact the fossil record continues to get trashed because they are always finding a species that predates previous findings and now there is no real way to move the fossil record around to match the new data. You can't just stick a species in the middle of the fossil record if it predates a species you once believe to exist at 100million years ago, What do you do with the species that was believed to predate the 100million year species you can't just move them back a few hundred million years. This is a major problem which is ongoing as species continue to be discovered and predates their previous findings.
I think overall what you find is that species coexisted along side of one another always in history and not one after the other. Also there is symbiotic relationships between some species that would not allow a slow transformation and that they had to exist at the same time. So there could be not transformation as one of the species would not have survived due to this symbiotic relationship.

I hope I've responded adequately without offense.
I've considered these topics before responding without prejudice and hope that some may find them interesting.

Happy trading.

 

[temptrader]

I agree. But there is a point where science ends and speculation begins, such as what occurs inside a black hole, right at the point of singularity. What happened before the big bang...etc. At these points you either put your faith in the explanation science provides or in the ones religion provides.

Ahhhhh . . . but you see that's the delicate matter in question. Science has not got to the level of understanding what happens in a black hole yet, just as it cannot prove zeta(5) is irrational. It's not technologically feasible at the moment. There is nothing wrong with conjecturing that zeta(5) is irrational (and I'm sure that 99.9999% of the mathematicians would be shocked if it weren't), or religion conjecturing that such and such is happening, but that's all it is: conjecture.

It is my belief that mankind will never get rid of "religion". I see religion and science as an arms race, and a very strange one at that.

Let's have an example:

Take for example the Biblical story that God made everything in 7 days and 7 nights. If you were living in the 18th Century you could not do anything about this. It was only in the 19th did science put it into question. Geological surveys, fossils records etc. . . showed that it was not so.

But the story did not stop there. Feeling that they were losing the argument - or rather the fact that they were just pig headed stubborn - the religious community countered with the idea that these 7 days and 7 nights were of a "long" duration. That these days and nights lasted millions of years.

Now this seems an interesting retort, but alas it's totally flawed. If it were so, we would see it from physical evidence of the fossil record. It has been proved by the physicists that the earth was spinning faster many millions of years ago. Also fossil records of algae growths show that there was about 425 days per year at one time. Further, if there were extended periods of blackness and light it would radically alter the evolution of the animals at hand, the effect of which would see the evolution of the eye followed by losing the need for an eye in the fossil record. The blind mexican cave fish is such an example, it's original ancestor had an eye, but when it adapted to life in caves the need for an eye diminished and present day fish don't have eyes in adulthood. We should be able to see this effect in the fossil record, but it's not there. Eyes have been rather constant throughout the fossil record, leaving only one conclusion possible.

The above example shows the level of stubbornness of those who don't like scientific findings. They will try to "move" the goal posts if they could, or invent/invoke other concepts to fill in the gaps.

And that brings me to my main point: religion has been interpreted differently by different people. Even the Christian religion has been subject to scholarly analysis and found itself prone to infighting amongst it's advocates, and this is true of nearly all other religions. Science, by contrast doesn't have this problem. It's like a game of chess where everyone agrees on the rules, and all can independently follow the logical steps of the game to the conclusion, and nobody can really argue with it.

But because science is not perfect, and there will always be gaps in our understanding, there is always going to be people who want to conjecture things that may seen outrageous. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but if your faith goes against science then it's your own sanity and understanding that should be in question, and not science itself. That's why these very old and popular religions are having a very hard time in light of mankind's technological progress.

Einstein believed in a "God", but it's not the Jewish God, or any God in the religious texts. It was his own "God". Who is anyone to tell him whether he was deluded or not? What science can do is to falsify certain claims by religious texts, and by falsification the authenticity of these texts are called in question, which in turn can call the religion into question - that's where people get emotional and nasty.

Finally there is a thought that I have trouble with: Let us invert the question, suppose God did exist but it was not the God that your religion have you believe, how would this God go about "proving" to you that he was the one and only God? It is the nature of the human condition that if this God were to satisfy all the conditions that believers want, believers of another faith will never accept and come up with other reasons, because that's how human beings are on a psychological level, there will always be doubters no matter what. That is the absurdity of the situation.

 

[AgentZ86]

So much illogic and emotion ?

Ahhhhh . . . but you see that's the delicate matter in question. Science has not got to the level of understanding what happens in a black hole yet, just as it cannot prove zeta(5) is irrational. It's not technologically feasible at the moment. There is nothing wrong with conjecturing that zeta(5) is irrational (and I'm sure that 99.9999% of the mathematicians would be shocked if it weren't), or religion conjecturing that such and such is happening, but that's all it is: conjecture.

It is my belief that mankind will never get rid of "religion". I see religion and science as an arms race, and a very strange one at that.

Let's have an example:

Take for example the Biblical story that God made everything in 7 days and 7 nights. If you were living in the 18th Century you could not do anything about this. It was only in the 19th did science put it into question. Geological surveys, fossils records etc. . . showed that it was not so.

But the story did not stop there. Feeling that they were losing the argument - or rather the fact that they were just pig headed stubborn - the religious community countered with the idea that these 7 days and 7 nights were of a "long" duration. That these days and nights lasted millions of years.

Now this seems an interesting retort, but alas it's totally flawed. If it were so, we would see it from physical evidence of the fossil record. It has been proved by the physicists that the earth was spinning faster many millions of years ago. Also fossil records of algae growths show that there was about 425 days per year at one time. Further, if there were extended periods of blackness and light it would radically alter the evolution of the animals at hand, the effect of which would see the evolution of the eye followed by losing the need for an eye in the fossil record. The blind mexican cave fish is such an example, it's original ancestor had an eye, but when it adapted to life in caves the need for an eye diminished and present day fish don't have eyes in adulthood. We should be able to see this effect in the fossil record, but it's not there. Eyes have been rather constant throughout the fossil record, leaving only one conclusion possible.

The above example shows the level of stubbornness of those who don't like scientific findings. They will try to "move" the goal posts if they could, or invent/invoke other concepts to fill in the gaps.

And that brings me to my main point: religion has been interpreted differently by different people. Even the Christian religion has been subject to scholarly analysis and found itself prone to infighting amongst it's advocates, and this is true of nearly all other religions. Science, by contrast doesn't have this problem. It's like a game of chess where everyone agrees on the rules, and all can independently follow the logical steps of the game to the conclusion, and nobody can really argue with it.

But because science is not perfect, and there will always be gaps in our understanding, there is always going to be people who want to conjecture things that may seen outrageous. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but if your faith goes against science then it's your own sanity and understanding that should be in question, and not science itself. That's why these very old and popular religions are having a very hard time in light of mankind's technological progress.

Einstein believed in a "God", but it's not the Jewish God, or any God in the religious texts. It was his own "God". Who is anyone to tell him whether he was deluded or not? What science can do is to falsify certain claims by religious texts, and by falsification the authenticity of these texts are called in question, which in turn can call the religion into question - that's where people get emotional and nasty.

Finally there is a thought that I have trouble with: Let us invert the question, suppose God did exist but it was not the God that your religion have you believe, how would this God go about "proving" to you that he was the one and only God? It is the nature of the human condition that if this God were to satisfy all the conditions that believers want, believers of another faith will never accept and come up with other reasons, because that's how human beings are on a psychological level, there will always be doubters no matter what. That is the absurdity of the situation.

It's funny how so many refer faith and religion as being somehow illogical and someone science that has not scientific proof to support it is someone logical ?

I think the whole point here is once again. evolution is now proven to be false with no evidence to support it hence the term (thoery) after all these years studying it there is no proof yet with no proof at all people believe it and call it science. That is not science but a faith based believe system..Additionally many previously believed pieces of evidence have now proven false with new scientific data including DNA testing. Again the earth is flat theory is now destroyed and has no place in science.Thus should be the same with evolution. No transitional forms etc etc etc, and yet , But when prompted provide this proof there is non.Yet many still believe regardless of the evidence. And the whole time claiming that it's logical thinking. If each topic of evolution gets discussed in it's entirety and conclude on each believe of the subject matter, each can be easily proven false.If there is evidence that shows that each piece of evidence is not proven false,why won't people who believe in evolution simply acknowledge it? Again this is only one example but the list of examples are huge.For Example:Evolutionists in school are still teaching about Java Man and Lucy man and we now know there is no such evidence. And now that DNA testing is available which was not available back then, we now know that these bones are from an extinct bore which in fact was actually only 1) single tooth to begin with and this tooth the evolutionist called the missing link that shows man evolved from monkeys; and bones for an actual monkey and a man. Why can't you accept the science and data on this. This is accepted by scientist.
If indeed there is logic to any thinking surely you can believe this new evidence.
Also the testing of DNA which now finds a gene which specifically prohibits the major transformations of evolution that is required for evolution to have occurred. This is a fact what is the problem here.You can't be telling me that a tooth from what is not proven to be from a bore that you still believe it's from a Neanderthal type man even after DNA testing?
I'm not saying this proves there is a God, however the facts are the facts nothing but the fact. And someone people think that because they believe in evolution they believe in the facts by default, and what I'm pointing out is you only believe what you think you know. The fact and science show differently then what you have been told and this subject is provable.
Why not believe the facts ? what the problem here.
Or perhaps you do not know the fact and want more information ? But I'm getting the sense that no matter what the facts show that there are many who just don't care; and will continue to believe in evolution regardless of the facts that now have been scientifically categorized.
But some will not ? Which are you ?

Regardless of weather or not someone may believe in God you can't deny the facts ? If I believe in no God at all I still have to look at the evidence and cannot ignore the evidence which seems to be what many evolutionist appear to be doing.

Ignoring evidence that rebuts evolution is not science ? Is it ?
How can anyone claim to know anything about evolution if they ignore the science the rebuts it and only accept the science the support it ?

 

[frugi]

Hello AgentZ,

Interesting discussion. I have but one point.

You keep mentioning the lack of transitional fossils, when this is simply not true, unless your definition is way off that shared by the scientific community and many creationist publications. Despite the fact that it is very rare for any given organism to leave behind a fossil (and for it to be found and catalogued), as the conditions necessary are numerous, a crude Google search for "transitional fossil evidence" throws up a veritable wealth of ones we have discovered. Even The July 2007 issue of Newsweek, not an organ known for scientific gravitas, had a segment on "Tiktaalik Roseae", a fossil discovered in the Canadian artic that clearly shows a transitional form from fish to land animal.

The question "How do we explain the gaps?" also begs that the record is perfect to begin with. Darwin showed why it was not in "Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record" in Origin of Species.

And even if we hadn't found any, this would not constitute evidence that evolution is false.

"Th s s nt ence is inco ple e". Either you put god in the gaps or you say, well, the pattern conforms to our expectations but there is still some work to do. The former requires faith, the latter exhaustive and ongoing empirical study.

This video is quite entertaining on the subject, if a little fast and occasionally flippant:

YouTube - 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Also do you have any sources for your claim "evolution is now proven to be false" as I would be interested to read them? Cheers.

 

[temptrader]

It's funny how so many refer faith and religion as being somehow illogical and someone science that has not scientific proof to support it is someone logical ?

I think the whole point here is once again. evolution is now proven to be false with no evidence to support it hence the term (thoery) after all these years studying it there is no proof yet with no proof at all people believe it and call it science. That is not science but a faith based believe system..Additionally many previously believed pieces of evidence have now proven false with new scientific data including DNA testing. Again the earth is flat theory is now destroyed and has no place in science.Thus should be the same with evolution. No transitional forms etc etc etc, and yet , But when prompted provide this proof there is non.Yet many still believe regardless of the evidence. And the whole time claiming that it's logical thinking. If each topic of evolution gets discussed in it's entirety and conclude on each believe of the subject matter, each can be easily proven false.If there is evidence that shows that each piece of evidence is not proven false,why won't people who believe in evolution simply acknowledge it? Again this is only one example but the list of examples are huge.For Example:Evolutionists in school are still teaching about Java Man and Lucy man and we now know there is no such evidence. And now that DNA testing is available which was not available back then, we now know that these bones are from an extinct bore which in fact was actually only 1) single tooth to begin with and this tooth the evolutionist called the missing link that shows man evolved from monkeys; and bones for an actual monkey and a man. Why can't you accept the science and data on this. This is accepted by scientist.
If indeed there is logic to any thinking surely you can believe this new evidence.
Also the testing of DNA which now finds a gene which specifically prohibits the major transformations of evolution that is required for evolution to have occurred. This is a fact what is the problem here.You can't be telling me that a tooth from what is not proven to be from a bore that you still believe it's from a Neanderthal type man even after DNA testing?
I'm not saying this proves there is a God, however the facts are the facts nothing but the fact. And someone people think that because they believe in evolution they believe in the facts by default, and what I'm pointing out is you only believe what you think you know. The fact and science show differently then what you have been told and this subject is provable.
Why not believe the facts ? what the problem here.
Or perhaps you do not know the fact and want more information ? But I'm getting the sense that no matter what the facts show that there are many who just don't care; and will continue to believe in evolution regardless of the facts that now have been scientifically categorized.
But some will not ? Which are you ?

Regardless of weather or not someone may believe in God you can't deny the facts ? If I believe in no God at all I still have to look at the evidence and cannot ignore the evidence which seems to be what many evolutionist appear to be doing.

Ignoring evidence that rebuts evolution is not science ? Is it ?
How can anyone claim to know anything about evolution if they ignore the science the rebuts it and only accept the science the support it ?

I skimmed through your posts and have reached the conclusion that you, yourself, seem to have your logical reasoning impaired. Not only what you write is rather unintelligible, but it shows to me what your agenda is.

You are like those silly people who read, pontificate, shout about things that you have never got into the nitty gritty with and yet feel you are qualified to talk about it like an expert.

For want of fairness to you, I ask you to lay out your arguments carefully and constructively.

Maths departments all over the world gets letters from cranks claiming to have this and that proof of a famous open problem. Most of these letters are thrown away after a quick glance. Some are actually perused if there is something of substance or merit in what is written. It is not in the interest of science to turn away any form of evidence/data that might destroy a theory. In fact science welcomes them, if they are found to be valid after careful examination and independent verification.

you on the other hand have only made off hand passing remarks. Frugi has given you a retort to your transitional fossils denial, and in fact the evidence is actually against you. Your talk about this gene is also an off hand remark and the scientific community would very much like to hear more about it, perhaps you could point us to more information on it.

And people DON'T believe in evolution per se. They ACCEPT it after careful logical deduction of the evidence at hand.

 

[wasp]

.

 

[PKFFW]

I do agree that the definition of evolution itself does not specifically say this and my response was to another poster that as I pointed out, changed his own definition of evolution to make a point then goes on to try to support that definition:
PKFFW wrote:

The response to this post was what I mentioned in my previous post regarding the something from nothing, And so you see from the text above the poster stated here (evolved from something) but continues in error about religion then concludes (live did not spring into existence exactly as it is today)And that is the problem life did not just spring into existence? That is a farce.

Do not intentionally twist the meaning of my remarks. It is often difficult to exactly and clearly get across ones meaning on a BB and misunderstandings do happen. I clarified exactly what I meant and you know it. That you now intentionally quote me out of context and refer to your own interpretation of what I meant without considering or quoting my clarification in a attempt to further your own argument is rather rude and cynical.

I'm done responding to you as someone who stoops to those levels isn't worth conversing with.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[dick_dastardly]

Using that line of reasoning you could pretty much state that any form of belief is a religion.

You mean like say Elliot Wave Theory for example ?

I've sometimes thought of EWT as bordering on the religious, ( it sort of has an answer for everything that has happened but never really seems to work going forward )

having said that ..........

Generally what defines religion is when the belief system is an attempt to define the "supreme being" and all that goes with that such as the meaning of life, morality etc etc.

In past arguments such as this I've heard religion defined in the following way :-

A religion is that which relies upon the human ability to defer gratification.
It convinces the believer that by subscribing to the religion gratification can be deferred beyond the point of his/her own death.

This is the best definition of religion I've ever seen, I think all this stuff about the earth being created in 6 days and chucking homosexuals off the top of mountains is just part of the packaging.

It is my belief that mankind will never get rid of "religion". I see religion and science as an arms race, and a very strange one at that.

The only way we will get rid of religion is if we find a way to get rid or death :innocent:
either that or learn to come to terms with and accept our own mortality.





hmmm, come to think of it , if we got rid of death then we would stop evolving wouldn't we ???


dd

 

[Splitlink]

How can anyone know, at this stage of our evolution, how the Universe was created? We will , always, be searching for the next link in the puzzle. My own belief is that we should, simply, concentrate on what's around us, be good to our fellow man and leave the deep philisophy of it all to those who like that sort of thing. They don't have any more of a clue than the rest of us, in any case. We'll find out, soon enough, and I don't think that it will matter whether we believe, or not because, frankly, it is all so complicated that we can't be expected to. It's what we have done to, or for, our fellow men that is important and that is the most that God can expect of us.

We are all guilty of bad deeds, but some of us do it in the name of God. Praying and killing do not go together. Science and killing, at least, is not hypocritical.

Split

 

[rawrschach]

Which is what most Eastern ways of life say anyway.

The majority of arguments on this thread are centric to the middle eastern religions, which, although they say that too, have been organised in way that makes them easy to abuse via dogma and intolerance.

 

[Splitlink]

Which is what most Eastern ways of life say anyway.

The majority of arguments on this thread are centric to the middle eastern religions, which, although they say that too, have been organised in way that makes them easy to abuse via dogma and intolerance.

All the religions have had their times of brutality. Let's face it, everything that is known about God (which is nothing) has been invented by leaders, starting with Moses for his own reasons but, normally, to stir up trouble and to control.

Nothing can be taught about religion. You, either, believe it, or not. End of story, as far as I am concerned.

So, because of that, other bright sparks come up with derogatory opinions as to why it's a lot of balls. You may think that I am not religious, but that is not a fact. I believe, but try not to interfere with other people's ideas and I can't begin to wonder what God wants me to do

Whatever Darwin, or Einstein did is theory and only a fool would deny them, but they have not given us the last piece that put it all together. They did, however, have a lot to teach us whereas priests and theorists give us nothing except a load of BS.

Nobody knows. Just do the best you can, while you here, and wait and see.

Just a rant. The Gospel according to Split.

 

[yacarob1]

I believe that religion and quite possibly God is simply a psychological device, invented by humankind, in order to relieve or ease its deep sense of personal insecurity and fear about death.

If you have no fear of death then you do not need religion.

Anyway, who needs God when you have a limitless supply of cheap beer ?

 

[Splitlink]

I believe that religion and quite possibly God is simply a psychological device, invented by humankind, in order to relieve or ease its deep sense of personal insecurity and fear about death.

If you have no fear of death then you do not need religion.

Anyway, who needs God when you have a limitless supply of cheap beer ?

There you go!

I'll gladly have a beer with you but, please, no religion (or anti-religion) in the conversation. OK? Everyone gets on with what he is happy and can live with.

Just be nice to others. In my case, I don't mind if I do, thanks.

Split