138 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

I've never ever doubted the validity of evolution, but I was surprised to see that there are actually a lot of discrepancies with it, which many scientists have encountered. For example, even Darwin had his doubts some time. Check this link for quotes.

You do realize that science isn't about knowing everything with the utmost certainty? It's about scientist figuring answers to what they don't know using very practical methods. And even when they do find their answers, someone else or even they same group almost immediately sets out to disprove them. So the fact that scientists don't know something or disagree on something doesn't mean anything. It just means that science is working. That's kinda the whole point of science. You don't know something, you go out and find the answers for yourself through trial and error instead of just listening to what other people say, even if it's another scientist. The day scientists have all the answers and nobody questions them is the day science utterly fails.

Edited by SOAP, 24 May 2007 - 12:49 AM.

[Khallos]

The day scientists have all the answers and nobody questions them is the day science utterly fails.

That's one of the main problems with modern science, many people will immediatly believe and take for granted what a scientist says, simply because they have little idea, and the scientist must know everything about something. Another thing that plagues certain fields of science is a slight tendancy for conservatism and some scientists do seem to truly be against new or differant ideas, though that usually can be related back to a petty sense of pride. Then again, having all your ideas taken to bits and proved incorrect, must be pretty annoying, still it's a rather unscientific way of doing things, but it's happened before and will probably continue to happen.

[SOAP]

Well that's more of a problem with people than with science itself. People don't like to be wrong and others are too lazy to seek answers for themselves. But science itself is still a practical method for finding answers for yourself as opposed to just believing what a 2,000 year old book says without question. Not to be down on anyone who takes the Bible seriously because faith in the Word is still important but my point is with science you're allowed to question any information given to you and find your own answers whereas with religion, questioning a holy book is considered blasphemous. However, I think questioning what we've been taught is very vital for humans to know the truth. How are we expected to know what we taught is actually true if we're not allowed to test it?

[Reflectionist]

Well that's more of a problem with people than with science itself. People don't like to be wrong and others are too lazy to seek answers for themselves. But science itself is still a practical method for finding answers for yourself as opposed to just believing what a 2,000 year old book says without question. Not to be down on anyone who takes the Bible seriously because faith in the Word is still important but my point is with science you're allowed to question any information given to you and find your own answers whereas with religion, questioning a holy book is considered blasphemous. However, I think questioning what we've been taught is very vital for humans to know the truth. How are we expected to know what we taught is actually true if we're not allowed to test it?

Well, there's nothing wrong with questioning the Bible.

The point of it though, when you question the Bible, isn't to go in with either a mindset of "This is all 100% literal fact" or a mindset of "This is all 100% total bull crap" Because either way is dangerous.

There are some literal things, for instance, the historical aspect of it. When it says "Jesus was nailed to a cross" for example, it means the guy was literally nailed to a cross. And whatever isn't history, like, maybe, the letters of Paul, well, those might just be examples to teach us a lesson. You never know.

I got off on a tangent, but my point is, if you want to question the Bible, don't look at a passage and say that it means one thing and something says something 100% different. And I'm talking about most of the discrepancies in the Bible. I know someone got "The Bible says two different things about being angry." Well, no, it doesn't. There are two passages that say "In your anger, do not sin," and "Don't let the sun go down while you are still angry." That's not a contradiction, though people would have you believe it is.

Now that I read what I've written, I'm not sure it actually had anything to do with what I quoted, but I just felt that was something that needed to be said.

[MikePetersSucks]

How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and yet there's all those other passages saying to kill witches or rebellious teens or whatnot? It's ignorance to say the Bible has no discrepencies.

[arunma]

How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and yet there's all those other passages saying to kill witches or rebellious teens or whatnot? It's ignorance to say the Bible has no discrepencies.

Oh dear...

I hope this doesn't sound offensive (because I genuinely don't mean it), but what we have here is a case of commenting on the Bible without reading it. "Thou shalt not kill" is the phrase used in the 1611 King James Bible, and during the publication of said Bible, "kill" had a slightly different connotation than it does today. The archaic definition of killing refers to willful murder. In reality, the Law of Moses actually classifies different kinds of killing. There are references to premeditated murder, manslaughter, and killing in war. In the future, it might be a good idea to comment on the Bible, and not on the host of atheist "Bible contradiction" websites.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

A contradiction concerning killing would be Exodus 23:7 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3. However, that is irrelevant to the argument. Quite what any of this has to do with evolution is beyond me...

[wisp]

Topics dealing with science OR religion in this forum always turn into "let me show you why the Bible is wrong" vs "let me show you why science is wrong."

[MikePetersSucks]

I hope this doesn't sound offensive (because I genuinely don't mean it), but what we have here is a case of commenting on the Bible without reading it. "Thou shalt not kill" is the phrase used in the 1611 King James Bible, and during the publication of said Bible, "kill" had a slightly different connotation than it does today. The archaic definition of killing refers to willful murder. In reality, the Law of Moses actually classifies different kinds of killing. There are references to premeditated murder, manslaughter, and killing in war. In the future, it might be a good idea to comment on the Bible, and not on the host of atheist "Bible contradiction" websites.

I DID read the Bible. Unfortunately, killing is killing. You don't change the deed by changing what you call it.

[Fyxe]

Especially when those who commit genocide often do it lawfully by the laws of the country they run (cos they make the laws). So they wouldn't legally be commiting murder. 'Thou shalt not commit murder' would therefore not mean anything concrete whatsoever.

But I don't think a pedantic legal system really existed in those days, so I'd be surprised if they really intended there to be any difference between 'murder' and 'kill'. If they did intend any difference, it was presumably there to point out that sometimes people can kill by accident. It doesn't mean 'thou shalt not kill unless you find a legal way to kill on purpose'. It just means 'thou shalt not intentionally kill someone'.

Edited by Fyxe, 27 May 2007 - 02:09 PM.

[SteveT]

I DID read the Bible. Unfortunately, killing is killing.

You may have skipped a few books.

Like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. (Arguably the least popular ones.)

The Bible is very, very concerned with motive. It makes distinctions between the various forms of killing. Under the Bible, capital punishment is not considered murder, for instance. Executioners can still theoretically go to heaven.

Edited by SteveT, 27 May 2007 - 02:35 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Topics dealing with science OR religion in this forum always turn into "let me show you why the Bible is wrong" vs "let me show you why science is wrong."

Nah, I for one believe them to be coexistant, but whatever. If I fit into that Bible-above-everything Christian Category, well I don't suppose you can stop humans and their stereotypes.

[MikePetersSucks]

The Bible is very, very concerned with motive.

Which doesn't really help it's claims of divinity in my opinion.

[Reflectionist]

The Bible is very, very concerned with motive.

Which doesn't really help it's claims of divinity in my opinion.

Why?

"give to ceaser what it ceasers; give to God what is Gods"

If you're a soldier in war, you're going to kill. Not because you want to, because you have to. I fail to see how that is a sin. The Bible specifically says that killing in war is okay, as long as it's killing DURING WAR, and not just premeditated murder or anything like that.

[SOAP]

Well that's more of a problem with people than with science itself. People don't like to be wrong and others are too lazy to seek answers for themselves. But science itself is still a practical method for finding answers for yourself as opposed to just believing what a 2,000 year old book says without question. Not to be down on anyone who takes the Bible seriously because faith in the Word is still important but my point is with science you're allowed to question any information given to you and find your own answers whereas with religion, questioning a holy book is considered blasphemous. However, I think questioning what we've been taught is very vital for humans to know the truth. How are we expected to know what we taught is actually true if we're not allowed to test it?

Well, there's nothing wrong with questioning the Bible.

The point of it though, when you question the Bible, isn't to go in with either a mindset of "This is all 100% literal fact" or a mindset of "This is all 100% total bull crap" Because either way is dangerous.

There are some literal things, for instance, the historical aspect of it. When it says "Jesus was nailed to a cross" for example, it means the guy was literally nailed to a cross. And whatever isn't history, like, maybe, the letters of Paul, well, those might just be examples to teach us a lesson. You never know.

I got off on a tangent, but my point is, if you want to question the Bible, don't look at a passage and say that it means one thing and something says something 100% different. And I'm talking about most of the discrepancies in the Bible. I know someone got "The Bible says two different things about being angry." Well, no, it doesn't. There are two passages that say "In your anger, do not sin," and "Don't let the sun go down while you are still angry." That's not a contradiction, though people would have you believe it is.

Now that I read what I've written, I'm not sure it actually had anything to do with what I quoted, but I just felt that was something that needed to be said.

Well unfortunately, not every Christian shares your same view. Over here in the bible belt, the Word of God is taken pretty literally. The world is 6,000 years old and was created in six day. He had a siesta on the seventh day which gave Satan the chance to bury dinosaur bones deep in the ground to confuse modern scientists billions, oops, thousands of years later. To questioning any of this makes you a queerosexual atheist doomed for the fiery pit of hell which is of course is in the Earth core.

I just don't understand what believing any of that has to do with trusting God to change your life on earth here and now and take you into Heaven when you die. I could care less if the universe was made in seven days or five billion years. When dealing with the material world, I use science to understand and interact with it. When dealing with morality and spiritual matters I go with whatever the Bible says. People who think we shouldn't have faith in science and try to twist it into some big atheist conspiracy against Christians grossly fail to understand what science really is. Whoever said it first I think had right when he or she said "Science expalins the how but religion explains the why." Whenever you try to use religion to explain the how's or get get science to explain the why's, you're bound to run into huge problems.

Edited by SOAP, 28 May 2007 - 09:08 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Actually, I think you'll find that science tries to explain the how and why.

Religion only tries to suggest how you should live. At the very most it only explains who.

[SOAP]

Actually, I think you'll find that science tries to explain the how and why.

Not for everyone.

[Reflectionist]

Actually, I think you'll find that science tries to explain the how and why.

Religion only tries to suggest how you should live. At the very most it only explains who.

Good use of the words 'suggest' and 'explain.' :-p

Anyway, apart from that, I don't agree with you in the slightest on that.

'religion' which, in my opinion is a dirty word, does explain the why. Or at least, the Bible does. It sure as heck doesn't explain the how, because clearly science has proven those scientific aspects wrong. The why is easy, Why did God create us, Why did God send Jesus, etc. etc. All of that is explained.

Science does explain the how, but not the why. Any way you explain the why can also be contrived into a how. Like... 'Why are the plants green?' isn't a why question. It's a 'how does it happen' question.

Not a why, you can follow why's down further and further until you just go crazy into science, but not with God.

For example.

"Why are the plants green"
"Because of photosynthesis"
"Why?"
"Because that's just how science works"
"Why?"
"I DON"T KNOW FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LEAVE ME ALONE!"

etc. etc.

if you follow a scientific why question down far enough, the word 'how' is GOING to come up.

[SOAP]

Actually plants are green because the green pigment, chlorophyll, absorbs most spectrums of light like yellow, red, and so on, therefore gets the most energy. There are actually other pigments though that absorb only cvertian spectrums which is why we also have ornage, purple, and red plants. The why can bw explained by the fact that our sun iis yellow. If it were red we'd have a totally different color of plants, possibly blue or purple.

When I talk of why though I mean as far as humans are concerned. Why are we here? Why are we concious? How come no other animal has achieved the same level of sentience as we have? Where fdo our morals come from?

Science has explanations for most if not all of these but not of them can satisfy people like religion can. How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society? It doesn't. Believing in some form of God that we derive our moral from and we can view as a teacher is acceptable in our society.

Edited by SOAP, 29 May 2007 - 04:17 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Actually plants are green because the green pigment, chlorophyll, absorbs most spectrums of light like yellow, red, and so on, therefore gets the most energy. There are actually other pigments though that absorb only cvertian spectrums which is why we also have ornage, purple, and red plants. The why can bw explained by the fact that our sun iis yellow. If it were red we'd have a totally different color of plants, possibly blue or purple.

When I talk of why though I mean as far as humans are concerned. Why are we here? Why are we concious? How come no other animal has achieved the same level of sentience as we have? Where fdo our morals come from?

Science has explanations for most if not all of these but not of them can satisfy people like religion can. How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society? It doesn't. Believing in some form of God that we derive our moral from and we can view as a teacher is acceptable in our society.

well, naturally, I didnt want to go into more detail into photosynthesis, but since you like overkill, thanks.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

What I meant is why as in "why it works". Why God did something is a different question altogether, and frankly, I don't think the Bible explains that very well either.

How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society?

Because our morals are an evolutionary adaptation meant to enforce society structure, which helps individuals survive. Either that or they don't have any evolutionary advantage or disadvantage, so natural selection doesn't do anything against or for them.

Believing in God does not answer why. It answers the question of who. And even then you cannot be sure if the answer is correct. All that you can do is believe that the answer is correct, which for some people is good enough.

Religion does nothing to explain why, because it's not rigorous enough. Perhaps theology could it, but not religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, these religions don't really focus heavily on why. They focus on how you should live. After all, what is the most important part of the Bible? Some would say the Ten Commandments (they'd be wrong, because the Ten Commandments actually refers to what scholars call the religious decalogue, which has very little bearing on modern day life) and others would say Jesus' teachings. Either way, they're all about how you should live.

Science does not dictate how you should live. It tell us how the world works, attempts to explain why the world works and how it already is. How it already is, does not necessarily mean how we should live.

That is where religion comes in. It is a control mechanism, designed to limit our behaviour to a range of defined norms. Religion also acts as a psychological tool to help us overcome the more difficult questions in life, or rather, the more difficult answers, like say, death. Political ideologies do the same, but religion has probably had a lot longer to perfects its art in controlling the masses. And you do need to control the masses, although religion seems to be vague enough to allow us some freedoms.

[Fyxe]

How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society?

At least monkeys exist.

[vodkamaru]

How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society?

At least monkeys exist.

My grandpappy wasn't no monkey...

[SOAP]

How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society?

At least monkeys exist.

What an achievement!

[Reflectionist]

What I meant is why as in "why it works". Why God did something is a different question altogether, and frankly, I don't think the Bible explains that very well either.

How does our morals coming from monkeys who fling pooh at each other help our society?

Because our morals are an evolutionary adaptation meant to enforce society structure, which helps individuals survive. Either that or they don't have any evolutionary advantage or disadvantage, so natural selection doesn't do anything against or for them.

Believing in God does not answer why. It answers the question of who. And even then you cannot be sure if the answer is correct. All that you can do is believe that the answer is correct, which for some people is good enough.

Religion does nothing to explain why, because it's not rigorous enough. Perhaps theology could it, but not religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, these religions don't really focus heavily on why. They focus on how you should live. After all, what is the most important part of the Bible? Some would say the Ten Commandments (they'd be wrong, because the Ten Commandments actually refers to what scholars call the religious decalogue, which has very little bearing on modern day life) and others would say Jesus' teachings. Either way, they're all about how you should live.

Science does not dictate how you should live. It tell us how the world works, attempts to explain why the world works and how it already is. How it already is, does not necessarily mean how we should live.

That is where religion comes in. It is a control mechanism, designed to limit our behaviour to a range of defined norms. Religion also acts as a psychological tool to help us overcome the more difficult questions in life, or rather, the more difficult answers, like say, death. Political ideologies do the same, but religion has probably had a lot longer to perfects its art in controlling the masses. And you do need to control the masses, although religion seems to be vague enough to allow us some freedoms.

I think the only thing that's vague is your understanding of religion.

Sure, you say that the only thing that's in the Bible are rules, rules and more rules. How to live, don't do this, don't do that.

Remember the Pharisees? Doing exactly what you're talking about. Preaching the whole 'don't do this don't do that' routine, and then Jesus came and basically pwned them?

Does that say anything to you about how the religion views rules?

They're there for you to follow them, but God isn't sitting there waiting to strike you with lightning for putting a toe out of line. If you think that, then you're just delusional and bordering on stupid, because it's just not true.


And by the way, I know of no one who would agree with you on the most important part of the Bible.

The most important part is the part about Jesus dying for everyone, but you know, I can see how you'd overlook that.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 June 2007 - 01:18 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I think the only thing that's vague is your understanding of religion.

Sure, you say that the only thing that's in the Bible are rules, rules and more rules. How to live, don't do this, don't do that.

Remember the Pharisees? Doing exactly what you're talking about. Preaching the whole 'don't do this don't do that' routine, and then Jesus came and basically pwned them?

Does that say anything to you about how the religion views rules?

So what exactly did Jesus do? Do you know? He replaced the old ones with new rules. Do unto others as thou would wish them to do unto you. Is that not a rule? Of course, it is more than a rule, but then so is a control mechanism. I'd say it was a guideline, but if you look carefully you'll see I didn't mention the word, rule, once.

They're there for you to follow them, but God isn't sitting there waiting to strike you with lightning for putting a toe out of line.

Gee, what is that I hear about divine Judgement?

The most important part is the part about Jesus dying for everyone, but you know, I can see how you'd overlook that.

I disagree with you. Jesus dying for everyone means diddly squat as to how someone behaves. Notice how it doesn't stop Fred Phelps, a Christian, from being a complete arsehole. Or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. The emphasis on Jesus' death and resurrection is too strong, so much so that many people forget that to be Christian is to follow his example.

What is of more use to us in this world? Knowing that Jesus died for our sins? Well, whoop-de-doo. That's of no use to us in this world. It's only of use to us in the next world, therefore, it doesn't change anything. Only the guidelines and rules set forth in the Bible by Jesus and others, are of any use and of any value to us in this life.

And either way, how does religion answer why?

Hm? Does the Bible tell us why God created anything? Does it?

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 01 June 2007 - 09:09 AM.

[vodkamaru]

Studies continue.

[Raien]

I think that the reason why humans have such trouble in believing in evolution is because human intelligence has progressed beyond the need for biological adaptation to survive, and so evolution plays no part in human society.

Animals change to adapt to their surroundings; this is evolution. Humans use their intelligence to change their surroundings to suit themselves; evolution never takes place. This is why many activists believe that there is a conflict between humans and nature, because humans don't follow nature's example and instead turn to mechanics and genetics to suit themselves.

Of course, monkeys have been discovered to possess learning abilities, such as one which was spotted crossing a river by using a stick to recognise the depth and solidity of the terrain under the water's surface. By using the stick, the monkey does not need to biologically adapt to cross the river successfully. Intelligence has overcome evolution.

So really, the development of scientific and creative understanding is how human society progresses, as the replacement for evolution. Morals exist as part of social development; effectively replacing tribal honour codes.

Edited by jhurvid, 01 June 2007 - 11:21 AM.

[vodkamaru]

I think that the reason why humans have such trouble in believing in evolution is because human intelligence has progressed beyond the need for biological adaptation to survive, and so evolution plays no part in human society.

I agree with you about biological evolution having no part in human society ( as far as human evolution goes ) but I think evolution still plays a part in human society. Evolutionary algorithms (one of my favorite comp sci/AI areas) are used to solve many problems and with the advances in computing its only becoming easier and faster. We have machines that can come up with a circuit and all you need to give it as input is what behavior you expect (like a band-pass filter). We're evolving our own technology almost literally now. The understanding of biological evolution gives way to technological evolution.

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 June 2007 - 12:05 PM.

[Raien]

I agree with you about biological evolution having no part in human society ( as far as human evolution goes ) but I think evolution still plays a part in human society. Evolutionary algorithms (one of my favorite comp sci/AI areas) are used to solve many problems and with the advances in computing its only becoming easier and faster. We have machines that can come up with a circuit and all you need to give it as input is what behavior you expect (like a band-pass filter). We're evolving our own technology almost literally now. The understanding of biological evolution gives way to technological evolution.

Isn't technological evolution a result of the advances in scientific understanding?

Edited by jhurvid, 01 June 2007 - 01:02 PM.