I find the whole debate ridiculous... - Page 2

Chapstiquelova · 05-29-2007, 06:16 PM

i dont know what i think..some is pointless...other parts are not.

Armel P · 05-29-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowsummers

That's the thing- evolution, and science in general, are aspects of our world that depend on provable facts. What I don't understand is why people insist on viewing god/religion this way. To me, they're completely different types of knowledge/belief. Looking to science to prove that god exists, or looking to religion to explain science, is like trying to listen to a picture.

You are mixing up the concepts with vague language. You can not call religion a type of knowledge. Knowledge is something that is come to be understood by reasoning. Everything else is a hypothesis and religious beliefs are baseless hypotheses. When one makes a statement about the nature of the universe one is implying a certain knowledge is held. But if that person does not actually have knowledge obtained by reason, then presenting such ideas is a lie. Religion is not knowledge; it is an unfounded guess that satisfies the believer's ignorance of the universe. There is no reason to believe in anything religion tells you because there are an infinite number of equally possible gods and therefore an infinite number of possible gods that could not coexist with any given choice.

Og · 05-29-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowsummers

That's the thing- evolution, and science in general, are aspects of our world that depend on provable facts. What I don't understand is why people insist on viewing god/religion this way. To me, they're completely different types of knowledge/belief. Looking to science to prove that god exists, or looking to religion to explain science, is like trying to listen to a picture.

This is only true if you accept god as a metaphor for something beyond all categories of thought. We think in pairs such as true/false, right/wrong, one/many, left/right, male/female, good/evil, fear/desire, being/nonbeing. As long as you accept that God is a metaphor for a mystery transcendent of these categories of thought (even of being and nonbeing) then you're fine.

The moment you try casting a concept of god into a form that has an effect and is "out there," then you have entered the realm of science and should be slapped around a bit for your mistake. The moment you take the metaphor for what its denotation is instead of what its connotation is, you need to realize that you've crossed over a boundary into absurdity.

Christianity and Islam and many other religions make this mistake. Those religions should be discarded and new folk expressions of the elementary ideas of human mythology should be taken into the human collective consciousness.

jaej · 05-29-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Although i dont agree that evolution should be taught without creation at its side in equality.

Why?

Evolution is scientific fact, a collection of observable data. Creation is a fairy tale, a metaphor for the origin of humanity. Give one good reason creation should be taught along evolution. One is science, another is religion. I disagree entirely with the idea that creation should be taught in a science classroom. If you want a theology class fine, but they don't belong together.

Armel P · 05-30-2007, 02:49 AM

The Bible belongs in literature class and should be less regarded than Anna Karenina. Crap, that reminds me, I still have to finish that thing. I probably have 120 pages left.

Romulus · 05-30-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaej

Why?

Evolution is scientific fact, a collection of observable data. Creation is a fairy tale, a metaphor for the origin of humanity. Give one good reason creation should be taught along evolution. One is science, another is religion. I disagree entirely with the idea that creation should be taught in a science classroom. If you want a theology class fine, but they don't belong together.

Actually its not fact there are lots of opposition to evolution other then just Christian people who believe in God. There are also scientists who have evidence for creation. Until they can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt it should be taught alongside creation.

jaej · 05-30-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

There are also scientists who have evidence for creation.

Such as??????? (friggin 10 characters..I hate you vbulletin)

Og · 05-30-2007, 09:33 PM

No, there is not repeatable evidence for creation. Evolution on the other hand is a strong scientific theory. It is the summation of much reproducible evidence into a cohesive theory that accurately predicts changes. The fossil record and the known age of the earth illustrate increasing complexity of organisms.

Creationism is a statement with no repeatable evidence. Only dogma. It has no business in a scientific class room.

jaej · 05-30-2007, 09:46 PM

I'm curious as to what he was talking about though.

Armel P · 05-31-2007, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Actually its not fact there are lots of opposition to evolution other then just Christian people who believe in God. There are also scientists who have evidence for creation. Until they can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt it should be taught alongside creation.

Creation is a myth and evolution is a fact.