- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
They are not mutually exclusive...
They are not mutually exclusive...
Religion as some airy philosophical concept maybe not. But as religions are actually practised 90% of the time, yeah they are.
Trollposting OP apparently doesn't realize that the Catholic church accepts evolution as being one of God's natural laws.
From what I've read, current Catholic thought is that evolution is natural law and the default behavior for the universe, except (as in the case of the creation of mankind) when their creator decides to intervene.
I haven't made an effort to survey the other flavors of Christianity, but I suspect that's a common view in many of them.
obvious troll thread is obvious.
I think it has limits, and that anything beyond what is (1) observable and (2) testable is based on assumptions, and therefore poor science.
If you want to argue for a historical theory of evolution that portrays millions of years of history, fine, but I don't subscribe to that. I believe in solid, repeatable, and testable science. Evolution of dinosaurs is not testable. Neither is abiogenesis (any experimentation in that specifically will inherently be more an argument for intelligent design rather than evolution).
Evolution. Religion is for fools. It's amazing how many billions of people willingly allow themselves to be mind-raped by the stupidity of religion.
this horse has been beaten to death many, many times.Either explain how this is a 'troll' or you're a waste of space. :thumbsdown:
Their methods differ slightly.What kind of poll is this? Religion and evolution aren't opposites or mutually exclusive...
There are Christian scientists who study evolution.
But now it's been resurrected. Did God send his only begotten Horse?this horse has been beaten to death many, many times.
bringing up again is trolling.
Unless you're talking about young-earth creationism, then they are not mutually exclusive.Religion as some airy philosophical concept maybe not. But as religions are actually practised 90% of the time, yeah they are.
Evolution is testable. You test it by using the observations that you already made through the fossil record, or with species that are evolving presently. It's not great, but given the circumstances, it is the best that is physically possible for now. As for abiogenesis, how is that an argument for intelligent design?I think it has limits, and that anything beyond what is (1) observable and (2) testable is based on assumptions, and therefore poor science.
If you want to argue for a historical theory of evolution that portrays millions of years of history, fine, but I don't subscribe to that. I believe in solid, repeatable, and testable science. Evolution of dinosaurs is not testable. Neither is abiogenesis (any experimentation in that specifically will inherently be more an argument for intelligent design rather than evolution).
this horse has been beaten to death many, many times.
bringing up again is trolling.
Either explain how this is a 'troll' or you're a waste of space. :thumbsdown:
