Why hasn't the world come to an end and where is Jesus?

[~zonker~]

Elledan
The views of those religions will never change

The views of all major religions have evolved and changed so many times over the past hundreds years it's nearly bewildering. If you ever read Frankenstien you will find the main character admitting that carrying a cross is not an acceptable practice. How many scientests were excommunicated because their theories did not coincide with the theology of the time...

Changes in our understanding of the world force changes in major religious belief systems.

rahvin
DNA evidence is actually VERY against a common two ancestors

From what I'm reading, there is a great debate going on about this issue and the DNA evidince does not really help settle the issue currently. I'm speaking of the "Out of Africa" vs. "Mutiregional" debate... see here We are all Africans

Just as an athiest might say that there can not be a God because there are so many different religions, I can not subscribe to a theory of human evolution when the evidince is unclear and the theories are so hotly debated.

--------


One thing is clear to me in all fields of science, the more we think we understand, the more we realize how much we have yet to learn.

 

[MajesticMoose]

"Everything that is good comes from God and his son Jesus Christ...."
-tominator
question for ya: where does all the bad sh!t come from. lemme guess.... it's a test?

 

[rahvin]

<<From what I'm reading, there is a great debate going on about this issue and the DNA evidince does not really help settle the issue currently. I'm speaking of the &quot;Out of Africa&quot; vs. &quot;Mutiregional&quot; debate... see here We are all Africans>>

You are confusing thier use of &quot;common ancestor&quot;. They are refering to a common ancestor on the species side, not individual. The article you point to reveals that we have dramtic DNA differences with Neandertal man and DNA evidence suggests there was no cross-breeding. This point is unsure, Neandertal man went extinct shortly after the homo sapian developed culture. (both species overlapped by about 20000 years) Because of the proximity of the settlements though (less than a mile apart in most cases) some groups of scientists believe that Neandertal and Homo Sapian interbred. Again this is a very debatable topic because there is very little evidence that would survive time...

What I was refering to is NOT conflicted by the link you provided. By a common african ancestor what they are refering to is a common group of people (or species) in africa that spawned humanity. With the genetic diversity in humans it would be silly to assume that we derived from a single pair. It would be even more silly to assume we derived from a single pair, then later the world flooded and all but one family died in a global flood and we still maintain massive genetic diverstity. If those situations had occured there would be almost no variation in our population (and massive birth defects)....

 

[Elledan]

Science isn't a religion. It's a result of curiosity. Religions are not based on curiosity, therefore it only slows down the technological progress.

Isn't it remarkable that how more we Humans learn through science, the more we question religions? Logical would be to say that religion is a substitute for knowledge.
Since the shortage of knowledge is decreasing, we won't need religion as much as Humankind needed it centuries ago.

Another interesting point: what if all Christians are wrong and the Jews, Muslims or Hindu are right? None of them will admit it that they could be wrong until it's too late...

But don't worry yet, maybe there are no superior beings like gods

Last question: Out of which substance is a god made? It can't be flesh, since in that case we should have seen it long ago...

 

[UnixFreak]

<< Why hasn't the world come to an end and where is Jesus? >>

Its only been one day. Keep posted.

 

Before anything was proven by science everyone thought it was &quot;magic&quot;
or &quot;supernatural&quot;.
Jesus was just a man with good ideas and morals. But I see no proof in him being gods son.
Religion was a intelligent way to rule people without force.
What you do is make them believe a bunch of crap, tax them to pray to this god that was created and then make them scared that they will die or go to hell if they do not obey.
But now it has gotten out of hand ( ie. Middle east).
How can anyone say that DNA science is BS? Did people make up the maps of DNA that they spent millions on? Id like to see that as a scandal.
The headlines say:
&quot;DNA is a hoax, we dont know WHAT your made of!&quot;
Religion cannot and never will be proven true.
Evolution on the other hand, has been conintually proven more and more.
But thoes crazies in the church will hold on for dear life.
How can you pass up a free caddy?

 

[MrPALCO]

<< Last question: Out of which substance is a god made? >>



Love.

 

[Elledan]

'Love' is the abstract term Humans use to describe what they experience when certain chemical processes are going on in their body. Hormones cause this feeling for the main part.

Love is no substance. Try again.

 

[I'm Typing]

My my my...don't we all love to hear ourselves speak? The only thing that amazes me more than the ability of religious idiots to misunderstand or ignore facts, is the ability of non-theists (atheists or evolutionists) to continue spouting facts like they will make sense to those on the other side of the fence.


Let's get a new set of subjects, gang. This little sandbox war was old the last time I brought it up a few months ago. Yeah yeah I had to participate as well...but now I wish I had not.

 

[apoppin]

For once I agree with you, I'm Typing. This discussion is going nowhere.

We have true believers on both the evolution and creation side of the debate.

Both sides are convinced they are right; and the facts suffer.

The giraffe example is absurd. If a certain animal &quot;needed&quot; a longer neck to survive, then why do we have giraffes and short necked animals both living in the same area (both superbly fit to survive)?

Evolution is absolutely not proven or we would not be having this debate.

 

[Elledan]

There's no reason why we should question evolution unless we have reasons for it. I still don't see any reason why we should question evolution now, unless someone can come up with a better theory.

If gods aren't made out of any substance, they don't exist, except between the ears of some people.

 

[apoppin]

No reason to question evolution???

Stated like a true believer in his own religion.

Well, evolution cannot satisfactorily explain a single cell coming about by chance. Nor can it explain the lack of links between supposedly evolving species. The fossil record does not support gradual transitions from one major group to another.

 

[Elledan]

apoppin > Do you know a better theory then? The 'theory' mentioned in the bible is even less believable than the Evolution theory. Since that theory requires one or more supernatural beings or a highly advanced civilization, it has even less ground to stand on.

 

[apoppin]

Elledan, nothing you would consider. From what you stated, your mind is already closed to the Bible's explanation.

 

[Elledan]

apoppin > wrong again. I consider all theories and possibilities the same way, but the bible's 'explanation' looks more like a joke to me than a serious try. Unless someone can come up with proof that there do or did exist supernatural beings or some advanced civilization, I'll not even consider the theory as it's written in the bible.

<edit> I spelled your name wrong, sorry </edit>

 

[apoppin]

Elledan, have you actually read the Bible's explanation?

You have completely discounted a Creator, so how can you say you consider all theories the same?

 

[Wedesdo]

and you, while apopping xian ideals, fail to recognize that you have discounted a valid scientific theroy that will always have way more evidence than your religion will ever have.

 

[BoberFett]

<< If gods aren't made out of any substance, they don't exist, except between the ears of some people. >>

Tell me, what substance are gravitational forces comprised of?

 

[BoberFett]

<< valid scientific theroy that will always have way more evidence than your religion will ever have >>

Oh right, I forgot. You found some old bones buried in the ground which would naturally lead one to believe that homo sapien evolved from the same species that mosquitoes did.

Please, please, please point me to something which proves evolution. I'd be happy to read it. Everything I've read thus far was less convincing than the bible, and I don't find that to be a particularly factual book.

 

[apoppin]

<<and you, while apopping xian ideals, fail to recognize that you have discounted a valid scientific theroy that will always have way more evidence than your religion will ever have.>>

Well, that's your opinion.

Labeling something as &quot;scientific&quot; does not make it valid or &quot;truth&quot;. The evolutionary theory has huge obvious holes and flaws. For example, it cannot explain to a reasonable person, life's origins. Nor is it a theory consistant with the scientific method. It requires a great deal of belief.

 

[rahvin]

<<Tell me, what substance are gravitational forces comprised of?>

Gravitons. They are still looking for that little ah heck of a particle. They found gravity waves which indicate that gravitons probably exist, we just haven't figured out how to find them yet. The person that proves them will get a nobel prize...

<<The evolutionary theory has huge obvious holes and flaws. For example, it cannot explain to a reasonable person, life's origins. Nor is it a theory consistant with the scientific method. It requires a great deal of belief.>>

Oh it explains it, there is still a lot of debate about how it happened, that doesn't invalidate a theory. Please do something for me though, when you make blanket statements like the ones above please list all occurances of these holes, and inconsitencies with the scientific method. Every occurance you can list would appreciated. Also, I would like to hear your definition of the scientific method.

 

[apoppin]

Perhaps there are other things in this vast universe we haven't yet figured out where or how to look for. Our science is still quite primitive.

 

[Wedesdo]

beberfett: gravtrons. scientists and nasa are working to get a confirmed detection of them as we type

 

[DRGrim]

I could name something else that's quite primitive.

 

[Moonbeam]

The point remains that evolution fulfills all the requirements of a successful scientific fact. In general, only those with a precommitment to a religious faith such as fundamentalist Christianity discount the theory. We see all over the world, people with a commitment to this or that 'True Book' who disagree not only with each other but with scientific 'fact', while at the same time those among them who for what ever reason come to science with an open mind, all concur that the scientific method is the objective path to the comprehension of natural forces. Obviously, one need only look at what each side has to loose if they are wrong to see who has the commitment to blindness. The scientist risks having to exchange one theory for a better one. The faithful risk, well, you know what.