 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Do you believe that science goes against religion? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES                 Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| If it gets accepted you'll get to see it.
I had actualyl called the journal office today to see if that would constitute a breach. Basically, because the journal submissions get validated over the Christmas holidays they scour the internet for the exact text. If it appears on any website (in its full form, prior to publication) it automatically gets disqualified. Of course, it just depends on if I decide to finish and submit that or submit my other essay. Oh, the trying life of an academic  |
|||
|
Phantomrain Newcomer   Since: 12-02-05 Last post: 6729 days Last view: 6729 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Well my dear ziff, you're part right but mostly wrong. Bookworm is wrong in that Evolution is the anti-order process or whatever he called it. Microevolution is exactly what you’ve said it is, the process by which living organisms adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. However Macroevolution is closer to Bookworm's idea. Macro evolution is the hypothesis that was made popular most notably by Charles Darwin. It states that creatures can mutate for no known reason and become other creatures. For instance, that fish can mutate into amphibians or that apes can mutate into homosaipiens. This is erroneous, and Darwin knew it. The entire basis for this hypothesis was the observations that Darwin made during his trip on the HMS Beagle. Most notably the observations he made during his time on the Galapagos Islands. The only thing however which was observed by Darwin was Microevolution. As you referred to Biologists, allow me to mention that when a biologist of any knowledge speaks of "evolution" they are speaking of Microevolution. All serious scientists who are unbiased, either towards Christianity or towards Evolution, will tell you that Macroevolution is simply a physical impossibility. Also, to those who confuse Roman Catholicism with Christianity, bear with me. Roman Catholosism, though originally Christian has fallen away from the Truth of the gospel and has become a politically correct group of people who want to be religious. They believe things which are contrary to the Bible and though many Roman Catholics are Christians, many more are not because they have never been taught the Truth of Jesus' redeeming Grace. For example, Roman Catholics believe that they must confess their sins to a priest and that they must do penance in order to be absolved of their sins. This is incorrect. "For by Grace you have been saved, through Faith. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit." These verses, if you believe in the Bible, make it clear that there is no need for confession to a priest or for penance, as Christ already paid for all your sins. Think of it this way; let's say that someone gave you a gift. Let’s say that they paid for that gift already. However, you decide that you're going to pay for the gift again. Only one problem, the gift cost this person 100 million dollars and you not only don't have 100 million dollars, you have no money, no home no car no nothing. All you have are the clothes on your back and some food stamps. Now, let me ask you, if that person already paid for that gift, paid for it in cash and paid for all of it down to the last cent, do you need to pay for it? No, you don't. Not only do you not have to pay for it, even if you wanted to, you couldn't. That's like how Salvation works. We have been given a "gift" by the almighty God. It’s called Salvation. This gift is, as the definition of a gift makes clear, free to us. God has already paid for it by sending his Son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins (all those bad things we do). Here’s the catch, we can't pay for that gift. 1) Because it's already been paid for in full and 2) because even if we tried we would fall far short of God's perfect standard. Yes, that's right I said perfect. What’s perfect mean? It means sinless, without blemish or spot, perfectly clean, sanctified, blameless. Now I ask you, is that you? Have you eve told a white lie or gone 1 mile over the speed limit? Have you ever had bad feelings toward someone else or hurt someone other than in self-defense? Well guess what? that means you're not perfect, which means *drum roll please* that you cannot pay for your sins no matter how many hail mary's and our father's you say, not matter how much community service you put in. Another thing which has been made up by the Roman Catholic Church is the idea of purgatory. This is the place where those not fortunate to go directly to heaven stay until they have paid for their sins. I ask you this; where in the Bible does it say ANYTHING about purgatory? Purgatory was invented many many many many many years ago (several hundred actually) in order to frighten the tenants of the Roman Catholic faith into working their butts off for no good reason to try to get to heaven. Again I mention that you cannot pay for your sins, and that yes indeed you have sinned "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 Anyway, back to the "evolution" debate. Evolution claims that mutations are the reason for the changes between species. This is impossible and erroneous, as mutations are rare and are always harmful, never helpful. A mutation I a loss in genetic information, not a gain. Also, evolution has yet to produce a missing link between the species that is anything other than a hoax. (If you disagree with me, find a history text written from a conservative viewpoint rather than a flaming liberal viewpoint.) Also, the experiment to which Bookworm referred is factual. It was conducted by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953 at the University of Chicago. In this experiment, using H2O (water), CH4(Methane), NH3(Ammonia) and H2(hydrogen), the chemicals were sealed inside an array of glass tubes and flasks. These were connected in a loop with one flask being half full of liquid water and the other flask containing a pair of electrodes. The water was heated, inducing evaporation, while sparks were sent into the atmosphere and water vapor to imitate lightning. The vapor was then quickly cooled again and recycled back into the first flask. In the end, as Bookworm stated, the products were several left hand amino acids, some right hand amino acids and a significant amount of a tar-like substance. This experiment was flawed. First off, there would have been no form of rapid cooling in an environment such as the primordial soup of early earth. Secondly, the presence of right hand amino acids would negate the ability of the left hand amino acids to produce life. Also, since the experiment did not produce living organisms of any kind, it failed its purpose. if any of you have any questions, comments, concerns, death threats, hate letters or fan mail, Bookworm knows how to contact me and will do so unless he feels that the materiel being sent to me is of an disrespectful dilatory or potentially life/computer threatening nature. Thank you for your time, I will remember you all in my prayers. May God Open your Eyes to the Truth and may you come to a saving knowledge of Him. In the Coming Christ, ~Viktor~ |
|||
Clockworkz Birdon  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Gos"
lol Too lazy to read your whole post, Fundie. All I know is that evolution had to occur with a helping hand of the Higher Powers. It could not have been just chance that we were made. It's too slim, and too debatable. I believe in evolution, but not in the sense that it was standalone. Something must have had a hand in it. |
|||
BPM Red Tektite Since: 11-30-05 From: Wyoming Last post: 6704 days Last view: 6704 days |
| ||
Oh yeah, I forgot about the whole macro micro stuff. That's why I thought that religion and evolution don't mix. But now it's all so clear.  |
|||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within  Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Hoo boy. It looks like I have to do Phantomrain's homework for him. *cracks knuckles* Funny how all of these issues are addressed in great detail at the talkorigins.org archive, which I have already posted a link to and told people to read so they understand what they are arguing against instead of trotting out a bunch of strawmen, and I still get a bunch of strawmen anyway.
Macro evolution is the hypothesis that was made popular most notably by Charles Darwin. It states that creatures can mutate for no known reason and become other creatures. For instance, that fish can mutate into amphibians or that apes can mutate into homosaipiens. No. Scientists define macroevolution as evolution above the species level, and the definition says nothing about reasons for this change, known or otherwise. As you referred to Biologists, allow me to mention that when a biologist of any knowledge speaks of "evolution" they are speaking of Microevolution. All serious scientists who are unbiased, either towards Christianity or towards Evolution, will tell you that Macroevolution is simply a physical impossibility. o rly? Heck, speciation has been observed many times in the wild and in laboratory settings. Furthermore, that comment about serious and unbiased scientists is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Instead of arguing against the evidence the scientists present for macroevolution, you are attacking their personal point of views and their work ethic. Anyway, back to the "evolution" debate. Evolution claims that mutations are the reason for the changes between species. This is impossible and erroneous, as mutations are rare and are always harmful, never helpful. A mutation I a loss in genetic information, not a gain. Survey sez...BZZZZZT! Populations of bacteria develop antibiotic resistance that ultimately arises as the result of mutations. This is a very well-documented problem that pharmaceutical companies struggle with. How exactly are those mutations "always harmful, never helpful" to the bacteria? Also, evolution has yet to produce a missing link between the species that is anything other than a hoax. (If you disagree with me, find a history text written from a conservative viewpoint rather than a flaming liberal viewpoint.) This smells like more circumstantial ad hominem to me. What does the political spectrum have to do with the fossil record? And why do you insist on a reference from a history text and not a biology text, considering that evolution belongs to the realm of biology? Besides, a whole slew of transitional fossils have been found. As for the Miller-Urey experiment, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of evolution. As I have stated, and as the talkorigins.org archive explains, evolution is the change in genetic makeup of populations over time. That's it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how life came to exist on earth in the first place. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Phantomrain"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." James 2:26 |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| When traveling from the local networks to Comedy Central I flip by the religious stations. Out of pure curiosity, I normally stop and watch for a few minutes.
These channels really only have three types of shows: they have acted out shows that reinact (or just inact if you prefer) the Bible or a religiously themed story, they have faith healers (they heal people [or atleast appear to] and ask for money from the veiwer, or just ask for money), and they have sermons. The sermons are normally trying to tell you how to better live your life, which with or without the God aspect generally makes sense (better than anything that comes out of the mouth of Dr. Phil), or they're debating the validility of different interpretations of the Bible, which I can understand, even if sometimes they're a little off base. However, what I see more and more often doesn't make any sense. They seem to be continually attacking scientific views, not because they conflict with the Bible, but from a logical standpoint. They are literally trying to prove through logic (albeit somewhat flawed most of the time) that they're idea of creationism and intelligent design makes more sense then evolution (not to say evolution and intelligent design must be mutually exclusive, but they tend to take issue with anything that conflicts with a literal interpetation of genesis). However, it strikes me that as soon as you begin to use logic to show why your religion is right, it ceases to be religion. That's the difference. There are many different scientific theories as to the creation of the species, and the formation of the universe, but what makes them scientific theories is that they are based on observation and logic, religious beliefs are based on faith. If you feel so threatened by the logic of scientific theories that you feel you must present logic to support your own beliefs, maybe the real issue is your own lack of faith. (edited by emcee on 12-02-05 10:18 PM) (edited by emcee on 12-02-05 10:19 PM) (edited by emcee on 12-02-05 10:19 PM) |
|||
|
cds113089 Newcomer Since: 11-18-05 From: Chicago Last post: 6731 days Last view: 6731 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rydain There's few creationists who haven't seen the TalkOrigins archive. But rather than answer Phantomrain's and Bookworm's points you've just complained that they are not defining "evolution" correctly. Whatever you want to define evolution as, Bookworm made several good points against uniformitarianism, a theory that evolution is impossible without. Uniformitarianism itself is not evolution, but it is crucial to the theory of evolution and a subject that is very relevant to any debate. Bookworm isn't making any strawmen here. Macro evolution is the hypothesis that was made popular most notably by Charles Darwin. It states that creatures can mutate for no known reason and become other creatures. For instance, that fish can mutate into amphibians or that apes can mutate into homosaipiens.
Yes...pretty much what the previous poster said, only he's defining the long-term results.
Rydain is building one of his own strawmen to burn. Speciation is an important part of the creation model as well. "Species" as defined by modern scientists are not the same as "kinds" defined in Genesis 1, when God said that each animal would produce after its own kind. There can be many different species in a "kind".
You're right, mutations don't always result in the loss of genetic information, but mutations cannot add genetic information either. In the case of the bacteria, mutations modified genetic information in a way that ended up being helpful to the bacteria.
See here.
No one ever said this debate was limited to the definition of evolution as defined by TalkOrigins.
This being finished, I have some serious problems with what Rydain has to say about the Catholic Church.
Actually, Catholics believe in confession more because it is quite liberating to confess sins to one another. The Bible also says we should confess our sins to one another. It is only mortal sins (such as murder, serious theft, blasphemy) that can threaten one's salvation.
Actually, think of it more like this way: Someone gave you a gift, and you damaged it. Since you can't afford to replace it, you must take it to get repaired. If you damage a gift too much, it's not going to work. No one in the Catholic Church is suggesting that it is possible to gain your way into heaven by works. This is a big strawman. As for James 2:26, it is not saying that works can get you salvation, but it is saying that without doing good deeds, how much faith do you really have? Not much.
No, the Bible does not say anything about purgatory, although 2 Maccabees (part of the Apocrypha which is considered scriptural by Catholics) is used as a supporting verse for this doctrine when people pray for the dead. Purgatory, as far as I know, has always been taught by the Catholic Church as far back as history can tell us. Catholics believe in the Bible completely, all 66 (73 for them) books. They just also believe in Tradition. Catholics believe that you cannot earn your way into heaven and that the only way to get to heaven is by the salvation Christ offered. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by cds113089If that's the interpretation you prefer, you're essentially stating that anyone with faith will perform good deeds anyway. So, by association, if you do not perform good deeds then you do not have faith. Which means that faith alone cannot get you into heaven, because it is not truly present at all without virtuous works to accompany it. In any case, I'm a practicing Catholic, and most priests I've known over the years - there have been a number, mind you - have emphasized the tenets of Christianity that promote good deeds over those that glorify Christ. By all means I worship Jesus and accept him as my guide and Savior, but His primary teaching was that one is to treat his fellow human with respect and love. How can you say that you worship a god without placing in high regard the teaching that he emphasized over all else? |
|||
|
jeff Double metal axe  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by cds113089 if there was no additional genetic information added through mutations, then molecular clocks wouldn't exist :p ..and wouldn't the same thing apply to dna fingerprinting? ...and there are virii(which aren't from mutations but still add genetic information, hehe)... anyways, there are mutations caused by transposable elements, or errors in replication of duplications that get duplicated.. but i don't know much about insertions. (but rydain seems more educated than me in the whole subject... whereas i have poor high school biology knowledge at my belt. whee ^___^) (edited by mcw on 12-02-05 06:56 PM) (edited by mcw on 12-02-05 06:56 PM) (edited by mcw on 12-02-05 07:15 PM) (edited by mcw on 12-02-05 07:18 PM) |
|||
|
Deleted User Banned    Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I don't see how catastrophism would negatively impact evolution, if anything, it would be a preferable view of the geologic record since isolation supposedly is one of the driving factors between natural selection and beneficial mutations. | |||
|
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| But rather than answer Phantomrain's and Bookworm's points you've just complained that they are not defining "evolution" correctly.
I didn't feel like writing an entire essay at 2:39 a.m. when I was about to go to sleep, especially when there exists a very comprehensive website of essays with responses to many of the claims in Bookworm's post. And I expect people to use the definition of evolution as given by biologists in a discussion on biological science. If they want to argue against some other concept, then they should define said concept instead of misusing established vocabulary. Furthermore, considering that you posted responses to some of my responses to Phantomrain's points, why are you saying that I've "just complained" and not provided any answers? Rydain is building one of his own strawmen to burn. Speciation is an important part of the creation model as well. "Species" as defined by modern scientists are not the same as "kinds" defined in Genesis 1, when God said that each animal would produce after its own kind. There can be many different species in a "kind". Actually, Phantomrain referred to macroevolution as creatures becoming other creatures. He never stated exactly what "becoming other creatures" was supposed to mean. Because we are speaking in the context of biology, and because macroevolution has a definition in that context, I used the definition of the term used by biologists. After all, speciation can be considered "becoming other creatures" because two different species have observable differences. I hardly see how using the official definition of a word constitutes burning a strawman. Now, if we're talking about evolution between kinds as opposed to speciation...we first have to define the term "kind". Do you feel that this page from Answers in Genesis presents an accurate summary of the concept? I did see the creation wiki link about transitional fossils. I don't have the time or expertise to go over everything there, but I can at least tell you that I'll read it. 
No one ever said this debate was limited to the definition of evolution as defined by TalkOrigins. Well, then they should say that they are debating the origin of life on earth rather than lumping it in with an unrelated field of science. Creationists oftentimes lump evolution, abiogenesis (the origin of life from nonliving matter), and Big Bang theory into one argument, but the three are separate issues. By the way, I didn't say anything at all about the Catholic Church in this thread. That was Phantomrain. |
|||
|
BPM Red Tektite Since: 11-30-05 From: Wyoming Last post: 6704 days Last view: 6704 days |
| ||
| Wow, that's alot to read.... Here, this is my last post in the topic.
Evolution. I believe in it for animals, but not for humans. |
|||
|
Deleted User Banned Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by BPM Would you like to explain how that works?  |
|||
|
jeff Double metal axe Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ThayerOriginally posted by BPM Originally posted by BPM that's why his post was pointless. anyways everyone knows it's true for humans... just it's probably *much* slower. i'm totally guessing this based on the rate of binary fission versus the rate of sexual reproducion(related to how often mutations occur and are "filtered out"). humans don't reproduce until their 20s/30s(sometimes older but that raises the chance of children with down syndrome by a lot supposedly)... whereas bacteria reproduce every few minutes, hehe. we've still got natural selection(genetic disorders like hemophilia and cystic fibrosis; also crime), tons of movement from place to place, not really any random mating, mutations of course(doesn't a part of the immune system rely on mutations?), and.. well, i suppose our population is small compared to other species; especially when compared to how many genetic combinations we can have. (edited by mcw on 12-03-05 12:09 AM) (edited by mcw on 12-03-05 02:47 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Compared to wolves and lots of other mammals (which we've pwnt, btw) we've got a fairly large gene-pool. | |||
|
jeff Double metal axe Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff well if you're in the state of arkansas..... |
|||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!  Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by mcwOriginally posted by Ziff Nonono, you mean West Virginia.
Also, Silvershield wins and gets the bowl berth. New Orleans Bowl suitable? cds113089: Catholics believe that you cannot earn your way into heaven and that the only way to get to heaven is by the salvation Christ offered. ...which is precisely what rankles me about fundamentalist Christianity, the belief that acceptance is all you need. But that's another topic for another thread. (edited by drjayphd on 12-03-05 03:20 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphdTo look to a cliche for an example, would anyone here suppose that a person from some distant, uncivilized part of the world is destined to burn for eternity just because he hasn't accepted Christ, even though he has no contact with Christianity (or any Western religion, for that matter)? To live a good life and treat one's neighbors with unconditional love is all that God asks of us, though to believe in Him makes that path infinitely easier. |
|||
|
Sin Dogan 860  Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6299 days |
| ||
| Well, I'm speaking for Islam here when I say that advancement in technology, sciences, etc. are crucial. One of the most stressed aspects of the religion is to be useful. And in order to do it, one must use their brain because it's believed to be the best gift God gave us. I'm not making connections using my own beliefs, this is a shared belief. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Do you believe that science goes against religion? |
| Thread closed |
