Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood Darn, not one question answered. I guess it was too much to hope for. I've asked the same questions of scientists and they never respond. I can only surmise that their position is so weak, it cannot withstand debate. What's the downside? I don't know about "religion". I only know about Christianity and I know quite a bit. Is it really that bad to follow Christianity? It's all good stuff in there from what I've read. I have to love and help everybody. I can't shoot or kill people. I can't steal from them.. can't go sleeping around etc etc. Even if it's nonsense, is it really that bad? BTW, one of our Elders at church is a Physicist and he has no struggles what-so-ever. He has been finding more of a lean toward creation over the years, than the other way around. Even my father, who is a science nut, concedes that "some supreme being had to start something".

Science just like religion require some personal belief. There's some facts, there's some theories, and either it is enough for you to accept it's argument or it isn't yet. It's a valid point to say it's not irrefutable, but I wouldn't knock it for still having some mysteries. After all religion is also full of mysteries.

The downsides of organized religion are the same as the downsides of every other organized groups. It's susceptible to corruption, manipulation and abuse, the more so the more powerful the cause in question is. The part I dislike the most is the indoctrination of youth before they are old enough to actually reason by themselves. Yes there is a chance they will adopt a different viewpoint, but in my opinion they have the right to make that choice and I think we owe it to them to let them chose their own life.

Is it bad to believe in religion just in case? I'd say no, but then again you don't have to accept the religious aspect of religion to believe and live with the moral aspect of it. Over here kids who didn't have classes on religion instead had classes on morals, which basically taught most of the same values but without the gospel.

About your father and your church elder; some people would say they already made their choice and choose religion over science long ago. Nothing wrong with it obviously and it's certainly far from being so simple, but that isn't the kind of persons whose opinion a hardcore atheist would take seriously. They're members of the opposite camp after all.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Originally Posted by dplax The problem with books like the Bible, the Quran, etc... is that they can be interpreted in many ways. At times it is possible to find a passage that can be interpreted for something and then to find another passage for the opposite.

Give me an example.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Yorick Nah mate, that's apples and oranges. I think Cerek's point is a fair one. EVOLUTION implies a superiority and upward momentum for more complex species. Survival of the fittest and all that.

No at all. There's a tendency towards complexity over time, a large extent due to niches being filled, but this is not the same thing as an deterministic move, a speeding train, towards complexity. There are demonstratically plenty of place for less complex organisms to survive as well. Finally, don't confuse complexity with superiority. Think bacteria.

Well if the fittest survive and evolve, why do the weaker ones not evolve? And why would humans evolve weaker babies? An ape baby is far more sturdy and independent than the fragile human one.

Human parents care for their young a very long time. This diminshes most of the problem with physically weak humans.

And how about the eye that needs all it's components to work?

Eye evolution has been researched alot. There's bound to be info out there.

I still have fundamental problems with new species mutations, when gene locks prevent us breeding even mule that reproduces (A mule is the result of a donkey and an ass), let alone having a tiger and dog breed.

What gene locks?

Evolution is small steps over time. An organism belonging to a new specie doesn't just appear boom-crash-bang, without anyone to breed with. If it did, it would be the last of its specie.

And what about regressive genes etc. Where deviations from the intended gene pattern reproduce at much lower rates. Dwarfs for example, reproduce at a much lower rate than normal humans. Everything about dna/genes etc seems to try and correct itself, rather than allow mutations to evolve.

DO dwarves have a lower fertility than non-dwarfs, or do they don't get laid as much? Besides, not all mutations are regressive or degenerative. Most are neutral.

Plus, no reproducible mutation has ever been recorded in human history. So it's all just theory.

What do you mean by reproducible mutation? Do you mean that scientists haven't been able to cause a mutation by their choosing?

I cannot believe that if humans keep jumping off cliffs, one day we'll develop wings. It defies logic, and yet that is what supposedly happened with ape's noses, backs (which can't support bipedalism) etc.

It doesn't defy logic, I just think you understand what the ToE actually says and claims. You might think you do, but you don't. The People evolving wings by jumping of a cliff-part shows this.

I'm not trying to deride you or anything, bro, but you simply don't understand the ToE.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by dplax Hey! I've already brought up that point! Stop stealing my ideas.

Hehehe, sorry. :p The thing is, I didn't read the whoe thread before posting. It had doubled in size since my last visit.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I thought it was common knowledge that the internal anatomy of a rat is closer to our own than anything else. That's why they use lab rats.
Where does that put the ape theory?

[dplax]

Well since I don't currently have any of the books readily available and it has been years since I read either of them (out of curiosity) I don't have an easily available example, but a pretty striking example would be that many Christian groups use the Bible as their holy book, yet they have different ideas (homosexuality for example). Or some people interpreting the Qu'ran as needing to blow themselves and a couple dozen people up and others living their lives in peace.

I know these aren't concrete examples, but I don't have much to work with here and since I am at work wouldn't want to stray too much among websites.

[dplax]

Variol: rats are cheaper and much more readily available in large numbers for testing purposes.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Luvian That's good points. It's hard to grasp how something could start as a cell and evolve into a complex creature like we have today. What would truly sate my curiosity is if scientists managed to take some cells and rapid grow them into something more evolved. Not cloning; really taking cells and just letting them grow into something new. Maybe it's been done already, I don't know. But I'd like to see it.

I think the era of single cell organism lasted for something like 1 billion years. You set an impossible standard if you expect scientist to be able to recreate this. Perhaps if you had knowledge on exacactly how and why single cell organisms "band together" to become multicellular, as well the the technical capability to recreate it.

In any case, that we fallable humans doens't have the know-how or time to do it does not mean in itself that it didn't happen. After all, life have been in existence for 3.5 billion years, and there have probably been billions upon billions upon billions of lifeforms linving during all those years. That is alot of potential for evolution.

[Luvian]

I entered "contradictions in the bible" in google and this website with the dramatic name came up. I don't know how serious it can be taken but it does site sources.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by dplax Well since I don't currently have any of the books readily available and it has been years since I read either of them (out of curiosity) I don't have an easily available example, but a pretty striking example would be that many Christian groups use the Bible as their holy book, yet they have different ideas (homosexuality for example). Or some people interpreting the Qu'ran as needing to blow themselves and a couple dozen people up and others living their lives in peace. I know these aren't concrete examples, but I don't have much to work with here and since I am at work wouldn't want to stray too much among websites.

People makes different interpretations of their holy books, and for different reasons.