Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Maybe i'm not following as I don't see a connection between these examples and the context. I've seen a plane fly before so I know it is possible. There is no faith required in the fact that it can get off the ground, and that the people can get it off the ground. They have proven they can, and if I don't believe them they can show me. There may be a level of trust involved, such as the trust you place in the pilot being sober and the company who hired him being meticulous..? I, personally, wouldn't call a person with "flight-fear" illogical, but simply "fearful". Maybe, if it's a phobia I would possibly call them "irrational" since phobic feelings are usually chronic and insatable. Their fears, no matter what I think of them, would have some evidential merit based on the rare times a plane crashes with the results being catastrophic. In essence, I would understand it. Have I missed the point entirely here?

That is the same logic used by people of faith. I've seen God work tremendous Grace in my life as well as the life of others. So I know that it works. Therefore, I have faith - based on previous experience - that it will continue to work. I've also read examples of people trusting God enough to do things that seemed completely illogical at the moment, but afterwards, their actions made sense when they saw the results. One quick example is a man who was attending a revival meeting. While he was sitting in audience listening to the preacher, he suddenly got the urge to start doing push-ups in the aisle. The idea certainly didn't make sense to him, but he felt God was directing him to do it, so he obeyed out of faith. While he was doing push-ups, a man at the other end of his row went forward and accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. After the service was over, he came to the man and said "I didn't believe God was real when I came her tonight, but as I listened to the message tonight, I started having doubts. At the end of the service, I still didn't completely believe, so I decided to put God to the test. I prayed for the first time and asked God to prove He was real. I said "If you really exist, God, then have somebody start doing push-ups in the aisle".

The man that answered that prayer had no idea WHY he felt the Holy Spirit wanted him to do push-ups. But he trusted God enough to do what he was asked based purely on faith. Examples like this are what confirms faith for believers.

Getting back to the plane analogy...I know a plane can leave the ground, fly and return safely to the ground. I also know there are several times when the plane does not return to the ground safely and the results are usually fatal. So I have to trust the mechanics have done a thorough job and the pilot is sober. But since there have been plenty of incidents recorded where the mechanics had not done a thorough job and plenty of cases where the pilot and/or copilot had been drinking before getting in the cockpit, I also have to simply have faith that this isn't one of those times.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar That's the great thing about science... It doesn't care if you accept it. It just is

The same is true for God.

[Lavindathar]

Cerek, I'm not saying I fully believe relgion causes more deaths than say auto accidents, but I read an article stating in the history of the human race, relgious wars/murders have caused more death over the course of history than anythinge else. If we go abck as far as we remember, I can visualise this.

Remember the Holy Crusades? just an example of an early religious war, far before cars were around. And most modern day killer diseases hadn't even appeared yet. I bet the % of wars where religion is a factor, is very high maybe.

And Variol, like I said - if we can't understand something yet, just means we aren't clever enough yet. Doesnt mean it was God. Impo.

We'll work it all out one day.

In 2000 years, if a meteor the side of greenland hasnt wiped us out, the human scientists will look back at this era, and laugh at the fact we believed in an all creating God, when they have worked out every answer to every question every skeptic ever had.

But thats just the way I view it :p

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir This is possibly the 2nd biggest gripe I have with organised religion. If someone believes exactly what the rest of a group believes, I mean, down to a tee, it's because they've been told it - probably from a very young age, they've believed it, and they're going along with it. Whereas if someone doesn't conform to a group and just believes what they, personally, believe, then it's more likely what they have felt, experienced and come to by their own accord. I'm not saying that indoctrinated beliefs are any less valid than self-gained ones, but, I think that they, deep down, are less deep and personal. And as far as outlawing goes, Catholicism was outlawed in England for about 100 years, if you remember Also, Chewbacca, like Lav said, though he could've put it a bit nicer, if you don't like the thread, simply leave it to itself. It's not going to hunt you down

Man, this thread grows.

"Follow the crowd" maybe wasn't the best choice of words. What I meant is that many people are culturally "religious", for example celebrating Christmas even if they don't really believe the Nativity story.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood Well, I'm glad science has finally found the answer for us! I watch so many science documentaries about where we came from and how it all started and I discovered that the more I watch, the more the scientists themselves admit that the "holes" in their theories seem to get ever bigger. Please, tell me how they finally figured out at what point lifelessness became life. Please, tell how an explosion started? Where did it come from? Please tell me then, how these tiny particles formed the planets etc. when there is no gravity in space to pull anything together? Would these tiny particles not continue on their own path, never merging with anything else, until they hit a proverbial end? Oh, I'm so excited and have so many questions.. It takes a minimum of 125 proteins to form one cell and they don't even know where just 1 protein came from the last time I checked. Please, tell me the answer. Oh, and please, finally answer the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? If there is a link you could give me to all these answers I will use that. But please, not links with more "theories". Thanks!

In science you don't get answers like that. Life isn't so simple. You'll have to look on the world, collect data and then draw conclusions about how things work. We're not handed the answer key to the universe. As such, we'll probably wont be able to get definite answers to things, but we can be fairly certain. We can, for example, not be 100% sure that gravity exist, but given what we do know it would be insane to deny it.

ETA: One must also seperate between the origins of the universe and the origins of life. Two completely different things. In science different theories are used for these different questions. I think many religious people confuse the two since the the Biblical creation story attempts to answer both (and more).

The Big Bang/origins of the universe - Cosmology
Origins of life - Biochemistry
Evolution - Biology, paleontology etc.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Yorick Not all. Many in the Roman Catholic Church teach that God used evolution to create us. If I recall correctly it may even be the official position of the church. In Christianity you have literalists, who believe the Genesis story happened exactly as written, and others who take it as symbolic or sequencial: Let there be light = big bang, planet forming, plants, animals then humans etc etc. I take a literalist perspective, as I see no reason why not. If tomorrow evolution theory knocked me over the head with irrefutable proof, I could quite easily switch to a symbolist theology, as it doesn't really make much of a difference. I believe God created us either way, but science helps explain how. I just accept the theories of creation scientists over evolution scientists (yes, creation science is an extra-biblical set of theories based on science, not just Genesis...) I have too much doubt in evolution, so by default choose literal creationism, but plenty of Christians and Jews are evolutionist-creationists.

Well, as I said in an earlier post you'll never find irrefutable proof of anything in science. Instead, you'll simply have to look on the evidence and then draw your conclusions based on that. In other words, which explanation best fits the data and observations in front of me.

In the end, I don't think the Creationism vs. Evolution is about science at all. If it were, it would have been settled in a science way. Most of the science arguments against ToE, IMO, tend to fold pretty easily. Instead, the arguments tend to be theological or ethical. "If we've evolved, where doeas morality come from", "Does evolution mean that the Fall of Man isn't real? No sins? But Jesus died for our sins" and so on.

[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.

Here's another one:
Amino acids forming complex proteins are the basic building block of life. So, if they existed then, and we know they still exist now, why don't we see ourselves in every stage of evolution?
How can they say we evolved from apes? Where did apes come from?

It's too easy to say "we havn't figured it out yet". They havn't figured anything out yet!! It's all theory. I can do that.

Ok, totally different question, (but anyone is free to answer the others).

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?

When you read the scriptures with an open mind, you really begin to realize that this was not just written for something to do, or to convince you of a lie.

I think of the woman who had been "bleeding" for 12 years (MAR 5:25-34). She thought, if she could just touch Christs' robe, she would be healed, and was! And Christ said to her "your faith has healed you".

Why didn't he say, I have healed you, or God has healed you, now follow me/my commandments? He only said to her "Go in peace and be freed from your suffering". I don't feel that anyone who was trying to convince me of a lie, would have said that.

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".

[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.

Edit: so basically at times, what it boils down to is what you want it to be (or worse, what others want it to be...)

[Stratos]

Hi, Cerek!

Originally Posted by Cerek The most obvious question is, if humans evolved from apes (or a similar animal), then why do we still have apes? This is not a straw-man argument. The founding core for any type of evolution within a species is that the evolved form is better equipped to survive and the non-evolved forms eventually die out due to their lack of adaptability. If this true, then the apes should have died off a long time ago after the evolved human form developed. That hasn't happened.

A few points that will clarify things.

1. Technically, humans are apes, so the point is pretty moot from the beginning. Apes is just a term that is used for a certain group of animals.

2. To use an analogy, your argument is akin to saying "If my anscestors were Polish, how come there are still Polish people around?" If you understand the problem of this argument, you'll understand the problem in your own.

3. There are no "non-evolved" forms. When one specie splits of another it doesn't automatically means the the original will die out. Take human and chimpanzees for example. Human didn't evovle from chimpanzees; we share a common ancestor. This ancestor "split" and humans and chimps evolved along different lines.

Second, while there is significant evidence for evolution within, there is little to no evidence of evolution between different species. The only example that comes close is the belief that modern day birds "evolved" from the dinosaurs. This is based on the existence of extraneous bones found in many dinosaurs that scientists believe eventually evolved into wings due to the similarity in their shape. That still doesn't answer how archeopterax(sp?) and other early birds suddenly developed a feathered body instead of regular skin. Believing that certain bones began to extend and develop into wings is one thing. Completely changing their body composition is another thing entirely.

I'm sure there are plenty of evidence here. I'll dig something up when I have time.

Finally, despite the similarities between apes and humans (and the fact that the supposedly "inferior" forms still exist in plentiful numbers), the other problem with evolution is the missing link. Scientists admit they still have not discovered the final link in the evolutionary change between ape to man. Until the chain is completed, the evidence is incomplete.

The "missing link" is an old idea that isn't really valid anymore. Technically, all organism that reproduces are links. The letter B is the link between A and C.

As for the inferior part, "inferior" forms tend to die out. Inferiority, and superiority, are very context-based terms in evolution. What matters is the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. One could argue that bacteria are superior to humans as they've been around longer than us and will be here when we are gone. On the other hand, humans can be regarded superior to bacteria when facing intellectual problems.

[dplax]

Originally Posted by Stratos One could argue that bacteria are superior to humans as they've been around longer than us and will be here when we are gone.

Hey! I've already brought up that point! Stop stealing my ideas.