Creation vs. Evolution: Comparing Apples to Orange Soda

#21

Faith is subjective; it cannot be proved or disproved.

Evolution is objective; and it is oh so close to being discounted completely...

Most do not believe evolution because of it's rationale, but rather because of the
implications of rejecting it..All that is left is faith, and who wants to be moral?

#22

My two favorite topics, god and earth. So whats the problem with god setting off evolution as his tool with full understanding of how things would turn out. If he needs to he can throw a giant rock at us every once in a while to get things back on track. If you dont believe in evolution than you must believe every thing existed here at the same time and some things slowly died off.Thats one crowded planet. An elephant survives becouse its the biggest thing around. To a t-rex an elephant is like a big marshmellow waiting to be eatin.The animals of today wouldn't have stood a chance back then. They would have been killed by predetors or out grazed by much bigger dinoes compeating for the same food. If you believe he created the animals step by step over time creating whole ecosystems that worked perfectly and changed them over time than that sounds a lot like evolution. I guess im agreeing with who ever said science tells us how and god is the one responsible for it all.

#23

Renders the concept of prayer as everyone knows it...useless.
He sets he wheels in motion and then he sat back, puts "away" as his message and the hamsters just run, and run.

#24

x3n.......Renders the concept of prayer as everyone knows it...useless

me...You got to explain that one. I dont get the conection between what ever way god created all things and prayer.

#25

There isn't a connection, that's my point. The claim that god made all things and he listens to prayer is purely subjective. Every rule that humans claim come from god is speculation. Prayer is useless because it's a 50-50 chance what you ask for (guidance, protection, revenge) will come to pass. If it doesn't "he acts in mysterious ways", if it does "he listens". Science gives us the closest thing we have to the process of life on earth. Humans bring up god the same way Chuck Norris enthusiast use his name to describe every natural process we have and how he has "influenced" each outcome.

#26

pretty much what i think,

PS: IMO we should use religion as the greeks did with their mythology use its poetical and symbolic turns to build yourself and learn to tolerate, share, help, etc

#27

The main thing behind all the controversy between religion and science, specially regarding evolution is the simple, plainly evident fact that even if we accept that god does exist, the sacred books are merely metaphors conveyed to send a moral/ethic message, they do not even try to descry literal facts of any kind even regarding something as recent in historic terms as the death of christ. If anyone could travel back in time to the first 1800 and tried to explain them the phisics behind television, they will take you as crazy simply because they lacked the concepts needed to understand it, if you travel even further, let's say around 1200 dc, and you tried to explain to any men/women that they've equal rights, you'll end burned as sacrilegious. If you went even further back, you'll find more and more things like that, the fact is that they're metaphors targeted towards a society at a given time and shortly after the message degenerates because people try to stick to the word rather to the spirit of it. Thus religion has nothing to say about science, like science has nothing to say about religion since they're on paralel planes that never interact except in the minds of some idiots.

#28

xen - fap;

both of you seem to have the "God as explanation/excuse" view of this.

let me offer another:

some of us, DON'T CARE.

I know there is that which exists which responds when I call upon the name of the Lord. I have positive and consistent validation, but even without that validation I was enthusiastic about the IDEA of being in contact with the source of the forces of Inner Nature and Higher Physics, Personified. I honestly always felt I would, by endeavor and assistance achieve the Mysteries of MYSELF.

Those findings i have are indistinguishable from what testimony is archived as contact with God and his Angels. all of my work is "experience, then study." ALL THE TIME.

I heard of the fall of Gabriel and the softening of his name to the Prophet of Allah from Semiel, he who is the Name of God, and keeps record of the doings of angels. This was before I ever studied anything of Islam. I heard the story of Jacob, from Phanuel, who wounded his thigh, "so he may ever walk as he is carrying the burden which he gives his sons, who are the fathers of the Tribes of Israel."

six year old kids in the bayous of louisiana don't hear that, typically.

nine year old kids do not hear the voice of Enoch, or "long Lobed lao" - the Chinese God with the funny ears.

I could care less what govt says, or religion. I could well be insane, but if so, then why does the archives of the collective voice of man exist in my dreams, and what else should i call its custodian, but Thoth, who calls himself TeBi MaTu Hat Shut, of "he who speaks truth with a feather".. and how could this come to me before it was discovered in the new translation of the papryii of ani.

I know this only, what I know of life is more consistent with "there is" than the denial that "there is not"... therefore, though I remain irreverant but respectful of the beliefs of others, I will always side with the possiblity that "there was, is, or will be"...

and by definition, "is, was, will be" is the meaning of the YHVH, four letter name of God, as well as the character for Tao, and even the Egyptian word "Xepher," who is the dung beetle droning in the sands sands of darkness as he rolls the sun toward the dawn horizon, so Ra may greet the day.

#29

QUOTEThe main thing behind all the controversy between religion and science, specially regarding evolution is the simple, plainly evident fact that even if we accept that god does exist, the sacred books are merely metaphors conveyed to send a moral/ethic message, they do not even try to descry literal facts of any kind even regarding something as recent in historic terms as the death of christ.

Are you serious? The Bible is filled with historical facts and there is plenty of evidence for it. Archaeological digs and studies have been done to prove that the Bible is accurate

#30

QUOTE(windlord @ Oct 17 2006, 10:19 AM) The main thing behind all the controversy between religion and science, specially regarding evolution is the simple, plainly evident fact that even if we accept that god does exist, the sacred books are merely metaphors conveyed to send a moral/ethic message, they do not even try to descry literal facts of any kind even regarding something as recent in historic terms as the death of christ.

I don't think you understand religion, if that is your stance... Religion discerns and informs people of the spiritual and cultural heritage bestowed upon them. many people were doing it for many different reasons. you seem to not really understand the authorship of the bible. don't have a logic error, just because one book is wrong, doesn't mean they all are.

but what of those other than Christianity. what of Taoism? What of the Kumulipo? or do you throw religion out with the bathwater of Christianity?

QUOTEIf you went even further back,e you'll find more and more things like that, the fact is that they're metaphors targeted towards a society at a given time and shortly after the message degenerates because people try to stick to the word rather to the spirit of it.

metaphors? not all metaphor is ignorance or idiocy. and not all religion is metaphor, and not all religions are book based. metaphor is a tool,.. Symbol is man's greatest tool, when precise.

QUOTEThus religion has nothing to say about science, like science has nothing to say about religion since they're on paralel planes that never interact except in the minds of some idiots.

you are surely just being silly.

huff puff science is solid,.. are you really that delusional? You speak of the quantum as definitive, and don't seem to understand that quantum science is perhaps the only greater hall dedicated to dispute and interpretation than the friggin Vatican! and to say nothing of "Idiots" like Thomas Kuhn, who barely get to play the reindeer games they call Science because he humanizes their endeavors, and exposes them to flaws as typical and beautiful as all other human essence.