<p>Narcissa, I believe you read my previous post...where I explained what I mean by Theory of evolution and such. </p>
<p>esmitty01: you are exactly right. moreover, are we not doing math using the Arabic numerals GoldShadow...which you definitely not think some thing coming from the most uneducated people in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My view on religion is that God was created by humans to control them. Think about one of the first religious civilizations we know of- the Egyptians. If you didn't do what the God-King said, you would suffer eternally after death; you'd behave for that consequence, wouldn't you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of ridiculous proposal is this?</p>
<p>We don't live in a society in which people must believe in order to survive (at least not in this country). Religious people believe what they do because they choose to trust unconditionally that something they hold sacred is just that. </p>
<p>This whole argument comes down to faith. Religious people, in this case creationists, choose to ignore the "logic" behind science because it is contrary to what they hold as the purest truth. Scientific people choose to open their minds to new ideas rather than sticking to a certain belief. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It goes wrong when one group tries to impose beliefs on the other.</p>
<p>EMPHASIS on theory </p>
<p>I can choose which theories I believe in and which I do not (they haven't been proven after all). Anyways, I was not saying that I did or did not believe in the big bang. I just want someone to answer my question, which im going to make a point out of.</p>
<p>the world used to be flat...then it decided to be round. Science is perfect.</p>
<p>you'd behave for that consequence, wouldn't you?
no not if i didnt believe in it.</p>
<p>Science FACTS are perfect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you'd behave for that consequence, wouldn't you?
no not if i didnt believe in it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dont get what you are talking about or who you are referring to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because as a whole, muslims are some of the most uneducated people in the world
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow. I didn't think there could be such an ignorant/uneducated bunch on CC, but tis true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You believe science is the truth (at least what is implied by your post). BUT, how do you NOT know that Theology/Philosophy is NOT the truth? It will be vice versa for some one who completely believes in philosophy. Now, there can definitely be people who believes in a blend...although an exact 50% blend is very rare, and very unlikely to help you decide to say one side is the truth.
[/quote]
See, nobody can ever disprove that God and Theology exists. at least for now (though i doubt anyone ever will). However, that's where religion differs from science--nothing that is not scientifically proven is written into science textbooks and accepted as scientific fact and theory. nobody can ever say that God doesn't exist, but nothing really says that God exists either besides circumstantial evidence. But that doesn't mean believing in God is wrong, I just personally don't find that religion and I mesh well. The only problem scientists have with religion is when religious people try to incorporate religion into the science classroom and call it "science".</p>
<p>
[quote]
This whole argument comes down to faith. Religious people, in this case creationists, choose to ignore the "logic" behind science because it is contrary to what they hold as the purest truth. Scientific people choose to open their minds to new ideas rather than sticking to a certain belief. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It goes wrong when one group tries to impose beliefs on the other.
[/quote]
and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't personally have something that I believe in as strongly as you do, so I can't really judge you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can choose which theories I believe in and which I do not (they haven't been proven after all).
[/quote]
Um, Evolution has pretty much been proven. It's about as true as:</p>
<p>-gravity
-electricity
-kinetic theory (when molecules move faster it gets hotter)</p>
<p>etc.</p>
<p>The whole point of science is for there to be things we do not know, and are actively seeking to know. Sure, we don't completely understand the Big Bang theory. Trust me, many of the questions and doubts you have about the Big Bang are solvable by mathematical models that some famous scientist has on his computer. Most of it is able to be calculated and represented by computers but cannot be imagined by the human mind because we are, after all, limited in many areas (for example we can't see in the 4th and 5th dimension, but they are very physics-ly real (proven with math and physics models). and saying they aren't, just because we can't see them, is ignorant.) Which is also why we shouldn't dismiss everything BUT we should stick to logic and reason before we accept stuff as "scientific reality"</p>
<p>I think we shouldn't define religions with education. Maybe regions instead? Many of the regions Islam dominates (Africa for example) do not have access to Education at all, meaning they do not have the option.</p>
<p>Evolution definitely is NOT a theory on the same level as those physics concepts. You can't prove evolution with something as perfect as MATH for example. You can try and prove evolution with imperfect concepts but there is a reason that it is still a theory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See, nobody can ever disprove that God and Theology exists. at least for now (though i doubt anyone ever will). However, that's where religion differs from science--nothing that is not scientifically proven is written into science textbooks and accepted as scientific fact and theory. nobody can ever say that God doesn't exist, but nothing really says that God exists either besides circumstantial evidence. But that doesn't mean believing in God is wrong, I just personally don't find that religion and I mesh well. The only problem scientists have with religion is when religious people try to incorporate religion into the science classroom and call it "science".
[/quote]
thanks for ur honest, and reasonable response. </p>
<p>u said God can not be proved besides circumstancial evidences....I think you can put that into a data sheet and bring out more "proven techniques" (my statement is not suggesting that it could or could not be done)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can try and prove evolution with imperfect concepts but there is a reason that it is still a theory.
[/quote]
You can prove evolution through inference (we found a 1,000,000 years old fossil that looks like a human but has ape-like characteristics, that probably means it evolved from an ape and evolves into a human). inference is no less valuable in proofs btw.</p>
<p>Btw there is nothing above "theory" in the scientific chain of how true something is. It goes hypothesis -> theory. A theory can never be a fact, no mattrer what. Gravity will never be a fact despite the fact that i hope we all agree gravity exists =O</p>
<p>
[quote]
we found a 1,000,000 years old fossil that looks like a human but has ape-like characteristics, that probably means it evolved from an ape and evolves into a human
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you ready to provide a source?</p>
<p>yeah sure there are lots of 'em. </p>
<p>lucy</p>
<p>that was bad inference btw. because it has ape-like characteristics..yet looks like a human....so, it evolved into a human? I didn't get it.</p>
<p>Woops, I imagined there being more 0s in your number. Sorry.</p>
<p>But inference IS less valuable than a proof.</p>
<p>We don't infer that 1+1=2. WE can actually PROVE it. You don't see religious people and others arguing over THAT because it's been proven and in no way is it possible to refute it. Inferences are less valuable than proofs. I can see blood on the ground and a dead man lying next to it. I can INFER that the blood is from the dead man, but the thing is that the blood may be from the person the man was fighting, and in fact none of the dead man's blood was split. THAT is inference, proof is looking at the DNA and comparing it with the old man's to show that it IS in fact the old man's blood.</p>
<p>That makes sense. I believe u like theoretical mathematics!:)</p>
<p>Haha i dont know. If you believe in natural selection (which i don't get why anyone wouldn't, considering we have LOTS of evidence of that--bacteria, bugs, etc) then it's safe to assume that:</p>
<p>------------------ (ground)</p>
<h2>fossil #1 - has 99% of human genes, 1% of ape genes</h2>
<h2>fossil #2 - has 97% human genes</h2>
<h1>3 - 90%</h1>
<hr>
<p>...
ape </p>
<p>etc. wouldn't you think that the ape evolved -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> humans?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We don't infer that 1+1=2. WE can actually PROVE it.
[/quote]
lmao. that's funny, because that's like the worse example you could pick =) no, we don't PROVE that 1+1=2...we DEFINE that 1+1=2. haha but i get your point.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Yes, there are many things that are unknown about evolution. But if we were to apply "beyond a considerable doubt" then it should be true. If we examine that guy's DNA, couldn't somebody argue that, well, the DNA could've been degraded cuz it was under, say, the sun for so long? And couldn't that somebody also argue that that DNA was degraded from the victim's DNA to someone else's DNA...possible, yes, but likely? Not really. Explain why a creator would create a snake that has small hind legs? Explain why a creator would create humans with a tailbone when we obviously don't have a tail? And numerous other examples.</p>
<p>I'm so tempted to pull out my philosophy textbook.</p>