<p>I believe in science, evolution, and the power of research.</p>
<p>I also believe in some type of God.</p>
<p>I don't see why the two can't coexist.</p>
<p>Some would argue that it is not whether science and God can coexist in some aspects, but that God made the world, and subsequently, made people, who happened to study science, which is something that God made happen.</p>
<p>Maybe, just an opinion</p>
<p>You can be curious about life and ask too many questions and still believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior. I am saved by Him and I pray that everyone on earth finds Jesus before they pass on.</p>
<p>However, research and science will never prove or disprove a God. God is everywhere and all knowing. We cannot try to understand Him, for it is impossible.</p>
<p>i believe in the college board</p>
<p>Harry, I concur.</p>
<p>Wow i'm surprised at how many christians there are here. I'm an atheist, but I've spent some time studying a number of religions. However, none have convinced me of the existence of a "god." Personally, I am intrigued by the philosophies/morals taught in the Bible, but I find all the b/s in the Bible far more humorous. God created Adam and Eve eh? Even when science proves the evolution of the human race through millions of years, the bible claims that God created the human race in a matter of minutes. God turned some girl into a pillar of salt? Couldn't they take out all the nonsense and just keep what important ideas that the Bible teach? How many of you really believe that Moses was able to make a path through a river with the flick of his stick. That completely defies all logic, and you know it. I can't say whether or not God exists, but I will say that no book could possibly describe accurately events that occured thousands of years ago. Furthermore, what make the Christian religion more "correct" than others? Religion was created as a source of guidance, yet some people are so blinded what they are told that every time good fortune befalls them, they claim it is the work of God. Religion is like a drug (without the side-effects). It blinds you from what is right. It replaces your logic with BELIEF.</p>
<p>Edit: Feel free to disagree with me, I enjoy a good debate. Btw, the DaVinci Code is a good book as is Angels and Demons--another book written by Dan Brown.</p>
<p>Lol....i find it hilarious that people actually believe that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed during the same time period...absolutely ridiculous</p>
<p>LOL!!!I believe in God, read my posts!!! Seriously!
DaVinci code books is definately b/s, c'mon? I suppose you believe in Nostradamus predictions.....</p>
<p>I'm Christian, and the DaVinci Code is my favorite book.</p>
<p>And evolution does not interfere with the Bible, it only provides an interesting look on it.</p>
<p>Both "Angels and Demons" and "The DaVinci Code" are good books if you are reading it as a work of fiction. However, if you're looking for a non-fictional book, don't read those two books While they do contain some historically accurate facts, many other things have been twisted around/changed to suit the plot.</p>
<p>The Bible has definite evidence of past biblical cities, that have been found by archeologists....but where did you get that pillar of salt thing?
"nothing is impossible to God" (Luke 1:37)</p>
<p>Religion is definately not a joke; if it weren't for religion, the world would be in complete chaos...evolution is definately not possible, or is it?
I think I said it before, but you can't decipher God, trying to put him into a 4-dimensional framework is useless....
The idea of God not being real has crossed my mind only once, but I later realized how foolish I was, if it weren't for God, I would be a complete failure, I would live to the stereotypical Mexican....which I don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Bible has definite evidence of past biblical cities, that have been found by archeologists....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lengthy passages of harry potter are set in london, a real city. that is not evidence that the story itself is real.</p>
<p>
[quote]
where did you get that pillar of salt thing?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>unless i'm mistaken it's in the story of sodom and gomorrah. god was going to destroy one of the cities because the people there were sinning, but he warned the virtuous people beforehand so that they could escape. he instructed them to leave without looking back. one of them (lot's wife, i believe) was caught up in the emotion of leaving everything behind and accidentally looked back over her shoulder, and was turned into a pillar of salt. i may remember the details incorrectly, but that's the main story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if it weren't for religion, the world would be in complete chaos...evolution is definately not possible, or is it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>empty assertions.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>people can have morals/ethics without being religious. i'm atheist, and though i don't consider myself a 'moral' person i do have a strong sense of ethics.</p></li>
<li><p>there is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. i think i mentioned it earlier in this thread, but "the blind watchmaker" by richard dawkins explains it in greater detail than i can here. definitely read it if you're interested.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>taoism is the way for me!</p>
<p>mainly, im not a very strong christian because ive gone to catholic schools my entire life (somewhat ironic, no?). the way they force the religion down your throat has made that whole deal waaaayy unappealing. i know that isnt the case for all catholic schools, but it wasnt a big help in my case. religion has done some great things for the world, but it has done a few of the worst as well.</p>
<p>Couldn't they take out all the nonsense and just keep what important ideas that the Bible teach?</p>
<p>well, when you look at the Bible as it is meant to be seen, in the context of the time it was writen in as well as to whom, you see that very little of the bible is meant to be taken literally. You're perfectly right, the ideas presented are the most important things, not whether or not there actually was a person called Noah who built an ark...</p>
<p>if it weren't for religion, the world would be in complete chaos</p>
<p>... and as for that comment - please tell me you're joking. If you're thinking that religion provides a moral framework for society and such, then you need to consider that thisyearsgirl is right - God does not (and cannot) define morality. Read Plato's Euthyphro if you're not completely convinced.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lengthy passages of harry potter are set in london, a real city. that is not evidence that the story itself is real
[/quote]
I found this to be very stupid, Ancient cities have been found, and evidence is present...confirmed by archeologists. You can't compare Harry Potter to a religion...honestly.</p>
<p>Evidence for evolution is bs:
Let me repost a 'post', cuz I'm too lazy to rethink...
Even though scientists were harping on about there being a link between invertebrates and fish, no transitional evidence has really ever been found. You know this, I know this, but obviously the only way to make scientists understand this is by throwing bricks at them.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that invertebrates and fish have different structural differences. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps, so there should be a wide array of transitional fossils to back this up. But, the custard pie truth is, there isn't.</p>
<p>Scientists hypothecised that some fish needed to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems, which quite frankly, moistens my gussets with laughter. The main reasons for this being impossible are thus:</p>
<p>Weight</p>
<p>Sea dwelling creatures have no problem in carrying their own weight. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume, say, thirty-forty % of their energy just lugging their bodies around. Creatures making their transition from water to land would have had to suddenly develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet the required energy need at the same time, which is impossible to have been formed by chance mutations, unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.</p>
<p>Heat Retention</p>
<p>We all know that on land, temperature fluctuates, however, remember that land dwelling creatures have a bodily mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes without them suddenly self combusting and blowing up in everyone's face. In the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change doesn't occur within such a wide range. A living organism that has a body system regulated in accordance to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protection system to ensure minimum harm from the temp changes on land. So it's kind of proposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations (which aren't spurred by any suspect catalyst) as soon as they stepped onto land.</p>
<p>Use of water</p>
<p>Yes that's right: water, H20, sea-blood. This is essential to metabolism. Water and even moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarcity of water on land. Eg, an organism's skin has to be designed to permit losing water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Therefore, the land-dwelling creatures will have a sense of thirst, something which sea dwelling organisms don't have. One has to remember that sea-dwelling animals don't have skin which is suitable for a non-aquatic habitat... well... unless you're a little mermaid.</p>
<p>Kidneys</p>
<p>Sea dwelling organisms can easily discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, in their bodies by filtering them through gills, and since there is plenty of water in their habitat they're a-okay. On land though, water has to be used economically. This is why living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the almighty kidney, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea, meaning minimum amount of water is used during excretion. In addition to this, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. That means that in order for the passage from water to land to have occured, living things without a kidney would have had to suddenly develop a kidney system. LOL.</p>
<p>Respiratory System</p>
<p>Fish breathe by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they frantically pass through their gills, so they cannot live for more than a couple of minutes out of water. In order to live on land, they'd have to acquire a perfect damm system too.</p>
<p>Now you can see why it's impossible that all these dramatic psysiological developments could have happened in the same organism at the same time and by chance!</p>
<p>Have you read The Descent of Man?</p>
<p>Darwin is also a ****ing racist as explained thus:</p>
<p>" The break between man in a more civilised stat, as we may hope, even than the Caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla."</p>
<p>Apparently, social darwinism proposes that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Not only were his ideas theorised and not fact, but they also provided an important scientific platform for racism. So, a black man is actually more closer to a gorilla than a whitey. Hear that homie?</p>
<p>Just another nail in the coffin of evolution: Since evolution says that species gradually evolve, this means that there are organic links that denote a specific geneology. For example, when a dog breeder wants to develop a specific canine breed, he will keep on mating and mixing various dog breeds until the desired specifications are met. So in between the original dog and the "new" dog, there are about (usually) 70 generations, each one slightly different than the last, you can actually see the new breed evolving before your very eyes.</p>
<p>With evolution, it is the same, if specific species evolved out of others, then there should be a **** load of "in-between" fossils all over the place that show the step-by-step evolution of that species. These are called "inter-mediary" fossils. For every fully formed species, there should be millions of quarter-formed, half-formed and three quarters-formed species. The only problem is, they are NOT being found, even though they should FAR outnumber the number of fully-formed fossils. You might have heard of this little problem for evolutionary theory, it's better known as the "missing link" problem.</p>
<p>Just one more thing: towards the end of his life, Charles Darwin himself had grave misgivings about the theory he developed, he often couldn't sleep trying to explain how the eye, an organ that converts photons into electrical impulses that constitute images in our brain, evolved. He wondered, how does an organism know it needs an eye, how does it know how it will work and how will it survive in the meantime without a fully formed eye. He also worried a lot about reproductive systems: since reproductive systems also had to evolve, how did a half-developed reproductive system function? Did the organism have a back-up reproductive system? Who supervised the construction of this system?</p>
<p>Don't believe everything you are taught, the truth is much more complex and profound than you may think................</p>
<p>
[quote]
I found this to be very stupid, Ancient cities have been found, and evidence is present...confirmed by archeologists. You can't compare Harry Potter to a religion...honestly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>why not? tell me what physical evidence there is for christianity--for the existence of a god--that hasn't been debunked.</p>
<p>of course there is going to be evidence for people living in the ancient cities you describe. but show me one piece of evidence that the 'miracles' of the bible aren't just a convenient fiction. there is just as much proof for that as for wizards in london.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't believe everything you are taught
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's interesting, considering that the only reason religion still persists is that it's passed down from parents to their children who don't have the strength or presence of mind to question what they're taught.</p>
<p>i'd love to debate further, but my final exams start in less than nine hours and i figure i should get some sleep before then.</p>
<p>I think it's foolish to think that everything we have today just happened without some unfathomable power to thank for it. The deeper you look into science, the more you realize that it's currently a few pieces of an infinitely big puzzle. NOTHING makes sense without succumbing to the idea that there are things that we could never possibly understand on our own, because we can't see or feel what is beyond our existence. So yes, I believe in God. I surrender to his will. Surrender to His will. Whatever. I don't fully subscribe to any particular religion, though, but I'm not arrogant enough to say, "Phooey! If I can't see it, then I don't believe it." If anything, the belief in God gives human beings someone to look up to and say, "Hey, thanks for life and all the trees and animals and such. It's pretty great! You rule!" But you think about it and God couldn't have just sprung from nothingness. How was God created? And then God just becomes a term for the power that made something out of nothing, and also made the nothing so that the something could spring from it.</p>
<p>Please, for the love of God, nobody debate thesloc! I tried it already (a few pages back I believe), and not only will it seriously detract from the thread, but it will not accomplish anything! Nobody will get this guy to listen to reason. Case in point: I responded fully and in detail to the exact points he just brought up, and he's still parading them around like they have a prayer or being either true or relevant. He'll also throw way too many BS arguments at you for you to respond to--if you google Duane Gish, his strategy is basically the same. Keep throwing **** at the wall and see if anything sticks (it won't, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to clean it all up without writing a goddamn book). This kid somehow finds a way to write a ton about nothing. Seriously, just ignore anything he says about evolution.</p>
<p>haha yeah, sorry thesloc, but all that creationist propoganda trying to debunk science is just ridiculous and couldn't stand up to the slightest bit of criticism.</p>
<p>However, to aim78, it isn't arrogance to not believe in God, and nor is it stupidity to believe completely in a deity. No one can prove or disprove the existance of God, so the argument is pointless. It is entirely possible there is no such thing as the human concept of "God", so its not foolish to think that the world (indeed, the universe) as we know it occurred completely without the influence of an all-powerful being.</p>