| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 55906 | 2005-03-22 07:44:00 | Big thread, big topic --- EVOLUTION THEORY | Renmoo (66) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 336821 | 2005-03-24 03:01:00 | After all, there is nothing in science which absolutely forbids the possibility of a higher being. Science can answer "How" (to a fair extent - there are still many mysteries) but not "Why". Really? Evolution is a branch of Science, therefore your statement is wrong. Regards Veale |
Veale (536) | ||
| 336822 | 2005-03-24 03:29:00 | I must be having a blonde day because I don't get it: Really? Evolution is a branch of Science, therefore your statement is wrong. Regards Veale Evolution = Explains "How" protoplasm evolved to amoeba, thence to multi-celled creatures etc etc. But Evolution does not explain "Why" the proces began in the first place. Or indeed why we regard a rock as dead, but moss as alive. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 336823 | 2005-03-24 04:48:00 | Winston, Evolution relies on the fact that all species originated from a single "parent" that then mutated/evolved etc to develop new species (roughly speaking). The argument that God may have created the original "parent" that then evolved, gives rise to the possibility that both creationists and evolutionists are both correct. To believe in religion or "higher beings" however relies primarily on your belief in the Bible, which clearly states that "God created man in his own image". Then created animals, plants etc. If this is the case (that God created man) is it not fair to say that you cannot believe in God and Evolution? Therefore your statement "there is nothing in science which absolutely forbids the possibility of a higher being" is in fact false. I welcome your feedback Winston. Veale |
Veale (536) | ||
| 336824 | 2005-03-24 05:23:00 | To believe in religion or "higher beings" however relies primarily on your belief in the Bible, which clearly states that "God created man in his own image". Then created animals, plants etc. Heh? I can't discount there being a creator, though if one exsists there is no chance it will be anything like what apears in the christian fairy tales....... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 336825 | 2005-03-24 06:02:00 | There is a very good reason for the saying that "Politics and Religion should never be discussed at a dinner party." You forgot "money" Jen. That is the third one that I was always told could not be discussed, but coming from the sixties I do not pay much attention to those old rules even if it does cause trouble. I don't believe in Mickey Mouse so why would I believe in all the other twaddle conceptualised in books and elsewhere without evidence, and why should I suffer fools? |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 336826 | 2005-03-24 07:11:00 | But Evolution does not explain "Why" the proces began in the first place. There are attempts at explanations. These usually begin at the molecular level with the particular stability of organic precursor molecules based on carbon. Many of these molecules, including everything from basic alkanes such as methane to amino acids such as glycine, have been detected in interstellar space. Or indeed why we regard a rock as dead, but moss as alive. These is a definition of "alive". It lists criteria such as respiration, replication, etc. I think it includes even things like viruses and prions. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 336827 | 2005-03-24 07:18:00 | Science has a well defined procedure for "Proof". Religion has belief as "Proof". Never shall the twain meet. As always Terry, well-said. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 336828 | 2005-03-24 08:16:00 | Oops, looks like I had sparked up some flares as this thread goes along. Appologies to anyone who was offended by my words or sentences that might cause religion or beliefs conflicts. It is just that I am rather curious on the opinions of people who agree or disagree with evolution theory. I remember my dad used to tell me that "Often than not, the obstacle to science development is religion beliefs" and once Albert Einstein said that "Science without religion, is blind". Cheers and once again, sorry to those offended by me. | Renmoo (66) | ||
| 336829 | 2005-03-24 08:31:00 | Winston, "God created man in his own image". Then created animals, plants etc. If this is the case (that God created man) is it not fair to say that you cannot believe in God and Evolution? Therefore your statement "there is nothing in science which absolutely forbids the possibility of a higher being" is in fact false. Veale Fair enough. I view the early part of Genesis as an allegory. It was written for simple unsophisticated people. It is not meant to be read literally. Basically the early scholars wanted to get the concept of creation across, so they drew a picture with words. Similarly, scientists talk easily about Planck time and the events which followed the early beginning of the Universe. But Planck time is an incredibly tiny slice of time, and the events which followed were faster than the blink of an eye. Nevertheless, whole books can describe this blink of an eye, giving the untutored reader the impression that the Big Bang was a leisurely ordered affair. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the device of slowing it down, while literally misleading, still works very effectively to explain what happened. It isn't necessary to read "created in 7 days" literally. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 336830 | 2005-03-24 08:33:00 | Naughty boy James, now go to your bedroom :D | mister harbies (5607) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||