NationStates Jolt Archive

This is pointless...

Honestly, each side is never going to come to an agreement. You are just going to keep slinging fecal matter until your too old and frail to punch the sequence of keys that continue to form the dribble of words you assume will make the other side suddenly see the light.

Trust me, been there, done that. This goes for both sides.

Don't those of faith have better things to do then try to tear apart the arguments of scientists who continually invent new medicines to cure the sick? The same scientists who dedicate their entire lives to improving the human condition? Why do you fight so desperately against those who perform the miracles of God through science? Why do you continue to feed pointless arguments that can only esculate into hatred and anger?

You of logic and reasoning, intelligence and education, why do you continue to stir things up with people who are perfectly happy exploring spirituality instead of fact and theory? Shouldn't you be concentrating on expanding your mental horizons? Try a new field of science if your that bored, or if your looking for a good debate, try some of the more scientific internet communities. You can contribute to great debates that have actually influenced science and in doing so, the future of humanity. Don't get stuck here, debating pointlessly, put your mind to good use!

I admit, I get pissed off when I hear about some creationalist trying to get Intelligent Design as a science, keep that stuff for history or literature. Anything not developed using the scientific method IS NOT science. End of debate.

Some people are perfectly happy spending their days in church, worshipping and doing great works of god.

Others are intent in expanding the capabilities of the human race, as god intended. Men and women of science, will we not, one day, view the great wonders of the stars? Or look into the eyes of a sentient intelligent being?

Some would think it ironic that those who so hate science will never see all the wonders of this universe that God created for that very reason.

BTW, I'm a agnostic humanist, although I'm starting to think my life would be very fulfilling if I spent it telling both sides of this debate to SHUT THE HELL UP.

Sincerely, Jinkguns
Supreme Commander
Socialist States of Nikoko

Fine fine. Although I don't believe science necessarily has to act as an antagonist to religion.

I don't either, which is why I'm hoping rational minds will make themeselves known in this thread. :D

This is pointless...

Honestly, each side is never going to come to an agreement. You are just going to keep slinging fecal matter until your too old and frail to punch the sequence of keys that continue to form the dribble of words you assume will make the other side suddenly see the light.

Trust me, been there, done that. This goes for both sides.

Don't those of faith have better things to do then try to tear apart the arguments of scientists who continually invent new medicines to cure the sick? The same scientists who dedicate their entire lives to improving the human condition? Why do you fight so desperately against those who perform the miracles of God through science? Why do you continue to feed pointless arguments that can only esculate into hatred and anger?

You of logic and reasoning, intelligence and education, why do you continue to stir things up with people who are perfectly happy exploring spirituality instead of fact and theory? Shouldn't you be concentrating on expanding your mental horizons? Try a new field of science if your that bored, or if your looking for a good debate, try some of the more scientific internet communities. You can contribute to great debates that have actually influenced science and in doing so, the future of humanity. Don't get stuck here, debating pointlessly, put your mind to good use!

I admit, I get pissed off when I hear about some creationalist trying to get Intelligent Design as a science, keep that stuff for history or literature. Anything not developed using the scientific method IS NOT science. End of debate.

Some people are perfectly happy spending their days in church, worshipping and doing great works of god.

Others are intent in expanding the capabilities of the human race, as god intended. Men and women of science, will we not, one day, view the great wonders of the stars? Or look into the eyes of a sentient intelligent being?

Some would think it ironic that those who so hate science will never see all the wonders of this universe that God created for that very reason.

BTW, I'm a agnostic humanist, although I'm starting to think my life would be very fulfilling if I spent it telling both sides of this debate to SHUT THE HELL UP.

Sincerely, Jinkguns
Supreme Commander
Socialist States of Nikoko

Science and religion have not always been at odds in society. There have been times that the two got along quite well espically is the early years of Isalm. But don't forget science without the moral restraints of religion can bring disasters.

I don't either, which is why I'm hoping rational minds will make themeselves known in this thread. :D

Same...but it may erupt into a flame war. Only time will tell ^_^.

I really don't side with either science or religion. I go for philosophy myself.

I really don't side with either science or religion. I go for philosophy myself.
Philosophy is fun . . . :)

Now that IS an interesting issue to raise, is Science without morality dangerous? Certainly, but does that morality nessacarily have to originate from a religious source? Some would argue morality would arise from our evolutionary need of cooperation, the same cooperation that gives our species an advantage. We work together at a level unheard of in the animal kingdom, thousands of workers are involved in the construction of a space vehicle, for example.

I write alot of science fiction, I concentrate on Genetic Engineering and Bio-Synthesis (Creating living organisms from inert matter. Say, modeling a biological being on a computer, then creating it out of stock DNA acids.) For example, I created a race of sentient beings, the Nikoko, of which I base my Nation State name. A feline like human race, with stripes and feline like eyes, unusual hair and eye colors being the only distinguishing feature.

They have slightly increased strength and speed, while humanity has greater stamina. Some of my works forcus on how the two sentient races co-exist and clash, ultimately humanity and the nikoko become companions as they explore lonely space.

Would such a thing be wrong? To create new life, different from ourselves, capable of love and emotions, passion and arts, to treat as equal companions?

Personally I believe that humanity should spread life to other planets and star systems, terra forming planets, constructing new eco-systems. We are lonely, it's why some of us reach out to embrace god, and others, in the comforting knowledge of science.

Life, reaches out for life.

So, if we create new life, is that a crime? If we, cautiously and responsibility begin to unravel the secrets of life?

Who is to say it is not as god intended? Would we not be spreading the good word? Love? Hope? Are we to be selfish, to hord the gifts god has bestowed upon us?

This I ask, what is your answer?

I think discussion is important far the advancement of the human condition, it is best conducted emontionlessly. Fair minded people can share opinions without insulting one another, don't you think. This is one of my favorite quotes from the Baha'i Faith.


Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

-snip-
I do believe that there does have to be some sort of ethics or morality to science - you highlighted GE, so I will present my concerns over it.

When GE becomes possible for humans, I have deep concerns over the abuse of Genetic Engineering - for all we know, the government could be creating an army of 'super soldiers' (similar to the Clone Troopers of Episode 2). Would the value to human life suddenly be for naught through these actions?

And with GEing humans, we potentially are creating a 'master race;' something I fear greatly for the last major figure to profess this belief (Hitler) killed tens of millions of people

Now that IS an interesting issue to raise, is Science without morality dangerous? Certainly, but does that morality nessacarily have to originate from a religious source? Some would argue morality would arise from our evolutionary need of cooperation, the same cooperation that gives our species an advantage. We work together at a level unheard of in the animal kingdom, thousands of workers are involved in the construction of a space vehicle, for example.

"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

-- Albert Einstein

Now that IS an interesting issue to raise, is Science without morality dangerous? Certainly, but does that morality nessacarily have to originate from a religious source? Some would argue morality would arise from our evolutionary need of cooperation, the same cooperation that gives our species an advantage. We work together at a level unheard of in the animal kingdom, thousands of workers are involved in the construction of a space vehicle, for example.

I write alot of science fiction, I concentrate on Genetic Engineering and Bio-Synthesis (Creating living organisms from inert matter. Say, modeling a biological being on a computer, then creating it out of stock DNA acids.) For example, I created a race of sentient beings, the Nikoko, of which I base my Nation State name. A feline like human race, with stripes and feline like eyes, unusual hair and eye colors being the only distinguishing feature.

They have slightly increased strength and speed, while humanity has greater stamina. Some of my works forcus on how the two sentient races co-exist and clash, ultimately humanity and the nikoko become companions as they explore lonely space.

Would such a thing be wrong? To create new life, different from ourselves, capable of love and emotions, passion and arts, to treat as equal companions?

Personally I believe that humanity should spread life to other planets and star systems, terra forming planets, constructing new eco-systems. We are lonely, it's why some of us reach out to embrace god, and others, in the comforting knowledge of science.

Life, reaches out for life.

So, if we create new life, is that a crime? If we, cautiously and responsibility begin to unravel the secrets of life?

Who is to say it is not as god intended? Would we not be spreading the good word? Love? Hope? Are we to be selfish, to hord the gifts god has bestowed upon us?

This I ask, what is your answer?

Wow, you can write really fast. There is no way that I can respond to all of your questions? But I will try to answer a few. I think that when we lookback in history we find that religion of one kind or another has been responsible for much of what the world thinks of as moral. It doesn't mean that all moral ideas come only from religion just that the framework probably started with religion.

It seems that humankind has been able to create life through the cloning of animals by scientists. This apparently has caused no real problems and is helping us, as you say, unravel the secrets of life. And I think this is as God intended. God intents for us to gain knowledge that is why He gave us intellect. Certaintly it was meant to be used. I think many of the problems between science and religion comes when the standards of the Old Testament are used to limit 20 or 21 century sceince.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that scientists have, in fact, created a wholly artificial bacterium in a lab.

I think it would be a singularly bad idea to try and create a new form of sentient life though. We have enough problems as it is. So it's not really a matter of right or wrong, it's a question of readiness. We aren't.

Would such a thing be wrong? To create new life, different from ourselves, capable of love and emotions, passion and arts, to treat as equal companions?


Or, alternatively, to create machines capable of love and emotions, passion and arts, to treat as equal companions. Would such a thing be morally wrong?!

Or, alternatively, to create machines capable of love and emotions, passion and arts, to treat as equal companions. Would such a thing be morally wrong?!

I'm not sure that it is possible. One thing that separates us from lower animal forms is our intellect and soul. To be able create machines that have the capacities you mention seems beyond our reach. But who knows!!

I'm not sure that it is possible. One thing that separates us from lower animal forms is our intellect and soul. To be able create machines that have the capacities you mention seems beyond our reach. But who knows!!

The beauty of the unknown is infinite! I believe it is possible, but difficult. Add enough transistors together, in the right way, and I think it's possible. But this is just relishing the unknown in a scientific kind of way ;). So I agree...who knows?!?!

The Master Race question that arises from the science Genetic Engineering is a very good one that must be delt with. Say, if we were to attach a 47th chromosome that contained the genetic immunity to HIV, maybe an enzyme that shuts down the genes responsible for heart disease or cancer, would that be a Master Race? Or, if we decided to increase genetic diversity in the gene pool, by adding, say, attributes for violet eyes or green hair, would that be a Master Race?

Take it one step further, say we make ourselves stronger. Women have slightly less physical strength then men, does that make them the lesser sex? No. Of course not. Hitler's vision of a master race was comprised as a blond haired, blued eyed male. Current society seems to value a individual's diversity now adays, I don't think the Master Race issue will be a problem, as long as any genetic engineering is well documented and progress open to the public.

I mean, over-all asians tend to have better math skills, does that make the other races inferior? No, having different attributes, skills and characteristics keeps things interesting. Indeed, such genetic engineering is the opposite of the Master Race idea.

In my honest opinion, as long as whatever being is created, is shown compassion and love and is capable of returning those emotions. Same goes with artifical intelligence.

"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

-- Albert Einstein

Wow great quote.

Wow, you can write really fast. There is no way that I can respond to all of your questions? But I will try to answer a few. I think that when we lookback in history we find that religion of one kind or another has been responsible for much of what the world thinks of as moral. It doesn't mean that all moral ideas come only from religion just that the framework probably started with religion.

It seems that humankind has been able to create life through the cloning of animals by scientists. This apparently has caused no real problems and is helping us, as you say, unravel the secrets of life. And I think this is as God intended. God intents for us to gain knowledge that is why He gave us intellect. Certaintly it was meant to be used. I think many of the problems between science and religion comes when the standards of the Old Testament are used to limit 20 or 21 century sceince.

You're absolutely right, religion goes hand in hand with morality. You're also right about many of the problems arising from trying to interface the standards of the Old Testamen with todays times, I mean, imagine trying to talk to Moses about stem cell research.

Perhaps God wants us to be able to answer these questions ourselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that scientists have, in fact, created a wholly artificial bacterium in a lab.

I think it would be a singularly bad idea to try and create a new form of sentient life though. We have enough problems as it is. So it's not really a matter of right or wrong, it's a question of readiness. We aren't.

Rightly so, but let me play devil's advocate.

Just because some people are starving in Africa, does that mean we should abandon our space programs? Who knows, maybe one day a new strain of wheat created in Zero-G will solve the food crisis.

Or maybe, in the process of creating a sentient species, we will learn more about ourselves and in doing so, solve some of those problems you mentioned?

You're right about the artifical bacteria, it was completely artificial. Some people worry that we might create a new plague, but if we learn how viral and bacteria functions, won't we actually prevent that?

Fun Fact: All DNA is left handed, that is to say, acid on the left, enzymes on the right. If scientists create a artifical lifeform, and the DNA is right handed, it cannot eat anything with left handed DNA. So it's food source HAS to be right handed.

Scientists think this could prevent any accidentally release of a potential artifical organism into the eco-system.

The Master Race question that arises from the science Genetic Engineering is a very good one that must be delt with. Say, if we were to attach a 47th chromosome that contained the genetic immunity to HIV, maybe an enzyme that shuts down the genes responsible for heart disease or cancer, would that be a Master Race? Or, if we decided to increase genetic diversity in the gene pool, by adding, say, attributes for violet eyes or green hair, would that be a Master Race?

Take it one step further, say we make ourselves stronger. Women have slightly less physical strength then men, does that make them the lesser sex? No. Of course not. Hitler's vision of a master race was comprised as a blond haired, blued eyed male. Current society seems to value a individual's diversity now adays, I don't think the Master Race issue will be a problem, as long as any genetic engineering is well documented and progress open to the public.

I mean, over-all asians tend to have better math skills, does that make the other races inferior? No, having different attributes, skills and characteristics keeps things interesting. Indeed, such genetic engineering is the opposite of the Master Race idea.

In my honest opinion, as long as whatever being is created, is shown compassion and love and is capable of returning those emotions. Same goes with artifical intelligence.

It is our very diversity that makes us a strong people, and we are one people. When we set aside the minor problems and differences and pool our resources we be able to accomplish things that we can not even dream about now.

And I think this is where true religion will step in and help temper some of wild enthusiam of science to go places too fast. One example would be the outrageous statements on human cloning that, who knows, may happen one day, have been made by some people.

I posted this on the Jesus Forum:

Let me give you some more information on this debate between Creationism and Big Bang/Evolution Theories. There are just under 2 billion Christians in the world, over half (thats over 1 billion) of those are Catholics. Since the end of the second Vatican Council in 1966, The Roman Catholic Church has supported both the Evolution and Big Bang Theories, because neither of them disproove the existance of God.

What is more, Science has still not provided explanations for the three most important transitions in the Creation Process: Nothing to Matter, Matter to Life and Life to Conscienceness, all of which are explained by the presence of God.

Science and Religion should be seen as a partnership, and not opposite sides of a debate with no middle ground.

"Science without Religion is deaf, Religion without Science is blind"
-My personal mentor, one Albert Einstein.

That's my contribution.

Personally, I think religion needs conflict to survive. So do many aspects of science. If either can just sit back and "help the poor" without justifying their beliefs through debate all the fire to advance goes away. Peace kills societies. Just ask the sci-fi writer. (even if you haven't wrote anything with stagnation you should, it can come in very useful) Read The End of History by Fukuyama.

I am a militant atheist who believes that he is evil and thus avoids this entire stupid debate.

Just because some people are starving in Africa, does that mean we should abandon our space programs? Who knows, maybe one day a new strain of wheat created in Zero-G will solve the food crisis.

Or maybe, in the process of creating a sentient species, we will learn more about ourselves and in doing so, solve some of those problems you mentioned?

Notwithstanding the fact that point 2 doesn't necessarily follow from point 1, there is a flaw in your argument. What you propose would only be true if everyone bought into the ideas brought about by such research. We have seen, on these boards no less, that there is no shortage of people who will ignore the truth even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Until those sorts of people learn to give up the various dogmas they hold on so desperately to, any sort of new information we get will not be quite so useful.

You're absolutely right, religion goes hand in hand with morality. You're also right about many of the problems arising from trying to interface the standards of the Old Testamen with todays times, I mean, imagine trying to talk to Moses about stem cell research.

Perhaps God wants us to be able to answer these questions ourselves.

Yes, yes God does want us to use our minds and search for the answers. I believe that the material world we have been placed in is meant to provide us with the answers to understanding God and spiritual concepts. If we think about how humanity tends to want to cling to what is familiar, such as language, social norms, COLOR, but if you look at the world of nature such as flowers they are all different colors and in a garden the variety is beatiful. Or,like the notes on a musical scale the variety of notes makes a lovely song.

I posted this on the Jesus Forum:
What is more, Science has still not provided explanations for the three most important transitions in the Creation Process: Nothing to Matter, Matter to Life and Life to Conscienceness, all of which are explained by the presence of God.
That's my contribution.

Science has actually found answers to those three questions. Matter doesn't need to come from nothingness since it could have just always existed, life has been formed in laboratory conditions that replicated those of the early earth, and consciousness is really just an issue of very complex computers.

God can still be somewhere, though, but its not really necessary. It just depends where you like to get your endorphins from.

Yes, yes God does want us to use our minds and search for the answers. I believe that the material world we have been placed in is meant to provide us with the answers to understanding God and spiritual concepts. If we think about how humanity tends to want to cling to what is familiar, such as language, social norms, COLOR, but if you look at the world of nature such as flowers they are all different colors and in a garden the variety is beatiful. Or,like the notes on a musical scale the variety of notes makes a lovely song.

Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice is kickass.

I would just like to point out, that we've gone almost two full pages without nothing but intelligent discussion and interesting points raised. I guess we can all feel a little bit reassured, that while ignorance abounds, it does not nessacarily prevail.

Unfortunetly, ignorance does get in the way, ALOT. I think, that a new renassance of open mindedness is on the horizon though and this threat, as meager a symbol that it may be, is a step closer.

Thats why I don't believe that the world will end for some time, if ever, why would God destroy humanity, when we are on the verge of proving ourselves?

We've fought dozens of wars, commited atrocities against our neighbors, but we learn, albeit some of us slower then others. Is all that experince for naught? Some people like to point to current events and invoke words such as "ragnarok and armegeddon", I like to invoke words such as "brighter future, hope and manifest destiny."

Science has actually found answers to those three questions. Matter doesn't need to come from nothingness since it could have just always existed, life has been formed in laboratory conditions that replicated those of the early earth...
Life has been formed in my refrigerator.

Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice is kickass.

I'm sorry but I have never read the book. Some Answered Questions by Abdu'l Baha is also quite good.

I would just like to point out, that we've gone almost two full pages without nothing but intelligent discussion and interesting points raised. I guess we can all feel a little bit reassured, that while ignorance abounds, it does not nessacarily prevail.

Unfortunetly, ignorance does get in the way, ALOT. I think, that a new renassance of open mindedness is on the horizon though and this threat, as meager a symbol that it may be, is a step closer.

Thats why I don't believe that the world will end for some time, if ever, why would God destroy humanity, when we are on the verge of proving ourselves?

We've fought dozens of wars, commited atrocities against our neighbors, but we learn, albeit some of us slower then others. Is all that experince for naught? Some people like to point to current events and invoke words such as "ragnarok and armegeddon", I like to invoke words such as "brighter future, hope and manifest destiny."

I think you are correct.

There are two kinds of light. There is the visible light of the sun, by whose aid we can discern the beauties of the world around us -- without this we could see nothing.

Nevertheless, though it is the function of this light to make things visible to us, it cannot give us the power to see them or to understand what their various charms may be, for this light has no intelligence, no consciousness. It is the light of the intellect which gives us knowledge and understanding, and without this light the physical eyes would be useless.

This light of the intellect is the highest light that exists, for it is born of the Light Divine.

The light of the intellect enables us to understand and realize all that exists, but it is only the Divine Light that can give us sight for the invisible things, and which enables us to see truths that will only be visible to the world thousands of years hence.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 68)

Well, I gotta go. Even thought it is 16 below F here. Wind chill of about 40 below. I still have to work in the morning. Perhaps I can continue tomorrow for awhile.

Yeah, sleep for me too. I'll rejoin the discussion tommorow. ^^;;

...and we re-open the thread. ^_^

We are familiar with the phrases 'Light and Darkness', 'Religion and Science'. But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.

Much of the discord and disunion of the world is created by these man-made oppositions and contradictions. If religion were in harmony with science and they walked together, much of the hatred and bitterness now bringing misery to the human race would be at an end.

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 143)

It is interesting to note that this thread remained cognizant and thoughtful, even respectful of varying viewpoints, and was a point thread based on something that is pretty much fodder for argument and philosophical approaches to things in the world.
Whereas the thread it was taken from was about something not semantic but actually happening right now and being debated by people who are trying to force an opinion on a curricular text vs people who don't think that those kinds of suppositions belong in a course where noone is attempting to philosophize outcomes and written instances of "history".
The latter is actually occurring whereas this thread is about approach and could go on for sometime without any real resolution ... obviously the sticker situation requires resolution because instead of just philosophizing action is involved.
Curious.

It is interesting to note that this thread remained cognizant and thoughtful, even respectful of varying viewpoints, and was a point thread based on something that is pretty much fodder for argument and philosophical approaches to things in the world.
Whereas the thread it was taken from was about something not semantic but actually happening right now and being debated by people who are trying to force an opinion on a curricular text vs people who don't think that those kinds of suppositions belong in a course where noone is attempting to philosophize outcomes and written instances of "history".
The latter is actually occurring whereas this thread is about approach and could go on for sometime without any real resolution ... obviously the sticker situation requires resolution because instead of just philosophizing action is involved.
Curious.

I think it is possible and even necessary to have strong opinions, to feel passionately about science, ideas, history, religion any number of things without being rude, disrespectful and mean spirited. Action first requires thought, ideas; then comes action. The more thought that is used before the action, I think it is fair to say, the more productive the action.

I wonder how many of the threads on here ever have resolution?

I don't either, which is why I'm hoping rational minds will make themeselves known in this thread. :D
Mememe!

Believe it or not, there are absolutely no differences between Judaism and science.

Here's a little article I wrote. Hope you like it!

What’s the difference between evolution and creation?
By Roma Verzub

DISCLAIMER
What I am about to discuss may seem controversial to some, and some may not find it useful. Some sources I quote are generally not available to non-Jewish person or in any language other then Hebrew. I am not a scientist and I do not claim to be one.
END DISCLAIMER

Ok, so the question I would like to address now is the age of the universe, the Big Bang theory, and evolution. I also plan to examine whether or not the Torah mentions anything that can be of use in this debate.

Ok, well first off, if you read the Bible in the story of creation you get some stuff like

"And it was evening, and it was morning, a second day." All the way to the 7th day, on which it says that God "rested". Of course God doesn't really get tired so does he need to rest? No way! What it's trying to tell you is that God "rested" in order to set an example for mankind to follow. So, given that not every word in the Bible is literal fact, the a Jewish commentator living in Spain, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, (1135-1204) said that a lot of things in the Bible are written more so that humans can understand it. For example, when the Jews were rescued from Egypt it says that they were saved "by the hand of God." Of course God doesn't have hands, or feet, or any of that stuff, but it says "hand" so we as human beings can visualize and understand it better.

So, given that, let's examine the age of the universe. According to a literal translation of the Bible, the universe (or some believe the time since Adam) is 5765 years old. According to the Theory of Evolution the universe is somewhere between 14 and 18 billion years old. 5 thousand and 14 billion are quite different numbers, so maybe this is another one of those "don't take it seriously" kinds of things. Let's examine why.

The Sefer HaTemunah states that the universe has 7 x 7000 year cycles. The Livnat HaSapir says that we're done with 6 of them. Therefore, according to this argument we have gone through 42000 years.

Psalms 90:4 says "For, in your eyes a thousand years are like yesterday that quickly passes, or like one of the divisions of the nighttime." which suggests that to God, one day is like to us 1000 years. So if one "God-day" is 1000 years, then one "God-year" is 365250 years. (As a side note, remember that God told Adam about the day he eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, “on that day you will surely die.” But Adam didn't listen to God and ate from the tree. So when did he die? He at the age of 930, which was on that very day.)

So, to calculate the age of the universe according to this theory, we would multiply 42000 x 365250 = 15,340,500,000. So according to this theory the universe is in fact over 15 billion years old. The age of the universe according to science is, as I mentioned before, somewhere between 14 and 18 billion. 15 billion's in between, right?

Moving on, there’s the Big Bang. According to this theory all of the matter in the universe was once in some dense thingy that exploded and there is our universe.

Isaac Newton's first law of motion states clearly that "An object at rest stays at rest..." So therefore, how could this giant ball thing have exploded if some other force did not act it on? By the way, where did it come from in the first place? If you say it existed before anything else because it created everything else, then you have just defined God.

Now I'd like to address natural selection. First off, the fact that fossil's of Neanderthal's and Dinosaurs have been found do not in any way, shape, or form contradict the Torah. In fact, a Midrash says that our world is actually built on top of other worlds that were previously created and destroyed, each time the world became more perfect. Keep in mind that the Bible starts "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." That means that what was created in the Genesis story is just the heavens and the Earth, not the universe itself!

Moreover, for evolution’s sake, you may wonder how we have such diversity among the animal kingdom. For example, there are 36 different species of wild cats. How did God to that? Well, in the Bible it says that each thing was created (or “brought forth”) “…according to their [its] kind…” This may mean that God may have just created “ox” which later evolved into it’s forms. God may have just created “cat” which later evolved into Persian, Siamese, Halle Berry ;) . This is important when you note that there are some creatures that are not quite fish and not quite plant and not quite sea, like coral. And there are animals that are not quite animals but not quite humans, like apes.

Moving along, let’s look at the difference, according to King Solomon in Kohelet, between people and animals. Humans have a soul, animals do not. That’s entirely it. True, with that soul we’re given the opportunity to make choices and think, but that all stems from the soul.

When you look at the leaves changing color and falling during the autumn, you know what causes it. It’s when the trees produce less chlorophyll when it’s cold… yadda, yadda, yadda. Of course, this may just be the way God does it. He may use chlorophyll and that’s HOW he does it. The Big Bang may have been HOW he chose to create the world.

I hope someone has found this preceding informative, and I welcome all comments and questions.

Believe it or not, there are absolutely no differences between Judaism and science.

Here's a little article I wrote. Hope you like it!

What’s the difference between evolution and creation?
By Roma Verzub

DISCLAIMER
What I am about to discuss may seem controversial to some, and some may not find it useful. Some sources I quote are generally not available to non-Jewish person or in any language other then Hebrew. I am not a scientist and I do not claim to be one.
END DISCLAIMER

Ok, so the question I would like to address now is the age of the universe, the Big Bang theory, and evolution. I also plan to examine whether or not the Torah mentions anything that can be of use in this debate.

Ok, well first off, if you read the Bible in the story of creation you get some stuff like

"And it was evening, and it was morning, a second day." All the way to the 7th day, on which it says that God "rested". Of course God doesn't really get tired so does he need to rest? No way! What it's trying to tell you is that God "rested" in order to set an example for mankind to follow. So, given that not every word in the Bible is literal fact, the a Jewish commentator living in Spain, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, (1135-1204) said that a lot of things in the Bible are written more so that humans can understand it. For example, when the Jews were rescued from Egypt it says that they were saved "by the hand of God." Of course God doesn't have hands, or feet, or any of that stuff, but it says "hand" so we as human beings can visualize and understand it better.

So, given that, let's examine the age of the universe. According to a literal translation of the Bible, the universe (or some believe the time since Adam) is 5765 years old. According to the Theory of Evolution the universe is somewhere between 14 and 18 billion years old. 5 thousand and 14 billion are quite different numbers, so maybe this is another one of those "don't take it seriously" kinds of things. Let's examine why.

The Sefer HaTemunah states that the universe has 7 x 7000 year cycles. The Livnat HaSapir says that we're done with 6 of them. Therefore, according to this argument we have gone through 42000 years.

Psalms 90:4 says "For, in your eyes a thousand years are like yesterday that quickly passes, or like one of the divisions of the nighttime." which suggests that to God, one day is like to us 1000 years. So if one "God-day" is 1000 years, then one "God-year" is 365250 years. (As a side note, remember that God told Adam about the day he eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, “on that day you will surely die.” But Adam didn't listen to God and ate from the tree. So when did he die? He at the age of 930, which was on that very day.)

So, to calculate the age of the universe according to this theory, we would multiply 42000 x 365250 = 15,340,500,000. So according to this theory the universe is in fact over 15 billion years old. The age of the universe according to science is, as I mentioned before, somewhere between 14 and 18 billion. 15 billion's in between, right?

Moving on, there’s the Big Bang. According to this theory all of the matter in the universe was once in some dense thingy that exploded and there is our universe.

Isaac Newton's first law of motion states clearly that "An object at rest stays at rest..." So therefore, how could this giant ball thing have exploded if some other force did not act it on? By the way, where did it come from in the first place? If you say it existed before anything else because it created everything else, then you have just defined God.

Now I'd like to address natural selection. First off, the fact that fossil's of Neanderthal's and Dinosaurs have been found do not in any way, shape, or form contradict the Torah. In fact, a Midrash says that our world is actually built on top of other worlds that were previously created and destroyed, each time the world became more perfect. Keep in mind that the Bible starts "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." That means that what was created in the Genesis story is just the heavens and the Earth, not the universe itself!

Moreover, for evolution’s sake, you may wonder how we have such diversity among the animal kingdom. For example, there are 36 different species of wild cats. How did God to that? Well, in the Bible it says that each thing was created (or “brought forth”) “…according to their [its] kind…” This may mean that God may have just created “ox” which later evolved into it’s forms. God may have just created “cat” which later evolved into Persian, Siamese, Halle Berry ;) . This is important when you note that there are some creatures that are not quite fish and not quite plant and not quite sea, like coral. And there are animals that are not quite animals but not quite humans, like apes.

Moving along, let’s look at the difference, according to King Solomon in Kohelet, between people and animals. Humans have a soul, animals do not. That’s entirely it. True, with that soul we’re given the opportunity to make choices and think, but that all stems from the soul.

When you look at the leaves changing color and falling during the autumn, you know what causes it. It’s when the trees produce less chlorophyll when it’s cold… yadda, yadda, yadda. Of course, this may just be the way God does it. He may use chlorophyll and that’s HOW he does it. The Big Bang may have been HOW he chose to create the world.

I hope someone has found this preceding informative, and I welcome all comments and questions.

I think you posted this once before. Very interesting. Muslims claim that there are verses in the Koran that also support evolution, big bang etc.

Fine fine. Although I don't believe science necessarily has to act as an antagonist to religion.

They have no choice if both sides have different opinions on what is 'good' and what is 'evil'..

They have no choice if both sides have different opinions on what is 'good' and what is 'evil'..

I think religion has an obligation to listen to what science has to say and try to fit the new understanding that comes from science into the concepts that religion promulgates. Obvisouly, there are certain universal laws that are intristict to all religions and can't be changed, such as respect for elders, parents etc.

I personally think that religion is nothing but bullshit people use to explain something they don't understand (read:everything).
I think science shouldn't be used to create totally new life but to help the life on earth survive and maybe even someday expand to the space. It is also a nice idea to develop humans with the help of genetic engineering and nano-machinery so that someday we will be able to call ourselves gods.
This might not be happening too near in the future but nano-machinery is being developed really fast especially up here in Finland and if things go well enough they'll be able to colonize Mars in, say 150 years. Who knows when you think how much we have made progress in the past 150 years?

I believe in the existence of a god, but if any holy text ever says anything that directly contradicts science, then that text is not true. I think that our god is simply a sentient form of some unidentifiable substance, or even nothingness. Scientists believe that most of the matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected from the light it emits or fails to emit. This is material which cannot be seen directly, and the only reason we know it exists at all is because its presence is inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical objects, specifically stellar and galactic observations. We also need it to explain gravity's amplification of the small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background enough to form the large-scale structures that we see in the universe today. God could very well be some hidden substance that is all around us- sentient, living, watching, feeling and knowing everything like a spider perched on its web. God would thus be omniscient, seeing and knowing everything.

This is pointless...

Of course it is. It's all based on a false dichotomy usually put forth by religious fundamentalists and fueled by those who don't understand science.

I believe in the existence of a god, but if any holy text ever says anything that directly contradicts science, then that text is not true. I think that our god is simply a sentient form of some unidentifiable substance, or even nothingness. Scientists believe that most of the matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected from the light it emits or fails to emit. This is material which cannot be seen directly, and the only reason we know it exists at all is because its presence is inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical objects, specifically stellar and galactic observations. We also need it to explain gravity's amplification of the small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background enough to form the large-scale structures that we see in the universe today. God could very well be some hidden substance that is all around us- sentient, living, watching, feeling and knowing everything like a spider perched on its web. God would thus be omniscient, seeing and knowing everything.

I really think God by definition would have to be beyond are ability to describe His form, person or attributes. We have a need as humans to attempt to describe God. But I feel it is a nearly impossible task. The American Indian religions often use, "The Great Mystery" to describe God.

"From time immemorial," Bahá'u'lláh, speaking of God, explains, "He, the Divine Being, hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlasting continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence... Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at God's forbidding voice, 'Thou shalt never behold Me!'; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction 'Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!'"

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 112)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that scientists have, in fact, created a wholly artificial bacterium in a lab.


If I got it right, the scientists built a living artificial bacterium cell by using organelles they took from other organisms. That´s like the monster of Frankenstein, created from parts of dead people.

But yes, it´s still revolutionary. The cell was living.