NationStates Jolt Archive

In the last installment of battle of the religions,some many many months ago, Religion was being beaten up by Atheism, however Religion was able to hold off the onslaught for a short time. Is there a champion from you religious types that can help turn the tide of this battle? Or will Atheism and Evolution win out?

Well, most religious conversations end up as a fight, so you may as well just get straight to the point and start one off like that :D.

Where do you sign up for the Holy Church of Evolution? :p

I believe in the Other

Yippie! Go Atheism :D Why would I wanna believe in an entitiy nobody has ever seen and where the only "proof" is a book, over 2k years old, translated hundreds of times, with a new interpretation coming up almost everytime. This has happened with the bible as well as with the Koran and any other religious writing.
Plus there's the point that i might be willing to acknoledge the existence of a higher entity. I just don't see the point of worshipping it.

Evolution is not a religion.
Though yes, there might be evolutionists who have so much 'faith' in a particular scientific theory that they think it is absolutely true.
The scientific method is never to believe anything at 100% true.
Science is never about irrational faith, claiming that one can know something that one couldn't possibly know about..i.e. a perfectly invisible pink, massless and chargeless flatulent donkey revolving around our moon, or the existance of god(s), and if exists that its good..etc. Science is just plain'o skepticism imho. :)

Evolution and Christianity go well together. I believe in gestational evolution which means that evolution is part of God's plan in creating mankind.

In the last installment of battle of the religions,some many many months ago, Religion was being beaten up by Atheism, however Religion was able to hold off the onslaught for a short time. Is there a champion from you religious types that can help turn the tide of this battle? Or will Atheism and Evolution win out?

How many times do I have to tell you? P-A-G-A-N.

Why is it that we get ignored in every single thread of this nature, as if we don't even exist? Is it because it is against our religious beliefs to go around proselytizing?

By the way, I do believe in evolution, though it's not exactly a religion with me.

Actually, the Qur'an has been kept in classical Arabic to avoid the problems of translation encountered by the Bible. Not to say that there are not problems when modern Arabic speakers read and interpret classical Arabic. Then again, the language has not changed as much as Greek v. Demotic Greek or Ancient Greek.
But, I don't really know why we are having a 'battle of religions,' especially if we want to further cooperation between each other.

There is more historical proof of Christianity then evolution. Evolution is only theory, while a good deal of Christian History can be proven. You can't deny this either.

Religion always win. We're the most fanatical when it comes to combat.

And religion isn't against technology, so you can't use that against us. :p

*rallies rabid underground warriors ready to die as matyrs*

This is not what I had in mind anyone who reads these post please understand this is not what I intended.

There is more historical proof of Christianity then evolution. Evolution is only theory, while a good deal of Christian History can be proven. You can't deny this either.
It's not like the christian God can be proven either. God has a lot less (read: 0) evidence supporting it than the "religion" of evolution.

Evolution and Christianity go well together. I believe in gestational evolution which means that evolution is part of God's plan in creating mankind.
:headbang:

Since the moment I entered these forumns, I've been trying to get it through people's friggin heads that for almost a century the Catholic Church, which represents over 1.1 BILLION Christians worldwide, OFFICIALLY SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!! Why is it that people still believe that theistic evolutionism is a novelty?

I believe in the Other
all hail the mighty Other. praise be its otherness.

i'm undecided

:headbang:

Since the moment I entered these forumns, I've been trying to get it through people's friggin heads that for almost a century the Catholic Church, which represents over 1.1 Christians worldwide, OFFICIALLY SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!! Why is it that people still believe that theistic evolutionism is a novelty?

US is majority protestant I think.

It's not like the christian God can be proven either. God has a lot less (read: 0) evidence supporting it than the "religion" of evolution.

I would give good money to any one that can give tangible prof of any of the six deffinitions of evolutin that dose not include micro evolution (adaptation).

US is majority protestant I think.

Irrelevant. People should still understand that it is not a Christianity vs Evolution debate.

And are the forumns screwing arround for anyone else? or is that just me?

I would appreciate if, in the future, we could maybe differentiate between Catholic and Protestant for the Christian category. Some may not like this, but I do find that in matters of religion, that's usually a pretty constant split, at least when you've got Christian vs. Christian.

:headbang:

Since the moment I entered these forumns, I've been trying to get it through people's friggin heads that for almost a century the Catholic Church, which represents over 1.1 Christians worldwide, OFFICIALLY SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!! Why is it that people still believe that theistic evolutionism is a novelty?

Thestic evolution is not a novelity but there are seven deffinitions of evolution and the one that the catholic church supports is technicaly not a form of evolution it is in cluded in the evolutin deffinitionsbecause it was a theory written by darwin.

Irrelevant. People should still understand that it is not a Christianity vs Evolution debate.

And are the forumns screwing arround for anyone else? or is that just me?

Yeah the fourms are being bitchy today

the Catholic Church, which represents over 1.1 Christians worldwide

:D I know its a typo, but its a damn funny one!

Thestic evolution is not a novelity but there are seven deffinitions of evolution and the one that the catholic church supports is technicaly not a form of evolution it is in cluded in the evolutin deffinitionsbecause it was a theory written by darwin.

What?

:D I know its a typo, but its a damn funny one!

No typo. What are you implying?

Edit: Oh, I see. lol. That is pretty damn funny.

What?
Adaptation is considerd a form of evolution solely because darwin thought of it Microevolution (adaptation) is an accepted fact of life we see it every day however some staunch evolutionist call it prof of macro evolution which is aubsurd

I must take my leave for now so see yas

No typo. What are you implying?

Edit: Oh, I see. lol. That is pretty damn funny.

I just had a vision of all the cardinals and the pope standing in st.peters square with one catholic who is holding a severed arm saying "And this is the guy we represent!?!?!?!"

Adaptation is considerd a form of evolution solely because darwin thought of it Microevolution (adaptation) is an accepted fact of life we see it every day however some staunch evolutionist call it prof of macro evolution which is aubsurd

Okay, that's slightly more intellegable than your last post.

If you mean Natural Selection, then yes, I agree it is not proof of evolution. However, Darwin was very clear that Natural Selection, which can have visable effects after only a few decades, is only a mechanism which results, over the long term, in evolution. I am not quite sure what your saying about Darwin, but he was very clear on the difference between Natural Selection and Evolution. Anyway, I have got to go, so anyone wanting to continue a debate with me can telegram me (I'm desperate for a telegram, I haven't got one in ages).

I would give good money to any one that can give tangible prof of any of the six deffinitions of evolutin that dose not include micro evolution (adaptation).
If this (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut07.htm) is what you are refering to, it's hogwash. Most of the statements seem to be taken out of context and/or without any understanding of the modern theory of evolution.

Sorry for the thread hijack. :p

I have ONLY heard the term evolutionist from fundamentalist christians. evolution is not a religion. please please understand that evolution just means that there is a change in a species over time, it says nothing of life from non-life, only that there will be changes once life is existant. it seems odd to me that people deny macroevolution but accept microevolution. the distinction between is really minute, and macroevolution is the logical extension of microevolution. evolution is called a 'theory' beause in science a theory is basically law,ie theory of relativity. Evolution has been rigorously tested, an example of a test that would lead to speciation was that after a few generations of seperation, colonies of fruit flies would not breed with each other when reintroduced. a lot of refuting of young earth creationism goes on at talkorigins.org and it is pretty extensive.

i have NO idea black 13 what you mean by 6 (or is it 7) definitions of evolution. if you mean models, well, differing models of proposed evolution do not lessen the validity of evolution. methodist, catholic, and pentacostal churchs don't lessen the validity of the concept of christianity.

adaptation is a change in behavior that is NOT genetically trasmittable. please use correct terminology.

i think a lot of people's issues with 'evolution' actually fall into genetics but since Mendal (a monk) was the pioneer there I guess they just let that slide.

creationists complain about evolution but frankly quantum physics probably is poised to cause more forced adjustments of faith.
science does not rule out god. why is it not possible for god to use evolution, i say this because you BLack XIII , seem to sense a conflict.

christianity, islam, and judaism are not at odds with science. i would venture to say the vast majority of sects in those faiths see the validity of evolution. abrahamic faiths have the chief duty of prescribing morals, and science tries to understand our physical surroundings; they occupy completely seperate realms.i don't see why you are trying to egg on a war. frankly this is pointless because anyone who will bother to read this will be too entrenched in their own beliefs to consider the others' positions.

it's funny i never hear animists or taoists complaining about the conflicting between their view of how the world works and science, maybe i'm just in the wrong chat rooms.

to the athiests in the chat, it is not your duty to "relieve" believers of their faith.

paganism is too personalistic for me to make a broad statement and i don't know enough about hinduism to give an educated answer.

hinduism is by far older than christianity, unless you are ready to convert, the span of time the faith has existed does not lend to its validity.

...differing models of proposed evolution do not lessen the validity of evolution. methodist, catholic, and pentacostal chruchs don't lessen the validity of the concept of christianity.....

...creationists complain about evolution but frankly quantum physics probably is poised to cause more forced adjustments of faith.
science does not rule out god. why is it not possible for god to use evolution, i say this because you BLack XIII , seem to sense a conflict.

...christianity, islam, and judaism are not at odds with science. i would venture to say the vast majority of sects in those faiths see the validity of evolution.

...to the athiests in the chat, it is not your duty to "relieve" believers of their faith.
Sorry to splice, Lampshadianism, but I think these are some of the best points I've heard to support that side for so long. I am SO GLAD that not everybody sees it as a matter of religion v. science, which it's not. Everyone SURELY knows my religious views by now, but I've been a supporter of evolution for some time. I applaud that somebody finally brings God into science.

Bravo.

There is no such religion as "Evolutionist". I guess my prophecy is fulfilled: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8854334&postcount=4

So, out of all the people who bash evolution in here, who has really studied it? Can you do some Hardy-Weinberg allele equillibrium equations for me?
St. Augustine of Hippo (if you are Christian and you don't know who he is, you really need to find out) said, way back in his 4th or 5th century musings, that when logic conflicts with what is in the Bible, then the Bible can be taken figuratively in that instance. When we talk about creation v. evolution, one has a fossil record, one has genetics including mitochondrial DNA, one has a mechanism for which it happens and has been demonstrated in the laboratory (microevolution, the kind that Catholicism has accepted). The other side has a story that was given to people in a way that they could understand for thier day and time. Does that make the creation story unimportant? No. But, as evolution is adhered to by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, due to an overwhelming body of evidence, then Augustine's tenet would clearly apply.
And, as a personal jab, some of you really need to work on spelling and grammar. When no one can read it, how can you expect your argument to be taken seriously?
Also, Lampshadianism, great stuff you wrote. Keep it up!

"I beliieeeeeeeeeeve in miracles, baby
I beliieeeeeeeeeve in yooouuuuuu!

They say the day is ending
Let's watch the sun go down
And plan a holiday for two"

Aside from that, I believe in Atheism or Other. But I definitely won't join any organized gang aside from the Yakuza.

There is no such religion as "Evolutionist". I guess my prophecy is fulfilled: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8854334&postcount=4
Well.

I'm......practically speechless.

Amazing. You, sir or madam......you are amazing.

So, out of all the people who bash evolution in here, who has really studied it? Can you do some Hardy-Weinberg allele equillibrium equations for me?
St. Augustine of Hippo (if you are Christian and you don't know who he is, you really need to find out) said, way back in his 4th or 5th century musings, that when logic conflicts with what is in the Bible, then the Bible can be taken figuratively in that instance. When we talk about creation v. evolution, one has a fossil record, one has genetics including mitochondrial DNA, one has a mechanism for which it happens and has been demonstrated in the laboratory (microevolution, the kind that Catholicism has accepted). The other side has a story that was given to people in a way that they could understand for thier day and time. Does that make the creation story unimportant? No. But, as evolution is adhered to by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, due to an overwhelming body of evidence, then Augustine's tenet would clearly apply.
And, as a personal jab, some of you really need to work on spelling and grammar. When no one can read it, how can you expect your argument to be taken seriously?
Also, Lampshadianism, great stuff you wrote. Keep it up!

Great job pulling Saint Augustine; unfortunately he was persecuted as a heretic for saying that. So I guess there is a flaw in your reasoning isn't there?

First of all the majority of scientists worldwide??? Overwhelming evidence??? where's your proof because the majority of scientists I have talked to (mostly animal biologists focusing on ornithology) see evolution as a severely flawed theory that is over hyped and tend to reject any research that has used this theory as anything more than just backup to other theories and laws. The scientific communities I have been involved with including NASA flight research center, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources department of Ontario, and several others that I have forgotten somewhere in my travels, have all had a majority state that evolution is plainly a poorly built theory that is easy to disprove at this stage.


No I cannot do any of your equations at the moment because my area of expertise is not in this field. I chose to focus on another area of education. The ability though to do thus does not make you more knowledgeable about evolution and its theories. Discernment is the key to discovery.

Simonist']Well.

I'm......practically speechless.

Amazing. You, sir or madam......you are amazing.

Thankyou. (and I'm a "sir" not a "madam").

I think it this way: Chruch claimed that earth is flat and that sun goes around it. There was scientists who did their best to prove WITH OBVIOUS FACTS that this was not the case. Chruch ignored that. Then came Maghlaes, made a trip around the world and, guess what, chruch accepted that as it would have been just ridicilous to claim otherwise; everybody WAS ABLE TO SEE HOW IT WAS. Catholic church had also gave up the story about Noah and his Ark, as that was proven impossible beacause of the consequenses of incest and zillions of other things. That part was ignored because of that.
Ok, church claimed that man is meant to walk on ground and that fish is meant go under the ocean. Then came submarine, and then came airplane, and once again they had to admit that it was possible as everybody WAS ABLE TO SEE HOW IT WAS.
But Darwin's theory is much harder to prove to the crowd. You can do tests in laboratories and you can study on the subjekt for years, and understand the case, but it is much harder to sell it to the mass. So, in this last subjekt, Chruch kept on fighting until it was, finally forced to accept the truth of evolution, as it became - despite the difficulties - popularily known.

So, as most of the BIble is known to be jsut stories, that Ark-thing for example, i dont see any reason why any other, unproven and unbelievable but hope-giving and satisfying claim of it would be true. Step by step, church has been pushed back and it has lost all of the battles (incorrect word for this amtter, but my English is still unfortunately limited) against the science. Therefore I dont believe in afterlife, God, angels, Lucifer controlling the hell, Eva and Adam beeing the first 2 ppl etcetcetc. They all are part of the same story, and as most parts are accepted to be JUST THAT: STORIES by the Catholic Church itself, it is IMO ridicilous to stick in any of it.

The fact that sciense cant prove everything yet, is no prove supporting the religion. Science moves slowly on, and eventually, i think, when scientific information is in the hands of us all, by internet or some other now non-existent way, religions will disappear. Still, to claim in civilized, well informed west and sitting in front of computer and internet that God made the world in seven days, is just stupid. Or then the one doing so is just too lazy to bother himself with facts.

Cognative Superios:

Augustine was a heretic? I apologize, I must ask you to educate me on this, I have no prior knowledge of it. In any event, his book City of God, is a cornerstone of Christian doctrine. Please let me know who called the Bishop of Hippo a heretic, when, why, and what became of it. I am very interested to know!
Yes, majority of scientists worldwide, not just Texas. I know Texans think they are the epitomy of human development, but they aren't (meant in humor, not to be mean. Please laugh it off!) My proof lies with in the overwhelming plethora of articles that appear in professional scientific journals, the amount of graduate research done on the subject, and the fact that it is taught as a paramount foundation of biology worldwide. Because SCIENTIFICALLY, it makes sense. Sure, many scientists are religious, and some believe in evolution, and others believe in creation. There is nothing wrong with that. But remember that Creation is not a science, i.e. it should not be taught in science class. For a really fun time at the expense of creationism, visit the Museum of Creation Science in Santee, CA. They forget all about science and stretch thier evidence to the breaking point. But those in Santee are oddballs, anyway.
Other evidence includes the fossil record, which is consistent with the Gould Dr. Goulds theory of evolution, known as Punctuated Equillibrium, where long periods of stasis are interrupted by very fast spurts of evolutionary activity (time being relative here. In a 5 million year period, a 50 or 100 thousand year period would be a blink of an eye, but long enough for radical changes to occur), carbon-14 dating (if you think that is not accurate I suggest you read up on dendrochronology and it's relation to Carbon-14 dating, especially the work done by Dr. Schulman.), Uranium -235 dating. The argument for evolution is so overwhelming I cannot even begin to list all of the arguments here!
The reason I ask about peoples familiarity with genetics is because understanding gentic process is the key to understanding evolution. I guess it is analogous to someone saying "Christianity sucks" without ever bothering to look into it and see the beauty that lies there. The more we know a bout a certain subject, the more it fits together.
If you want to get into a measuring contest over scientific communities, okay, we can do that. I worked at the Salk Institute for cancer research in La Jolla, CA, attended the University of California, San Diego as a microbiology major, and genetics minor, did an internship with the Kansas Biological Survey, spent two summers in the Owen's Valley as part of the UC Davis Carnivore Relocation Project (moving black bears and mountain lions), and currently attend medical school at the University of Kansas. And the majority of scientists I have spoken to feel that the facts support evolution, even when and if thier personal belief system is different..
And since evolution is, as you say, "easy to disprove," why don't you go ahead and do so? I would be very interested in what you have to say about it.
Also, I really hope that no one is taking this writing as an attack on any particular belief system. All I mean to do is show that there is more scientific evidence (by far) to support evolution that creation. That does not mean, of course, that creation did not happen, or that God does not exist.