Religion retards scientific disovery?

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

[Tarlam!]

Personally, I think the co-existance of religion and science is in many ways similar to the co-existance of differing beliefs/ denominations.

Let's view science in a similar light to any religion/belief for a moment. Depending on the tolerance of any "rival" belief or religion, science will be tolerated, persecuted, belittled, accepted etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately, I believe the day will come when science and most world religions will walk in step with eathother. I truly believe all mainstream / legitimate religions (i.e. those that really exist to worship, not those that exist to take money out of gullible pockets) will one day conclude that we all pray to the same God - we just do it with differing rituals.

And, I believe science will be the key to lifting the current ignorance that is the root of many heated debates, hurled insults, wars, terrorist attacks and hostilities around the world.

I firmly believe it will take another thousand years before this happens, though.

[crosbiegrad]

As for the account of the creation in the book of genesis, I have no idea how long each of the 6 creative periods were. In the bible it assigns it as a day but who's to say that God works on the same understanding of time that we do? It's be come very apparent that various species have evolved and adapted to their environments and the Earth has also undergone massive change in its 4.6 billion years. What is important for me in the Genesis account is that there is a master designer, how did he do it? Dunno, does science offer a glimpse into how? sure.
As for Velakovsky, never heard of him but I'm going to google his name and see what I can find. Huttons model of Uniformitarianism is still taught as the most feasible explanation as to how the earth developed. I have to say that what I've been taught about catastrophism doesnt sound very viable but I'll look into it more.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would have thought they'd have shit-canned Hutton by now with Plate Tectonics being closer and closer to positively proven.

Tarlam, that "religion in step with science" thing will undoubtedly occur fairly early in Christ's Millenial Kingdom on Earth. Maybe that was the thousand years you referred to.

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't say when He did it or how He did it. 12 billion years ago with a Big Bang for the universe--which has been expanding ever since? No problem if that's what science determines. 4.6 billion years ago for the earth? Again, no problem. Fossils as evidence of life as much as 3 billion years ago? OK, again no problem. Dinosaurs and glossopterous flora 160 million years ago? Again no problem. A catastrophic end to the Mesozoic Era with dinosaurs and glossopeterous flora mostly wiped out? No problem--possibly explained in Revelation 12:9-12, as well as Genesis 1:2: "The earth became void and without form".

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years.

It basically takes a helluva lot less faith-based reasoning to accept that scenario than to twist observable facts and numbers to try and make the theory of evolution add up.

[MadScientist]

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
(etc.)

It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.

[Dylan McKay]

Funny how obody has mentioned wizards yet. Interesting.

[MadScientist]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

[HowardRoark]

You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

OK. Have fun Googling Wiki in the meantime.

[arcilite]

Wizards.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

[texaspackerbacker]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

MS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.

Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.

The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

[mraynrand]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

A pretty gloomy outlook! Who gets credit for that quote? Or did you write it yourself?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

Already answered by a previous post.

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

Already answered by a previous post.

Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

[MJZiggy]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

[Tarlam!]

If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth?

Oh that's easy!

"Great A'tuin is the star turtle (genus Chelys Galactica) that carries the Discworld through space. 10,000 miles long and nearly as big as the disc itself, not much is known about A'tuin, even it's sex remains a mystery. A mystery that the astronomers of Krull were determined to solve, unfortunately their space ship - The Potent Voyager - was misappropriated.

The Discworld is supported atop A'tuin's back by the four great elephants Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, and the whole assemblage is circled by the small discworld sun and moon."



All we need to figure out is what the Earth's star turtle's name is and, bingo!

[texaspackerbacker]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

You've just managed to come of with a bogus stereotype for both sides, Ziggy--a bad one of course for the good people, and an unjustifiably lofty one for the damned atheists.

I would suggest that there about an equal percentage of total sheep--people just believing the dogma spewed to them--rightly or wrongly--among Christians, among believers in pagan religions, and among atheists. That might be considered the low end--although there is a lot to be said for faith too. I would further suggest that there is a much larger percentage of deep thinkers on the high end who have explored the alternatives and come to rational conclusions among Christians than among either pagans or atheists. There is also that large segment, of course in the middle who have a degree of faith and a degree of inclination to come to an intellectual decision, which probably is the majority in all three groups.

[MJZiggy]

Why is it that if they're not Christian, they're pagan. They believe their religions as much as Christians do...?

Oh, and who is teaching the atheists to be atheists?