Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Phenotypic/Genotypic Expression & Other Evolution Bashing: Pt II

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by S.H. Le on October 15, 2000 10:14:14 UTC

Sorry, couldn`t fit it all in one post :)

Evolution persists as the predominant dogma despite the evidence. It is a philosophy. It is the theological basis for the doctorine of atheism and secular humanism. -Bzrd

I have already explained the ideals science tries to attain. Individual scientists may not be perfect (they`re human), but the method itself is self correcting because the information is available for public scrutiny. Scientists disagree on the details of evolution (how certain traits evolved), but there is unanimous agreement that evolution does occur with scientists. We continue to move away from error.

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. FACT: there are many species of cat in the world. FACT: they are all related because they are all cats. FACT: if they`re related, they must`ve come from a common ancestor. FACT: if they came from a common ancestor, they must have EVOLVED into differing species through speciation. Speciation (as the name suggests) is the creation of a new species through evolution.
The only other possibility is that God created each of these cat species individually, and yet they`re all related genotypically. You want to talk about coincidence in atheist thinking?

It`s not a giant leap of logic here people, it makes sense if you stop trying to prove everything in the bible is scientifically accurate.

It should be inherently obvious that science deals only with empirical observable events. A soul is not observable. God`s intervention to create new species is not observable. It is simply STATED in a text. A text, i might add, that is extremely fallable and inconsistent.

Therefore, much of the bible cannot be viewed scientifically. Once you try doing it through biblical creationism, the innumerable flaws become apparent.

1) noah`s arc: Noah fit all the animals in the world in an arc. We have not yet discovered all the species that exist in the world today. Somehow, between the time of the great flood, and now, tons of new species came about (unless he found some way to fit every living thing into the arc, along with food to feed them all, along with keeping them from killing each other). How did this occur? Of course the creationist would say it occured because God is omnipotent and thusly can do anything. Well surprise :) this can`t be observed through science... and that`s why creationism hasn`t been accepted.

2) god creating women from the rib of a man, and other biblical unempirical phenomena: Anybody that tries to prove that, has to be unbelievably persistent. I reckon if he`s out there... he`s still trying.

It owes it`s existence to a brand of human rebellion known as rationalism, which was born in the late 1700`s and is symbolised by the eye-ball over the pyramid on the back of the U.S. dollar-bill. It is an abomination. -Bzrd

It seems to me that the pursuit of knowledge and understand is associated with "rebellion" throughout many passages of the bible. Ex. God with holds knowledge of good/evil from us in the garden of eden.

Also take for instance the "doubting Thomas" in the new testament. Thomas simply asked to see and touch Jesus` wounds to see if it really was him. It`s a reasonable request i would think, after all it could be satan in disguse trying to trick everybody, or a David Koresh cult leader type. If it were me, i`d like to make for certain that it really was Jesus. Yet later on in the passage, the bible states: "you have seen, and believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe nonetheless." or something to that effect.

This passage seems to outright deny any attitude of skepticism. If a God deems me rebellious for my love of learning, and the intrinsic joy i derive from it, then so be it. I disagree Bzrd, it is not an abomination. Knowlegde is one of the great achievements to which humanity can aspire. Brand me a heretic :) I`ll die a happy fellow.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins