Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[M3J]

Religion will exist as long as there are things unanswered in the creation, like what happens after we die, how vast is the universe. ?

you believe in evolution right ?

Just answer this simple question why did humans stop to evolve ? aren't we now supposed to be evolving to some other form ?

Who says humans stopped evolving? Evolution doesn't happen rapidly or noticeably, especially when there's no need to involve. There are over one billion humans (?) living, spread around in different areas with different reasons for dying. Humans evolved from a group of primate due to environment or something. Lack of trees took away our tail and made us stand upright to see the enemies better and to better run away from them. Nowadays, it's various reasons that threaten us, mostly other humans.

We have no need to evolve, not quickly anyway, so the process would be slower than normal. We are the dominant species. If anything, the intelligence may be looked as an example of evolution since with each passing generation, we see more and more geniuses crop up, although many of them have their predecessors ideas and etc to form basis on.

While religion/deity came to be mostly because of a way to explain how how things happened, science is debunking statements made by religion. However, I don't see religion as being completely useless or forgotten, which is mostly unfortunate, due to the selfishness of humans and their need to be wanted. Religions provide hope to many people, and due to them believing in god, it makes them feel as if they're not alone and someone cares about them. With belief of heaven and doing good deeds will get them to heaven, humans will be more likely to behave and be more likely to do something with their lives rather than just say "hey, we're gonna die in the end, what's it worth living for?! "

In my opinion, while religion tends to be the cause of war and many bad things dying, it still has its positive sides. It's the stupid, closeminded religious people that give it bad name and make everything look bad. There are people who force to convert others to their religion, people who attack others, whether verbally or physically, for having different religion than them, and people who commit acts of terrorism towards "sinners" in the name of god or something. Not everyone does that, I know, but those that do are the reason why certain religion is stereotyped.

However, because of their actions, others tend to persecute them. I heard about how America detained the Muslims soon after 9/11 and tortured them (or was that just in the movies?) and made their lives living hell. With actions like that, it was no surprise that some of them decided to get back at America. It's all about propaganda and how a country chooses to handle things. So many Muslims I know are awesome, and because of them, I never really understood why they were so harshly stereotyped and mistreated. The problem with religion is the people, whether religious or nonreligious or atheist.

You have few diehards doing something like committing acts of terrorism in the name of god, which then is retaliated by stereotyping the same religion of those diehards out of fear and eventually mistreating them, even the completely innocent. This in turn give rise to the next generation of diehards and the cycle goes on and on.

Oh, and I don't proofread what I say, so don't rage or anything at me for saying as if something's a fact. It most likely is to me.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Evolution applies to all living things... That said, it is not flawed, it is incomplete (and by a longshot for completely different reasons from what you said), the mechanisms by which it works are still being discovered and theories are still under heated debate. There are plenty of theories and explanations of how earth came to be, it is quite easy to find over the internet.

By common sense if a theorie is not proven right and still being debated then it shouldn't be acknwoledged, just like the many theories who tried to explain phenomenons and were proven flawed.

BTW there is a common confusion between evolution and science, we know for a fact that science means to observe and come up with logical explanations and then prove those explanations various times and then generalize those explanations . what did evolution do ?

It observed and came up with and explanation but did not prove it

 

[M3J]

Does evolution only apply to humans or all creations ?

because we know that if evolution is true it should apply to both, then when we look back on how the earth was created it didn't exist at one point because the earth and thanks to science has an age.



Now we know for a fact that you can't create something from nothing, then from what did the earth evolve.?

We conclude that the THEORIE of evolution is flawed.

Same applies to creationism. What created god? He cannot have existed forever or out of nothingness.

 

[Akainu]

Does evolution only apply to humans or all creations ?

because we know that if evolution is true it should apply to both, then when we look back on how the earth was created it didn't exist at one point because the earth and thanks to science has an age.



Now we know for a fact that you can't create something from nothing, then from what did the earth evolve.?

We conclude that the THEORIE of evolution is flawed.

o.k., so we're getting to the basics of life.
recently I read some very true words about our basic scientific fields and how they relate to each other: Biology is applied Chemistry and Chemistry in turn is applied Physics. This, while being a mockery to definitions in general gives an interesting perspective to this debate and combines good with your words "you can't create something form nothing".

Going back to the "beginning" there must have been something and if it's just atoms or even smaller, let's just call it matter. This matter was iirc highly condensed at some point and erupted in a "big bang". That moment a chain of motion came into being using the laws of physics, to form suns and planets and what not. On one of those planets there was a certain range of temperature and in combinning all those diffrent rules, i.e. forming molecular chains etc. life slowly came into being evolving into what we find today.

Evolution thus, if you want to put it like that, began at what we see as the beginning, with the tiniest atomar pieces, maybe this is the act of creation that miraculously was guided somehow, but we do not even know what was before this or if other places could ever bear life. However seeing the evolution of life itself we have here on planet earth I can hardly accept as being some mysterious thing we'd need god for when it's just as possible to put coincidence and probability there.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Same applies to creationism. What created god? He cannot have existed forever or out of nothingness.

If we go by this logic then who created the creator of god and so on to infinity don't you think ? and if you keep thinking like that then you will just enter a never ending circle and drive yourself nuts.

Same can be applied to evolution here, creations came from a matter and that matter came from another then its just a never ending circle.

Which means our logic is useless in this case and then there has to be an even greater and beyond our capacities logic that could explain all this. so we can't apply our logic that he created on His existence.

We all know humans will be imperfect and nothing that humans make can be perfect thus our logic is imperfect.

The creator and the sustainer is out of the time and the place and out of our concepts because he created them.

---

Going back to the "beginning" there must have been something and if it's just atoms or even smaller, let's just call it matter

The evolution implies that something must have evolved from something else and so on backwards to infinity, I mean those atoms couldn't have come from nothingness, thus there is no "beginning"

But if we apply creation here there could be a beginning which is the guided bing bang.

. This matter was iirc highly condensed at some point and erupted in a "big bang". That moment a chain of motion came into being using the laws of physics, to form suns and planets and what not. On one of those planets there was a certain range of temperature and in combinning all those diffrent rules, i.e. forming molecular chains etc. life slowly came into being evolving into what we find today.

The universe is in tight and supreme order and that can't come out of coincidence and the probabilty of that order happening is nothing.

the probablity of the earth turning around itself so there could be night and day, that can't come out of coincidence and the distance between the sun and the earth so humans can't be burned by the sun is not coincidence its well thought out.

but we do not even know what was before this or if other places could ever bear life. However seeing the evolution of life itself we have here on planet earth I can hardly accept as being some mysterious thing we'd need god for when it's just as possible to put coincidence and probability there.

The only answer you have is that your not supposed to think that out but to accept it as it was given to you. and the post above completes this one.

 

[kkck]

By common sense if a theorie is not proven right and still being debated then it shouldn't be acknwoledged, just like the many theories who tried to explain phenomenons and were proven flawed.

BTW there is a common confusion between evolution and science, we know for a fact that science means to observe and come up with logical explanations and then prove those explanations various times and then generalize those explanations . what did evolution do ?

It observed and came up with and explanation but did not prove it

You are misunderstanding the theory part here. Within the scientific community there is no debate whatsoever as to whether evolution occurs. Only people who have conflicting religious beliefs actually question that (even then, most mainstream religions don't actually oppose evolution) which is very unscienfic to say the least considering they are discarding evidence quite literally written in stone (the fossil record). The fossil record and the constant appearance of new species only makes sense through evolution too, it's a direct observation of history which pretty much shows what has gone by.....

Nowadays within the scientific community when people talk about the "theory" of evolution they are not actually discussing whether evolution actually happened. What is being discussed is how exactly what is observed in fossil records came to be or what circumstances triggered the change in species.

 

[Akainu]

Same can be applied to evolution here, creations came from a matter and that matter came from another then its just a never ending circle.

yes, yes just that. well at least it's a hypothesis in physics that there was a universe before ours and ... well, we're a recylced version of that ...
alernatively there are many multiverse theories and whatnot, the point being we hit a wall somewhere because neither can be proven and even science drifts off into believes.

for me this "creator" or "god" theory is interesting from a totally diffrent scientific direction: psychology. to make it short since I need sleep () god is/can be a figure created in the mind of humans substituting a father/ly figure. by that definition, I guess it's easier to believe in even for not so religious people when they need something to hold them, especially after loosing their own father/parents or whoever used to have that function.
This also does something else though. It rids god of all kinds of (ridiculous) powers (s)he's supposed to have like creating every living being since basically it is kinda a diffrent part of the same idea for each beliefer. That also makes god able to "be everywhere" since it's all in the minds of us more or less. can't phrase that, but will continue tomorrow

edit: oh and the "tight and supreme order" had a name that, iirc was "chaos" there are rules, but boy it is wild out there

 

[kkck]

Well, according to Stephen Hawkin's theory the universe pretty much spontaneously created itself from nothing due to the laws of gravity. I found the idea fascinating, unfortunately I doubt I have the background knowledge to get a better grasp of what he is trying to say. Of course, he did say that very process would have to be started by already existing laws of physics which have to be discovered and studied so even though as far as we can interpret there was "nothing" before that it does not mean there were no governing laws to that nothingness.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

for me this "creator" or "god" theory is interesting from a totally diffrent scientific direction: psychology.

Yes I agree, no coincidence or chimical reaction can create something as complicated as human feelings.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Yes I agree, no coincidence or chimical reaction can create something as complicated as human feelings.

That might be because our brain is not a coincidence. Just like it's not a coincidence that our mouth is at the top of the gullet and that our teeth grow in our mouth and not somewhere else - it's a logical developement in evolution.

If I interpreted your comment correctly, it's the same as "intelligent design"? It's complex, so it has to be "made" by someone and can't be just a result of mistake and error - evolution?

I do understand why people come to doubt the evolution theory in the first place - of course the results are spectacular and unexpected for something labelled "random developement". However, by just reconsidering what a giant amount of time and coincidences was involved in evolution, it seems very plausible. After all the developements are not totally random, but favor beneficial traits; Enough dice rolls combined, and amazing things can result from it.

 

[kkck]

I think I need to elaborate a tad more about why evolution is actually seen as fact.

"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

As a matter of fact, evolution is a theory because it has been supported by evidence repeatedly. In evolutions particular case, the evidence supporting it has been so overwhelming and so consistent that it has come to be regarded as fact.

On another note, evolution is not in itself a random process. There is an element of randomness to mutations which drive evolution however it is inappropriate to say evolution is random. For any mutation to make it, it has to survive the process of natural selection which is anything but random. Any mutation that fails at the natural selection test will not survive past a few generations and be lost.

 

[shaheer]

Evolution makes no sense to me because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, every process should increase entropy decrease orderlyness unless guided. According to the evolutionists if the Dna is formed the life will sprout spontaneously, now DNA = 1 pentose 1 phosphate 1 nitrogen base, for a glucose protein and phosphorus to merge in to a sensible pattern of DNA the random level of creation is absurd and as the process goes further the randomness should increase. If the whole process is ever possible then its very possible for a tornado sweeping over a aircrafts junk yard and leaves behind a 747
The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high.
So even if Evolution was true according to the numbers we need to spend a lot more time for us to arise.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Wait, did you just tell us the odds for the human genome to be constructed out of chaos?
...
Obviously, the starting point of evolution was less complex than a human. The human -and other similar or even more complex genomes - rather are the result of a long long process.
And however low the chances, the number of chemical processes with the potential of creating a starting point of life obviously are gigantic as well in a world like our planet once was; Low chances evened out by a high number of trials over a long time.

I didn't study much about thermodynamics, but if I remember correctly that law you posted only accounted for "isolated systems".
Apart from that, it's obviously extraordinary that a self-recreating system called "life" could be created of usual "dead" matter.
German Wikipedia (I couldn't find it at all on English one) says:
"In a closed [or isolated] adiabatical system entropy cannot decrease, but usually increases. Only in reversal processes it remains constant."

 

[kkck]

Evolution makes no sense to me because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, every process should increase entropy decrease orderlyness unless guided. According to the evolutionists if the Dna is formed the life will sprout spontaneously, now DNA = 1 pentose 1 phosphate 1 nitrogen base, for a glucose protein and phosphorus to merge in to a sensible pattern of DNA the random level of creation is absurd and as the process goes further the randomness should increase. If the whole process is ever possible then its very possible for a tornado sweeping over a aircrafts junk yard and leaves behind a 747
The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high.
So even if Evolution was true according to the numbers we need to spend a lot more time for us to arise.

Evolution does no such thing. This article actually addresses that along with a few other points.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

[shaheer]

Uhu that article mainly addresses the natural selection in accordance with evolution, what i put forward was the creation of the DNA in the first place. the stuffs that the artice came up with is the lightning and what not, the point is similar if stuffs like lightning sandstorms and etc could give rise to Dnas then surely a tornado could wipe to create a 747 or better still the sand dessert of arabia and sahara of mid africa would be filled with semi conductor diodes with sand storms and lightnings and natural shifts we dont see those
and i am not denying evolution(ie i am not saying it vcan never occur) but i am saying is for evolution to occur and create genome the time taken is enormous, much much more than the time earth has spent.
the article takes in consideration of the transitional species, but if evolution was true then the surface of earth should be FILLED with transitional species, not the handfull of whats found, and that can very easily be recorded as a lost species of diff genome, i believe in adaptation. but evolution seems like fiction to me.

---

the starting point of evolution was less complex than a human

ofcourse it was, to start a life all that need si a Dna, i just mentioned the odds in fugures , of creating a DNA not a human , hell no
russian scientist wanted to create humans, they packed all the materials that human body contained in a place and started passing electricity and other catalyst for time long. the result : noting happend and they disbanded that (atleast what i heard)

 

[kkck]

How old do you think earth is? Earth is 4.5 billion years old lol, more than enough time.

Besides, the article does address why not every plausible transition is found....

On another note, it has already been proven (and observed in labs, heck, you could do that in your house with the proper equipment lol) that organic compounds can be made in nature from inanimate compounds through a series of perfectly natural processes.

That said, I kinda found your post hard to read...

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Ok, so you guys are what exactly ? believing in evolution or waiting for evolution to be proved so you could believe in it ?

The odds against evolution are pretty high, so it might be right or it might be wrong, but at this point its nothing more than a theory untill proven right.

What you need to do now, is not to believe in either evolution or religion, and lets see how you feel ?

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Ok, so you guys are what exactly ? believing in evolution or waiting for evolution to be proved so you could believe in it ?

The odds against evolution are pretty high, so it might be right or it might be wrong, but at this point its nothing more than a theory untill proven right.

What you need to do now, is not to believe in either evolution or religion, and lets see how you feel ?

Evolution is 100% plausible to me and I don't see anything that would point towards high odds against Evolution - simply because I don't remember a single point against the theory which seemed plausible to me as all of them were logically invalidated.

I don't see a single hint why the creationism of the old testamony should be true.
Why do some people still believe in it these days? Because the bible says it. Great.
My conception of "truth" is, that it - with the right explanations - can be made plausible to me. I see or experience something every day? Ok, then it probably exists.
A theory can be plausible or not. Evolution is a plausible basic explanation for the developement of todays organisms. I can understand it, I can reconstruct the thought.

What is creationism compared to that? It's not understandable or explainable. It's just presented as a given fact with no solid hint on why we should believe it exept for the claim that the old testamony contains divine truths.
Thus I do not see a reason to believe in it.

 

[blai]

Evolution itself is not a theory but a fact. It's a fact that animals adapt, it's a fact that when a change is needed, a change happens. It's a fact that evolution basically is a mutation and 9/10 mutations are negative. Mutations are originally a random defect that happens when something goes wrong. If the mutation leads to a good thing, we call it evolution. For example; when an animal goes from X to Y - it mutates. We say that it evolves from X to Y.

I just don't see how one can exclude the other. Evolution is not a theory, and you can't measure evolution with odds because it happens nine out of ten times out of random. That's why it's unpredictable and can't be "measured". In fact, humans "suffer" through many mutations during it's lifetime, whereas most aren't even noticeable.

Again. I don't see how one can exclude the other. Why can't God be the one behind Evolution. Just because he's the creator of all things, doesn't mean he's controlling it's evolution.

@Roflkopt3r - There's a theory, that I believe is the most likely one, when it comes to the old testamony and the creation of all things. It says God created everything in one week (six days), but those doesn't have to be "our" interpretation of one week. One day, in the old testamony, could mean 100'000'000 years. But it's simply referred to, in the old testamony, as seven days; since it is easier to "measure" and talk about, as we have weeks.
That He actually created it in six "human" days is one of the biggest misinterpretations that the churchs has done, in my opinion. And it's one of the reasons why I do not see myself as a believer of the Catholic Church in the Holy See, but I have my own interpretation of it.

 

[kkck]

You are still missing what "theory" means in a scientific context. You are confusing a theory with a hypothesis. A theory is a proposed model on which predictions can be made and is supported by evidence. Evolution has so far withstood the test of time and the sheer amount of evidence supporting it is so overwhelming that it has come to be regarded a fact. A scientific theory is far different from an opinion or a conjecture.....

I myself am catholic. I don't believe the universe was created in a week, that the earth is flat or that the world is six thousand years old and my interpretation of the bible is far from literal. I see it as a spiritual guide to which one should take an interpretative approach rather than a literal one(interpreting the bible literally is seen as bad theology by catholic standards).

---

@ Blai: I agree, evolution, science and religion are not incompatible in the least. The only time they are incompatible is when one of them tries to get into the domain of the other (such as with intelligent design)....