[wayfinder]

religion cannot explain anything. that's the thing - religion is about belief, faith. that's *not knowing something but acting like you do*, and being totally convinced that you are right. i kinda admire this, in the same way that i kinda admire someone who cleverly exploits people. i'd like to be able to do it myself, for the benefits, but my nature holds me back.


and taking the bible literally - that's an outright insult to the authors. the bible is so much more...

[Awetopsy]

thats an opinion.

"that's *not knowing something but acting like you do*,"

so Ilsoap and Xino and Christian Cox and Steven Stahlberg and everyone here who support religion are completely naive then? Sure we dont all support the same religions but Ive observed that each of th people here have shown a great deal of understanding.

thats a pretty closed minded statement.

"and taking the bible literally - that's an outright insult to the authors. the bible is so much more..."

If the authors did designed it to be taken literally, then your statement is the outragous insult.

Im not trying to put your opinion down here Wayfinder, I just found that your post was a bit condescending.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[wayfinder]

faith and belief is not about naivit�, stop filling my statements with meanings that aren't there.

faith happens to be just that: you cannot *believe* in something that is proven, just like you cannot *know* something that isn't. that was a technical statement. i'm not trying to imply that religious people are worth less than their less religious peers. dammit. i hate it when i can't say anything without someone turning it around in my mouth. i hate the please-talk-superprecisely-because-every-letdown-will-be-jumped-on discussions that ensue. please, don't go that way. i'm sorry, but if you're going to interpret this kind of thing into my words, i'm not interested in continuing the discussion.

what is outrageously insulting about seeing something much bigger in a thing? i don't get that. anyway, there's no way of knowing, so you will continue believing it is to be taken literally, and i will continue believing that it is more than that. see how this works? we don't know it but we act as if we did. and both of us are convinced that we're right about it.

and no, your version of seeing things does not make sense to me, but i can understand (on an intellectual level, not emotionally) why you feel that way. you see? i am not implying that one of us is more naive than the other.

also, this is my answer to coaster's original question: "what is the need for religion?":

religion channels the faith that allows us to base decisions on unknown facts.

[Nilwort]

good comments everyone....

when I mentioned earlier the miracle of life...I diddn't mean to imply that religion wins and science sucks...I meant to say I believe that there are parts of the universe that go beyond things that can be described with religion or science and the human consciousness in general, as a species, humanity needs to learn some humility...

quote

Quote:

I can't speak for anyone else but I find evolutioin hard to grasp in that structure...not a single report I've seen has shown how we are plant-like...

No offence, but haven't you taken high school biology? All life has certain things in common...the ability to repair damaged tissue, the ability to duplicate itself, some sort of exchange of chemicals with it's environment...the list goes on...

Plants and humans both do the same basic things, just because you don't see plants running around and having conversations with people doesn't mean that they don't carry out the same basic procceses of life that humans do...

That's "the miracle of life" the fact that there are organisms that are self-aware and have systems thay allow them to breath...eat...move... and utilize matter as fuel for these proccesses...

If you want to research it...there are papers on how "the first cell evolved" It talks basically about how amino acids and proteins reacted with eachother in the "primordial soup" to create the very first incredibly simple self-replicating proteins...

Even if it can be scientifically explained...It's still fucking amazing that such a thing happened...

If I have any religious beliefs at all, it is that all life is sacred...That each living thing is a complex system of interactions that should be cherished...How unique is life on earth? Are there other sources of life in the universe? I hope so, because we sure have no reguard for it here on this planet...


Call me an Idealistic-science-hippie, but those are my beliefs, and I stand by them...you're free to have yours, as long as you don't expect me to accept them without question.

[edit]dang typos

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Nilwort ]

[Giant Hamster]

Sex Rocks. That's why I made it.

[Awetopsy]

Wayfinder: Please accept my apologies. I didnt mean to turn any of your words around. I was only replying to what I percieved as a condescending post. Im sure that wasnt your intent and It really wasnt my intent to insult or make you think I was upset with you. Im sorry

I do disagree with you tho, You can very well "believe" in something that is proven. for example, I believe you were brought into the world by your mother. Its already biologically proven, And I do believe it.

Nilwort well I guess you can say we're are all carbon based life forms. So we are similar in that aspect. If a God did create everything, I dont see why he wouldnt use a basic template all around so that all things are harmonious.

Everybody should question what they believe.. No one here has said you should believe anything blindly. It seems that the people here supporting science, are the ones saying that the religious people are saying that everybody should believe religion without question. That simply is not the case... In fact the bible clearly states that people perish for lack of knowledge.

[edit typos again]

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[xino]

wow such a condesncending remark for my post

anyways...biology high school classes not withstanding....evolution is ALWAYS mentioned in terms of mammals evolving from other mammals...but never from plants to animals or vice versa...that was my question....not once that I have read or seen or heard have I ever read a scientific paper on this form of evolution...maybe it's because they can't really explain plants and animals in that regard or maybe they can and I haven't found it yet...it was a just a question...

and if you wish to ask my intellectual history in the study of organics then feel free because I have studied this alot more than you or someone else may think (in actual college classes with textbooks; i.e. not a home-scholar)...but back to the subject...

quote

Quote:

Even if it can be scientifically explained...It's still fucking amazing that such a thing happened...

that to me leads me to religion...science has proven time and time again that life such as ours should not exist...the numbers are against us in this universe about humanity "evolving" from a single single-celled organism to all the various types of creatures that have lived or live today on our planet....science can't explain that...religion does...

which brings me to this....

quote

Quote:

religion cannot explain anything.

religion of any kind from what I've read says that the "creator" created all of us...that the creator did it...he's the one responsible for giving us all life...

science can only say it happened...not why...religion says why...perhaps you should read more literature on religion that blantantly saying "religion doesn't explain anything" when obviously it has to over 80% of the world's population

yeah..over 80% of the population believes in a higher deity of one form or another...that's some major mass delusion if you ask me....which lead's me back to Occams Razor yet again...

either 80% of the population (majority) is in serious denial and deluded...

or the minority is wrong...

seems simple to me...but that's because I believe

and whether you want to admit it or not beliving evolution takes as much if not more faith than any other form of religion...same as aethism...of course they don't want to think of faith in that way but definition wise that's exactly what it is...

quote:

---

the human consciousness in general, as a species, humanity needs to learn some humility...

---

correct me if I'm wrong but humilty is the one thing that science can not be...science HAS to be always right and can not accept something as just being....science has to define it ....even if that defintion is totally wrong...

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: xino ]

[wayfinder]

awetopsy, i should be sorry. i agree that the post sounded more rude than i intended, so: sorry 'bout that.

anyway, do you KNOW i was brought into the world by my mother? how so? were you a witness? it sums up to eliminating other explanations for the fact that you are talking to me, and i'm answering - so either you know i was indeed born, or you believe it to be true based on the assumption that a) human beings are brought into the world by their mothers and b) i am a human being.

so, it's really merely a matter of were you draw the line between knowledge and belief. the existence of said line is the proof that believing means not-knowing.

[wayfinder]

xino, you do stop reading when it suits you best, don't you?

edit: i never said i didn't believe in a godlike entity, i never said i was an atheist or anything. in fact, i've been christened as an evangelic protestant, and only recently, like in the last ten years or so, i developed a faith of my own that allows me to keep a more open mind towards other faiths and beliefs. but i still do believe in god. maybe differently than you, okay. but it doesn't matter.

you slash out, but in the wrong direction.

to me, you sound like you fear i am going to take something away from you if i make you believe that evolution might be true. well. it would probably mean that the bible cannot be taken literally. tough luck but i don'
t see the two (or three) of us agreeing upon evolution when the real matter is whether to take the bible literally or not.

"what must not be, cannot be."

?


on evolution:
naturally, a fish cannot evolve into a mammal. that's because (*drumroll, i'm trying to explain this a third time*) they are products of an evolutionary diversion themselves. mammals and fish may have evolved from the same ancestors though.

if you go back sufficiently far, you will come to a point where flora and fauna are indistinguishable.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: wayfinder ]

[xino]

when did I stop reading?...did I miss something?

obviously I was still editing my post when you posted yours...

[xino]

ahh yeah sorry I forgot you posting that

but in defense that wasn't what my question was...I understand that they were supposedly undistinguishable...but I haven't seen any evidence of that..perhaps because they haven't found it yet -shrugs

that's what my question was regarding...

and the statement about someone making a condescending remark wasn't to you wayfinder

personally I can believe "some" parts of evolutioin....but not as the end-all-be-all explaination of humans...since at least to me it would seem to make sense that more than one species would develope enhance language skills at least on par with homo sapiens...to my knowledge no other species even comes close..

[wayfinder]

as for the evidence: we're talking about extremely small beings here. they're probably extinct for more than a billion years. i doubt that there is anything left of them...

since awetopsy felt that my post was condescending, i kinda thought i was meant again, sorry.


and about the language: maybe we're just the first?

[Giant Hamster]

Well, smarty-pants:

where did I(God)come from?

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Giant Hamster ]

[Awetopsy]

God is.

No beginning, no end.

[Giant Hamster]

People Are.

No beginning, No end.

[Ilsoap]

quote:

---

People Are.
No beginning, No end.

---

That goes against evolution AND creation.

[yeshman]

Just had to add two cents, I only got through about 2 pages of this so I dont know whats been said.

Its not nescessarily religion that is bad, but more groups of any kind, as soon as we start grouping ourselves together we can all hide behind all the other members. This instills a bravery in people that they can use to perform all kinds of atrocities. Its the Same with religions, countries, fraternities you name it!

Just this week a fraternity beat a kid almost to death because he had thrown a beer bottle at their frat house. When things like this happen you have to step back and go, huh? Something isnt right.

I'm not saying that everything about groups is bad. They also fascilitate organization and teamwork, which is how a lot of religions have done great things for society.

I believe its often difficult to see if the good and evil (I cringe at using these words because I dont really believe in them) balance out in the end. And some groups seem to be nescessary for us e.g. your countries government.

I dont have any answers. It'd be nice if people used groups to fascilitate peaceful relations and easy living for all, and at the same time, not use them as a sheild from behind which to throw stones.

People may call me an idealist, but if I can live peacufully without divine mandates, and help those around me without an ulterior motive, then why can't everyone else? As was posted before, I believe that our empathy is enough to govern our actions.

I'm sure that the religions we see today originated out of peoples empathy for others, but they have become twisted over time, as they have been used more as black jack than a helping hand.

I long for the day when everyone will realize that if we all just helped eachother out, then noone would be in any strife. But hey, I'm just a crazy idealist, my hopes and dreams are forever doomed.

[Awetopsy]

Yeshman Perhaps... but then again.. perhaps that day is closer than you think.

People are the problem.

A person is smart. People are stupid. No one should ever allow themselves to be defined by the people around them. That would avoid some one using others as a hiding place from which to "throw stones". Idealism isnt a bad thing.. I think alot of religious belief come from Idealism.. but it has its down sides too. Communism is an exmple of Idealism gone awry but when Idealism is balanced out with realism, it can be a very powerful and persuasive force, in a good way.

[Giant Hamster]

"That goes against evolution AND creation."

And it definately makes the most sense.

[balistic]

I definitely have an end. Sometimes girls grab it.

[wayfinder]

yeshman, be careful to see where religion differs from church - but i do agree to what you say, maybe it's because i'm an idealist as well

here's to hope that not all idealists turn cynic!

[klaivu]

Thoughts on evolution :

Every cell in your body, not including sex cells, contains your entire genetic code. Things like radiation, mutagenic substances etc. may alter it. Not every change matters - the mutation might occur in a gene that is not used in that particular cell or have no effect at all. A change in a cell of the germ line ( the string of sex cells in your family - from the cells of your ancestors to your children ) will inherit.

Mutations are common. Each new human cell will have about 120 mutations ( A human cell having 6 x 10^9 base pairs ). Most of them will have no effect, a few rare will have negative effects because of the crucial role of that most particular cell. ( Or because they might activate oncogenes ( cancer genes ) or create them. ) For example, your skin cells contain the necessary genes to make up your eyes. If that information would change, it wouldn't matter since your skin cells will never have anything to do with constructing eyes ...

Genepools change. The genes that make for good procreators stay in the pool - or change into better. The change is constant - the optimal instance for the environment the species lives in will not survive sudden shifts of circumstances, and this world changes its face constantly. Continents travel around the globe and sink into seas, species invade new territories, affect their environment etc. ... Rare few species stay
the same through millenia.

Change is constant and unavoidable. The ones that cannot live, will die. That is all there is to evolution.

> Where in history was there any creature in which the entire species ever had a 1/2 chromosome?
> And where did they go? what did they evolve to?

Half a chromosome is simply a shorter chromosome. I suppose you are referring to chromosome pairs. ( As all mammals have " pairs " for their chromosomes. ) All bacteria, some plants, mosses and fungi
don't have pairs for their chromosomes. I'm no expert on plants, but many have more than
one set of chromosomes, or just that one set. I recall that some of the more common types of wheat have four chromosomes of the same type. And there is a type of maize that only has this " pairless set " of chromosomes.

> Then how did that first cell start evolving?

By dividing. Dna mutated, getting new and funny recipes for primordial ooze. Some cells procreated better than others .. and here we are.

There are facts to back up evolution and religious dogma to back up creation. All you have in defence of creationism is word of mouth and a book that has validity only according to itself.

Why believe when you can know ? I don't think any faith that cannot survive doubt is worth having.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: klaivu ]

[Awetopsy]

Klaivu: no one here is debating whether species adapt. That much we know to be true. The problem is that we see no evidence of inert cells dividing or all of a sudden becoming proactive cells. There has to be a catalyst somewhere. How do we get something from nothing? How does life appear in things where no life previously existed?

How did that first cell start forming? the explanation to this that has been offered is that amino acids started grouped together under just the right conditions and.... and what? all of a sudden became a cell?

If you want to make an omelette, you dont just put an egg, a green pepper and some cheese in the frying pan and turn on the heat. There has to be an outside influence, of cracking the egg, chopping the pepper and cheese and mixing it all together. Thats a rather limited example but itll do for now.

Yes mutations are common, and genepools change. Every species that survives adapts to its surroundings at whatever scale necessary, whether in a outward change or a microscopic change. This could very easily, from a creationist point of view, have been put in as a fail safe by God.

I guess what Im getting at is that Evolution doesnt explain life. It explains alot of things quite resonably.. but it cannot explain life. (how it appeared in these cells that started dividing)

quote

Quote:

"I don't think any faith that cannot survive doubt is worth having."

No science can survive doubt either, from that same perspective.

[yeshman]

I think it makes more sense to believe that science is correct and that we just don't understand the initial stages than to explain it with some sort of external force. Yes, we still dont understand lots of things about the universe, but we should come up with the most practical explaination for things rather than the one that we want to believe. I'm sure that many years ago when people died of diseases people might have thought that the bogeymen had snuck up on them and taken their soul, but we now know that this with high certainty is not true. I'm sure that one day we'll know more details about how life arises, and how the universe came to be the way it was, and I'm sure we'll have a way to explain it scientifically. Hell, we can for most things.

A child will ask its mother if there are monsters under his bed and the mother will reply that's nonsense, have you ever seen the monsters? The same child may ask, is there a God? And the mother would reply, of course there is, he is always watching over you, though you cannot see him.

Is one of these more fanciful than the other?
Its more logical to believe that since we cannot see the monsters/God, that they do not exist, and unless there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, then it is the safest to assume.

Well theres my 2 cents on the whole deal, I hope I havent offended anyone, for after all I could be wrong, maybe there is a God. I think that if we all admitted that we could be wrong in our beliefs then we could all get along better with eachother. But whenever I mention this to a religious person they claim that they cant admit this because of their "faith". Then I claim faith is a pretty rotten concept. If it lets you hold something to be true even with no proof. Then people will only end up getting hurt.

"faith" would seem to be the easy way out. How many times did you wish in a math course that you could write a proof by simply saying "I am deciding to take on faith that this is correct". It takes a lot more effort to try and put things together logically.

[Awetopsy]

Yeshman: Im not sure how much of this thread you've actully read, but in all honsesty what your saying is that anyone who follows religion is taking an easy way out of actually knowing something...

Thats a fairly closeminded statement. Most of the people in this forum who have posted in this thread are fairly well educated people. I, myself, have put a great deal of research in my life to knowing what I believe, and I suspect a few more have done the same. I dont believe in God just because believing in God is an easy thing, (I use myself as an example because I only know myself to this extent) but rather because the evidence Ive seen for God has greatly outweighed the evidence against God. I try very hard to be open minded, even to the point of saying that I will change anything I believe if adequate evidence is given. Adequate evidence has not been given so far.

Im a thinker by nature. I reason things out. I talk things out. I work things out. Most other people who have been posting in this thread appear to me to be the same.

[yeshman]

If you feel that there is more evidence that there is a God then there isnt then it is completely logical for you to believe so, and the same for anyone that sees the evidence in that manner. I myself have seen no evidence that there is a god, but I am always open for people to correct me. I'm rather shocked that you think I'm closeminded. I was only explaining that I need to have proof for anything that I believe in. This is the way that I work. True, I wish everyone worked that way, but I dont want to force that on them, and I understand the attraction of seeing things differently. I wish I could sometimes. Perhaps the way I presented my opinions was a bit forceful but I explained in my post that they were just that, opinions, beliefs, that I understand could be incorrect. I'm trying to delve into why people believe in something that doesnt seem like a logical explainations for the holes in our scientific understanding. And I presented my opinions out of curiosity, not out of a belief that mine were any better, or to suggest that others should change theirs. I dont understand how that is being closeminded.

[yeshman]

Rather I would suggest that it is "faith" that breeds closemindedness, since when you have it, you are unwilling to recognize that other opinions could be correct.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: yeshman ]

[Awetopsy]

hmmm.. sorry, I didnt mean to infer that no other opinions could be correct. I really meant that "Faith as an excuse to not properly understand and know something, or Faith as an easy way out" seemed like a closed minded accusation, towards not only myelf but the many others here who support doctrines other than my own.

It wasnt meant as a personal attack. My apologies.

Perhaps, I came across wrong, but the general Idea of my post was to freely admit I could be wrong (some other opinion could be correct), but I have been presented with no adequate proof, as bold as that statement may be.

But I will disagree that "faith" breeds closedmindedness, but rather it would seem that "belief" breeds closedmindedness.

[SWANYDSPIN]

quote:

---

How do we get something from nothing? How does life appear in things where no life previously existed?
How did that first cell start forming? the explanation to this that has been offered is that amino acids started grouped together under just the right conditions and.... and what? all of a sudden became a cell?

---

Things don't just form out of nothing, it is somthing that just changes, it was always there just in another form. It wasn't created nor destroyed, just changed, and that goes for everything!

[PixHortHiT]

By the law of chaos, he�s right!

Everything changes, nothing is eternal, thats why previously inanimate objects( well apart from the sea) came to react with eachother, because, they had to!

Thats chaos for ya, in the right conditions, life may or may not appear!

I you think of the small the odds �s for life to 'by itself' form on a planet, the temerature must be right, the atmosphere also the mass of the planet/ the gravitational pull and the night day cycle also plays a signifigant role.

If you add all these things up the, even then the chance of life forming is extremely extremely small, if you take this extemely extremely small chance and put it against the size of this universe, the amount of stars and planets with a suitable size and contitions, things arent all that impossible..!

you want proof? Look around you!

this is just me rambling but its all facts, I�ve looked up myself...