| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should religion be taught in schools? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 31 2005, 01:37 PM (1,206 Views) | |
| Post #41 Jan 4 2006, 08:31 PM | Son N Law |
Well, first I think it's important to know that I don't believe evolution and God coexist. That's not to say that they cannot coexist, though. As I've said before, the belief that evolution says things came to be without a creator is simply untrue. You're thinking of Abiogenesis. The theories that explain how evolution works aren't interested in all in where life originally came from. The people who have developed these theories may be, but the theories themselves have nothing to say on the matter. Natural Selection, the most famous, best-tested, most bullet-proof theory of evolution, simply demonstrates how species change over time as those that are better suited to their environment survive to pass their genes to the next generation. It also demonstrates how, when one species is broken into two geographically separated groups, thus eliminating the exchange of genes between them, the genetic changes eventually result in significant structural difference in the chromosomes and DNA, so that if the two groups do happen to be drawn back into the same environment, they are no longer able to interbreed. Bada-bing: you now have two different species, even if they look somewhat alike. Eventually, successful mutations at the genome level lead to different phenotypes (and it’s important to remember that most mutations aren’t successful. It's also important to note that a successful mutation doesn't mean one with a benefit -- it can also be a mutation that has absolutely no bearing on the survivability of an organism, but that at some point in the future may change the phenotype), and you eventually get to the point where the two distinct species look less and less alike. It’s much more complicated than that, and by covering it so briefly I'm sure I've left it full of holes, but that’s Natural Selection in a nutshell. Notice, though, that nowhere in there does it say, “God didn’t guide this,” because that simply isn’t testable, nor is it falsifiable, and any truly scientific theory rests on a bedrock of testability and falsifiability. It’s not a denial of God. It’s simply saying, “We can’t set up a test or look at the fossil record or make predictions and find God that way, so we’re leaving God out of the equation.”
Woof! That's a big ol' question. The answer is a book in and of itself, so I won't even try to scratch the surface :) But just to touch on a few points, Big Bang doesn't suppose that the universe started as a molecule. All indications are that it began as something very close to a singularity. There simply wasn't any matter -- it was all energy. A lot of energy! And as Einstein demonstrated, there is equivalency between mass and energy. E=MC^2. No laws of physics are "broken." What you're leaving out in that "no matter may be created..." is "...without an input of equivalent energy." As for where it came from? As I said in a previous post, Big Bang doesn't cover that, because at anything before 10^-43, the laws of physic break down (just as they do inside a black hole). It's as if you were trying to work on a car, and the engine ate all of your tools. That's one of the reasons why physicists are trying so hard to find a unified theory of physics, because that's the only hope they have for "peering" behind this brick wall at 10^-43 seconds after the "bang" itself. Only wth a unified theory of physics can they hope to understand conditions in which quantum physics and general relativity start to rip each other apart. So there ya go. There's plenty of room for God anytime "before" that 10^-43 seconds after the bang (although, at that point, the word "before" starts to lose all meaning, which leaves all kinds of room for God, if you believe in Him). |
Fool, apparently
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #42 Jan 4 2006, 09:35 PM | Son N Law |
Ooop! How rude of me! Yes, Civil Lized, welcome! We've got a seat saved for you. (Watch out, though; Eye95 has a thing for whoopie cushions.) |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #43 Jan 4 2006, 10:22 PM |
|
Hey, if Gibson can make a '61 replica SG, aged to look like it's really from 1961, then God do what you state ;) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #44 Jan 4 2006, 11:50 PM | Son N Law |
And I bet he'd make a more accurate PAF replica, too! |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #45 Jan 5 2006, 12:05 AM |
|
|
Ooooohh - the man be slingin' around some geetar jargon....sssssssssss sizzzzzzzlin......... B) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #46 Jan 5 2006, 09:06 AM | Son N Law |
| Hee! Yeah, I've been known to bang on a guitar. Not well, but I enjoy it nonetheless. I have a blocked '83 American Standard Strat. Also used to own a Gibson L6 Solid, but I had to sell it in my mid-twenties because I was broker than broke. I miss that thing. I've never seen another one in person. :( |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #47 Jan 5 2006, 12:02 PM |
|
|
OK - enough of all of the "over most people's heads" talk. Whew! Ya'll give me a headache sometimes trying to comprehend all of that stuff. <_< Believe it or not, I don't think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, either. There is current information on different species' evolving. I can easily see where evolution is/has taken place. Now, that's not to say that I believe we originally came from monkeys, but I do think creatures of all types adapt to their surroundings. I had the pleasure of going on a 2nd grade field trip to the Exploreum here in Mobile, and visited the IMAX theater to watch a film on bugs. OK - I would have MUCH rather seen the trip down the Nile at the IMAX, but, hey. Anyway, bugs (and other animals) really intrigue me. They camouflage themselves in to looking like their surroundings. Yes, it’s entirely possible God just made them that way, but then again, since the time the Bible describes as the beginning of time, the earth has changed dramatically. I saw a special one time on the Discovery channel or something, where they discussed how people got to be so different, given that the Bible tells us we all came from two people. (I always had a hard time with that one.) And, they said that the people have adapted. For example, people in the northern-most part of the world have smaller noses (and nostrils), and their noses turn slightly upward, they have fairer skin, etc. All of this is to protect them from the cold – the nose is shaped to prevent inhaling a lot of very dry, cold air, but is turned slightly upward because of the low air pressure. Where, in stark comparison, people in the very warm climates (such as Africa) have larger noses (nostrils) that point downward, and much darker skin. The pigmentation in the skin helps protect them from the massive amount of sun they are exposed to on a regular basis, and the nose, again, helps them breathe in more air in the humid, hot weather they live in. This made perfect sense to me. When you start thinking about people in conjunction with where they are born and raised, geographically, you start to see a pattern across the globe. I.e. people in Scotland have fair skin and smaller noses; people in the Middle East have darker skin and larger noses, etc. And, considering that we know the Earth has moved closer to the sun (or is it away from the sun?), and that the atmosphere has changed (hole in the ozone layer and all of that), we have to admit that people have adapted to the different environment. If people adapt, the food sources have to adapt as well, or we wouldn’t be here. I know I’m probably talking more about adaptation than evolution, but I still think it’s interesting. I believe in the Bible and what it says, but one has to admit, there are holes there – like, there was no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, but we know, for sure, they existed. We also know the “caveman” and his predecessors existed, but the Bible makes it sound like Adam and Eve were just regular people (capable of speech as we know it, standing upright, etc.) So, why not consider the possibility that Science might have answers we (as Christians/Jews) don’t? {Oh - BTW – saw another Discovery Channel thing about that they thought they’d found Eve, and guess what she looked like? A middle-eastern person. Makes sense! Saw a really cool explanation of how the flood covered the earth – explained both Biblically and scientifically. Let me know if you want to know more about that.} So, I don’t think that you have to believe 100% in anything – from a faith-based point of view. I don’t think there is a right and a wrong. ALL of history (including the Bible) has been recorded by mankind, and we are definitely prone to making mistakes. Please don’t misunderstand. I do believe in God and the Bible, but I also believe there is something to the scientific explanations of some things. I might not agree with them, but, they’re interesting theories. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #48 Jan 5 2006, 12:18 PM | Son N Law |
*Faint* :wacko: Okay, hun, we gotta get you off the TV and onto some good books. I very nearly had three heart attacks reading this paragraph. :P |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #49 Jan 5 2006, 12:25 PM |
|
| And, just what is what supposed to mean? Am I wrong? |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #50 Jan 5 2006, 01:18 PM | Son N Law |
| Not necessarily, but you're right for all the wrong reasons. ^_^ |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #51 Jan 5 2006, 03:09 PM | Son N Law |
|
Okay, break time. Allow me to explain a bit more about what I meant (and I hope no one thought I was belittling C. We're old friends. We rib each other as old friends do). The danger in taking such programs at face value, in my opinion, is that they simply don't have time time to explore the ideas behind them very well. And more often than not, the scripts are written by people who may believe in evolution, but really don't understand evolution. You must maintain a healthy level of skepticism about anything you see on The Discovery Channel, because as good as their intentions are, their details are sketchy. And this is coming from someone who watches Discovery more than any other channel. You haven't made any mistakes here, though. You presented the information just as I've heard it presented so often on similar shows. One line in particular, or one part of one line, reveals what's wrong with the way they present their information: "...the nose is shaped to... ." It represents an entirely incorrect understanding of the way adaptation works. Bear with me, because this sounds like a matter of semantics, but it isn't. The nose isn't shaped, per se. The language these programs use seems to indicate a belief that when people move from warm climates to cold climates, they become predisposed to having babies with smaller nostrils, when in fact, they're just as likely to have a baby with a larger nostrils for a long, long time. In fact, if they themselves have larger nostrils, they're more likely to have a baby with big nostrils. But the fact is, some babies will be born with smaller nostrils. And if those smaller nostrils gives that baby even the slightest advantage in surviving in the new environment, he or she will be more likely to pass his or her small-nostril genes along. Even the tiniest advantage of smaller nostrils in a certain environment -- whether because of the conditions of the environment itself or, to give a completely wild and totally unfactual hypothetical example, because one environment has large-nostril-sized worms that tunnel in through the nose and snack on your brains -- will accumulate over time, naturally, by process of elimination, and the genes of the survivors in that area will tend to create smaller nostrils. So while the program wasn't "wrong," the language its writers chose gives the wrong impression. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #52 Jan 5 2006, 06:51 PM |
|
|
When "experts" on TV portray evolution as though it were a conscious deliberate process, it drives me nuts. Fortuitious accidents increase the occurence of some genes in the population over a long period of time. It is not that we were given <insert trait here> because we need it for <insert reason here>. Instead, the causation goes more like this: Because people with <insert trait here> are more likely to survive and reproduce due to <insert reason here>, more people with <insert trait here> will occur in the population, thereby making the population, in general, better able to deal with <insert reason here>. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #53 Jan 5 2006, 07:40 PM | Son N Law |
| Darn tootin', Daddy-o. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #54 Jan 6 2006, 11:53 AM |
|
|
*Sitting in the corner, pouting.* Eye's explanation is what I meant. I know people's noses don't just re-shape themselves because of the weather. Smarty-pants. :P I was simply saying the evolution theories hold up -- even to Biblical standards. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Religion · Next Topic » |
3:57 PM May 20