Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Someone should really tell all those scientisits that their critical thinking skills have faltered.

Yes, actually someone should.

Just because a theory is popularly accepted by a peergroup, does not make it any more valid (or that would apply to religion as well). Nor the fact that someone is a scientist makes them any better than the rest of us shmoes.

Evolution is known to occur, we have many examples of it happening (recently, Dr. Behe was forced to admit that evolution was undeniably at work in a new trait in HIV, he is one of evolution's leading opponents and teaches biochemistry).

The disputable aspect is whether or not man evolved from proto-ape creatures, not that it happens.

The situation is this: Evolution is known to occur, we have witnessed a few instances of speciation in the relative blink of the eye that we've known to look for it, and we see a possible link between apes and ourselves that hints at a common ancestry. If something is known to occur, known to create new species and there seems to be a strong connection between two separate species, then there is no erred logic in putting all of those details together.

But if only there were a book written in the bronze age that could clarify these modern concepts for us, oh wait there is! Huzzah!

Seriously, the religious establishments of the world have yet to be right on a single explanation of the natural world, but somehow this issue is the tie-breaker?!

Baah! OK, I don't know what you are referencing, a new trait in HIV, but it is still HIV, it has not evolved into Ebola, or some other new form altogether. Yes, through natural selection change occurs. That can be observed. If you want to extrapolate the change seen within a species and then say over great periods of time one thing must have lead to another...well, that's all fine and good, but it's not any more proof than my saying that many people have had experiences of God, X, Y, Z.....and thus....

(FYI, I did go out for my beer chemical modification experiment, so bear with me...)

It's not about religion being right on the issues regarding scientific endeavors. I'm saying that all of you pragmatists out there are poking holes in religious belief because it lacks hard evidence, all it has going for it is some vague connect-the-dots if you look hard enough something about it, and at the next instant you reference the Big Bang or evolutionary theory as the pinnacles of scientific understanding, except that they as well lack anything more than a connect the dots and it's obvious what it's telling you (assuming you draw the conclusion you want it to first).

Evolution take the idea of puntuated equilibrium to explain why there is not a full spectrum of change in the fossil record. The fact is they are starting with the answer they want to see, and viewing the data in that regard. If they looked at the data truly without a preconcieved answer already formulated, then what could be made of the fact that new species seem to change/appear rather suddenly?

Black holes are also well accepted scientific theory, yet nobody has actually seen one, only the effects of them. Sound familiar?