Can evolution be proven?.

[XDRage]

125 pages of discussion that could have been avoided with a simple video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA

[Skulltaker]

And it is here where u crash and burn....

Science welcomes change... science is 100% open for a new hypothesis to explain something. When a new theory is thrown into the academic arena is it butcherd to fukk and if after all the critiques that scientific theory is still standing then all scientists will happily accept that change.

It is exactly this which religions CANNOT and WILL NOT ever do.

They are fixed into one ideology, one theory of everything, one explanation. This is why religions are so easy to destroy with logic and present day knowledge.

Scientists dont need to defend anything... scientists are welcoming of new ideas... there is absolutely nothing to defend for a scientist.

Religions are adepting aswell. Over the ages they have absorbed ideas and ideologies that suited them. If you are telling me that the christianity we have these days is the same as 500 years ago, you're out of your mind.

And don't start posts with "And here is where you crash and burn...". That's way to biblical for someone who trashes religion. Also very ridiculous.

[May90]

Scientists work with truth.

Religions work with belief.

It really is as simple as that....

Ur obviously see differences within the same religion as a good thing... a scientist sees this as a problem. There can only be one truth to a scientist. It is either true or false.

As a scientist, I find your distinction to be not only wrong, but also almost intentionally misleading. What is "truth"? Your last line is also factually wrong; there are often many theories on something, having mutually contradicting predictions (for example, Newton Mechanics and Special Relativity), and yet they coexist in peace and both are "true". How so? Because they are models, and each model has limitations. Newton Mechanics is merely approximation of General Relativity and doesn't work in general, yet we still use it - because it is a useful approximation in certain conditions. General Relativity, in turn, doesn't work near singularity, and we don't have a better theory yet - doesn't stop us from using it.

Just like in science different models describe different things from different perspectives - religions also describe different things from different perspective. Just like you shouldn't take equation p=mv for linear momentum out of context, as some kind of absolute truth (it is wrong when v, velocity, is close to the speed of light), you shouldn't take a certain religion out of context, as some kind of absolute truth.

There is difference between religion and science, but it does not lay where you think it does. The difference is, science tries to describe the world in which we live, while religion tries to describe how we live in this world. There are religions that have very little to do with beliefs in fantasies as such; for example, Buddhism is about our mind and body and how to train them, not about gods and such. Once again, there are many religious scientists; no one has explained that to me so far from the assumption that "science and religion contradict each other".

---

I know, it is in fashion nowadays to reject older concepts as bullshit without much explanation. I am hardly a fan of religion, it did a lot more harm to this world than good, I think. And yet I do not approve of such oversimplification of what religion is as rationalization of one's dislike of it. I am not religious, far from it; but I try to be unbiased in this nonetheless.

Religion has always been like that as far as we are aware, your view on what religions are meant to be about is very modern.

Take the Ancient Greeks as an example, they believed their stories to the point that they traced their genealogy from mythical heroes. For them religion was history and this is the same for all ancient religions that I am aware of.

Greeks, yes. Take Romans though, those had views on religion (until Christianity became mainstream, at least) very similar to what I described. Ultimately, we are talking not about how people interpret religion, but about what religion is in itself - and in itself, it is merely more than a moral guidance. Some people decide to take the stories written in it as historical facts; but then, I'm pretty sure there are people who take Star Wars as historical facts as well. It doesn't make Star Wars into something more than it is.

[Deathquoi]

So, what are the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Talmud, etc.? Chopped liver?

No, your statement is pretty obviously bullshit, and you should have known immediately it was bullshit. What is it that is making you say things that are obviously false?

You have a shit tier understanding of logic, so you just build straw men and knock them down and then you're all proud of yourself.

The Bible and other religious texts are books full of teachings and principles. They are meant as a guiding set of values and understandings. That does not mean that every single thing written in them should be accepted as literal fact. God did not magically create all life on earth in 7 days. That does not invalidate the whole of Christianity, much as you might like it to.

[Slant]

There is difference between religion and science, but it does not lay where you think it does. The difference is, science tries to describe the world in which we live, while religion tries to describe how we live in this world. There are religions that have very little to do with beliefs in fantasies as such; for example, Buddhism is about our mind and body and how to train them, not about gods and such. Once again, there are many religious scientists; no one has explained that to me so far from the assumption that "science and religion contradict each other".

Did you just quote me? :P

If not, that's awesome because I said the exact same thing a couple pages ago.

Great minds...

[Skulltaker]

Are you now discussing science and religion or people? People misunderstand/ignore science and religion all the time and don't give a very good measure of the validity of either one. And they don't make this whole discussion any more valid.

I'm saying that it's people who give validity to both. While I agree that science offers better answers, it doesn't necessarily provide the right ones.

[Osmeric]

You have a shit tier understanding of logic, so you just build straw men and knock them down and then you're all proud of yourself.

The Bible and other religious texts are books full of teachings and principles. They are meant as a guiding set of values and understandings. That does not mean that every single thing written in them should be accepted as literal fact. God did not magically create all life on earth in 7 days. That does not invalidate the whole of Christianity, much as you might like it to.

They contain statements that followers of a religion are expected to take as facts. For example, that Jesus existed and is/was the son of God, that he died and rose after three days, etc. According to standard strains of christianity if you don't believe these things you aren't a christian.

It's indisputable that the major religions are based on a philosophy that statements (if not necessarily all statements) in ancient texts are to be taken as authoritative sources of belief. This philosophy is incompatible with the philosophy of science.

[Kalis]

Greeks, yes. Take Romans though, those had views on religion (until Christianity became mainstream, at least) very similar to what I described. Ultimately, we are talking not about how people interpret religion, but about what religion is in itself - and in itself, it is merely more than a moral guidance. Some people decide to take the stories written in it as historical facts; but then, I'm pretty sure there are people who take Star Wars as historical facts as well. It doesn't make Star Wars into something more than it is.

The Romans had a similar concept to the Greeks, as did all those religions of the region. The Romans believed their ancestors were divine, that religion was historical record and not just allegory.

The Romans come across as quite detached from their religion, but that is the modern view of them, they themselves were very religious and arguably more so than the Greeks, at least the Republican era, things changed up a bit in the Imperial era when foreign religions came flooding into Rome.

This is true. And also very interesting. I love how they actually thought of gods as living things among them.

They had a much more personal view of gods, probably the closest in Western religions is the Jewish belief that they are the chosen people.

It does not really translate very well into Christianity or Islam, because for them god is the god of everything and everyone, whether you believe in him or not, whereas Judaism (being the earlier religion) still has elements of the polytheism it rejected lurking within it.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, Christianity and Islam are evolutions of Judaism.

[Deleted]

Religions are adepting aswell. Over the ages they have absorbed ideas and ideologies that suited them. If you are telling me that the christianity we have these days is the same as 500 years ago, you're out of your mind.

History shows us the opposite.

Religion is resistant to change and only eventually makes an effort to change once science clearly proves religious beliefs wrong.

Galileo is the famous example of this.

Good people were burnt at the stake for being correct ffs.

This is how religion will be remembered for its 'change'.

In the modern era the Catholic church has had massive issues with abortion for example... 50 years and counting they cannot make their fukking minds up whether a womans individual rights over her own body is worth something. They are divided on issues like birth control, divorce and womens rights.

Relgions are notoriously RESISTANT to change... always have been and always will be. The evidence proves this.

[Skulltaker]

The difference is, science tries to describe the world in which we live, while religion tries to describe how we live in this world. T

I know, it is in fashion nowadays to reject older concepts as bullshit without much explanation. I am hardly a fan of religion, it did a lot more harm to this world than good, I think. And yet I do not approve of such oversimplification of what religion is as rationalization of one's dislike of it. I am not religious, far from it; but I try to be unbiased in this nonetheless.

And yet, we have people who use science to tell us how to live, and religion as to how the world we live in works. Like peole trying to tell you why religion is bullshit.

[Slant]

I'm saying that it's people who give validity to both. While I agree that science offers better answers, it doesn't necessarily provide the right ones.

No. People do not validate either one. Scientific, objective truth is out there, whether we understand or know it or not. Gravity was as much a fact 2 billion years ago as it is today. Same with religion, in its core people cannot possibly give it validity or not. It's there, it's to be believed without question. And if you don't believe in it, that won't change anything about that religion. You do no understand the relationship between people and the things they invent as social constructs.

Take maths, for example: The numbers and how we manipulate them are largely mankinds constructs. There's no rule saying you have to count the way we do. We just decided we should, because it makes sense to us. Maths can work so much differently. There is an entire movement in maths suggesting we should count in base 12 instead of base 10. That would throw your entire daily life out of whack for a long, long time. But that doesn't mean that the universe stops working or works differently. Ultimately, science is the best way humanity has come up with to explain shit. The whole scientific method is a human construct. But it works! And that's the thing giving it validity. It reliably works and can be repeated over and over again. And religion works for someone religious, too. Over and over again. Sometimes even when they don't believe in it (and come to believing after some sort of personal epiphany).

And that is why you're having such a hard time discussing this here. You need to detach science and religion, realise them for what they are and then you'll quickly realise that they a) don't contradcit each other and b) don't live on the same level of understanding and c) the whole discussion is moot. It's really just an arbitrarily invented discussion spawning in the US that causes a lot of amusement anywhere else.

[Surfd]

You have a shit tier understanding of logic, so you just build straw men and knock them down and then you're all proud of yourself.

The Bible and other religious texts are books full of teachings and principles. They are meant as a guiding set of values and understandings. That does not mean that every single thing written in them should be accepted as literal fact. God did not magically create all life on earth in 7 days. That does not invalidate the whole of Christianity, much as you might like it to.

While a decent portion of the more intelligent among us agree with you, a FAR MORE SIGNIFIGANT PORTION of the rest of the population of the planet dont. They do not believe that those books are supposed to be guiding parables and general principles, but willfully believe that the text of their 2000 year old holy book is a set in stone, decreed by almighty god, unbreakable rule book for how to live your life, and more importantly, how EVERYBODY ELSE should live their life as well. And there in lies the problem. Despite what you want to think, religion is NOT the former aspect of the belief system, the teachings and principles, Religion is the latter: the codified dogma, the unquestionable book.

The teachings and principles can exist entirely independant of religion. Religion however, can not exist independant of its dogma.

[Kalerender]

Well I get proof of gravity when I'm too drunk.

Nah you observe gravity. We don't really know what causes it. Nuclear physics is better understood than the how of things falling.

[Slant]

They had a much more personal view of gods, probably the closest in Western religions is the Jewish belief that they are the chosen people.

It does not really translate very well into Christianity or Islam, because for them god is the god of everything and everyone, whether you believe in him or not, whereas Judaism (being the earlier religion) still has elements of the polytheism it rejected lurking within it.

And to bring it back to the thread topic, Christianity and Islam are evolutions of Judaism.

Yeah, you know what... I always thought, if I was religious, I'd like to have believed in the Greek pantheon. To me it sounds much more comforting to have these gods and demigods actually down on earth, dealing with us directly than some dude in the sky that you can't fathom by definition. :P

- - - Updated - - -

While a decent portion of the more intelligent among us agree with you, a FAR MORE SIGNIFIGANT PORTION of the rest of the population of the planet dont. They do not believe that those books are supposed to be guiding parables and general principles, but willfully believe that the text of their 2000 year old holy book is a set in stone, decreed by almighty god, unbreakable rule book for how to live your life, and more importantly, how EVERYBODY ELSE should live their life as well. And there in lies the problem. Despite what you want to think, religion is NOT the former aspect of the belief system, the teachings and principles, Religion is the latter: the codified dogma, the unquestionable book.

I think you got a rather skewed perception of religious believers. The vast majority of Christian, Muslim and Jewish believers actually don't give a fuck about the texts and just want to get through their lives as well as they can. Don't let those extremists fool you into thinking that is what their religion is about.

[May90]

Did you just quote me? :P

If not, that's awesome because I said the exact same thing a couple pages ago.

Great minds...

I didn't read the thread carefully, to be honest; interesting coincidence.

The Romans had a similar concept to the Greeks, as did all those religions of the region. The Romans believed their ancestors were divine, that religion was historical record and not just allegory.

The Romans come across as quite detached from their religion, but that is the modern view of them, they themselves were very religious and arguably more so than the Greeks, at least the Republican era, things changed up a bit in the Imperial era when foreign religions came flooding into Rome.

But they were religious exactly in the sense I am talking about: religion strongly influenced their culture and world view, but it didn't prevent countless scientists and philosophers from thinking freely, independently from religious constructs. Marcus Aurelius is a good example of that: as religious as he was, his works are purely philosophical and psychological in nature.

[Skulltaker]

History shows us the opposite.

Religion is resistant to change and only eventually makes an effort to change once science clearly proves religious beliefs wrong.

Galileo is the famous example of this.

Good people were burnt at the stake for being correct ffs.

This is how religion will be remembered for its 'change'.

In the modern era the Catholic church has had massive issues with abortion for example... 50 years and counting they cannot make their fukking minds up whether a womans individual rights over her own body is worth something. They are divided on issues like birth control, divorce and womens rights.

Relgions are notoriously RESISTANT to change... always have been and always will be. The evidence proves this.

You are confusing 'people' with 'religion' here. People were burned because others didn't like their ideas. Religion was merely used as an excuse.

I don't agree with the catholic church on said topic, btw. Still, it's their faith. In many cases it has some merit to it. Creating a new life isn't something one should do out of a whim, and luckily, there are enough ways to prevent it. Their stance on the use of contraceptives is stupid, of course. Still, people have also used scienctific facts as an excuse to do the most horrendous things to each other.

[Deleted]

As a scientist, I find your distinction to be not only wrong, but also almost intentionally misleading. What is "truth"?

The word truth can easily be interchanged with FACT in this case... does that make it clearer?

Your last line is also factually wrong; there are often many theories on something, having mutually contradicting predictions (for example, Newton Mechanics and Special Relativity), and yet they coexist in peace and both are "true". How so? Because they are models, and each model has limitations. Newton Mechanics is merely approximation of General Relativity and doesn't work in general, yet we still use it - because it is a useful approximation in certain conditions. General Relativity, in turn, doesn't work near singularity, and we don't have a better theory yet - doesn't stop us from using it.

Nope im correct here and u miunderstand my point.

Im stating that there can only be one universal TRUTH to any apsects on reality, the universe, time and space etc. Once a fact is discovered it is immovable. Your examples are merely "work in progress" for scientists. Sure, there are dozens of co-existing theories which are commonly accepted, but there can only be one TRUTH. And once sciecne proves the correct hyypothesis which supercedes the rest then the ones we know now will be put in the trash.

Im talking about universal truth, facts of the universe. Ur talking about the daily pursuit of a scientist.

Scientist will accept whatever universal truth is proven... a religious person already thinks they know the truth based on no evidence.

THAT is the difference im talking about.

[Noradin]

If you're talking omnipotent being, that's where the argument is at. So now you get to cherrypick the type of god that needs to be disproven? Get the fuck outta here... :P

Who here claimed themselves to be an omnipotent being?

- - - Updated - - -

They can co-exist within society, yes... but ultimately only one of them is correct. There can only be one demonstrable hypothesis to explain the universe.

It cannot be correctly explained by both.

And that is exactly how one proves they haven't understood science.
Of course both can exists at the same time and both be correct as long as they do not contradict each other.

[Slant]

I didn't read the thread carefully, to be honest; interesting coincidence.

There, found it: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post40033238

Too funny.

- - - Updated - - -

Who here claimed themselves to be an omnipotent being?

He was talking about god as an omnipotent being. I never said any of us was omnipotent. Although I am getting close these days...

[Eazy]

Not sure I follow. I am narrow minded and obtuse because I understand how chemical reactions work?

You do not follow because you probably lack logic in your thinkings.

"I understand how chemical reactions work" - typical answer of someone who has zero idea what he's talking about. Evolution is mostly about genetics, not "chemistry", just as there's a difference between physics and chemistry, there's a difference between genetics and chemistry. Only someone with low knowledge about such a thing would say something like that "I understand how chemical reactions work", lol. You can also say that you know how physics works, because well... physics is about almost everything.

Is believing in supernatural explanations for easily explainable natural phenominon a requirement of having an open mind then?

Didn't say anything about that, don't be silly.

PRAISE ZEUSS, FOR HE STRIKES DOWN FROM THE HEAVENS WITH GREAT WRATH OF LIGHTING AND THUNDER?! (or was that Thor?) Am I doing it right?

Perhaps I should sacrifice a bull to Neptune, to ensure that local boats do not meet storms while i am at it?

No, you're doing that wrong because you have seriously no idea what you're talking about.
The only thing that I don't understand is why I'm trying to have a discussion with some teenager-atheist with zero experience about either religion and science. That's so low...

Science is not anti-religious. Science is by definition not anti-religious. Show me a scientist that claims god doesn't exist, and I'll show you someone believing in something he cannot possibly prove or disprove. The whole "we need a science vs. religion standoff" thing is a specific US American idea and the whole debate is only happening over there.

And they do not share the same goal. Science explains shit of the world, religion guides you through your life, gives you moral support, a purpose, a deeper meaning to it all. It's not mean to explain why the sun comes up in the east or why gravity works? Never attempted to explain the world. Where science is largely about the physical world we live in, religion is largely about us living in that physical world and how we behave. Sure, they'll throw in some spiritual mumbo jumbo in the mix, but that doesn't mean suddenly they say science is irrelevant.

Exactly, but don't expect much from atheist teenagers who watched 5 min of R. Dawkins on YouTube and claims to suddenly know everything about biology/physics/chemistry/genetics/religion.