Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I thought he was referring to a combination of Larry Bird and Bob Dylan.That would be one goofy looking and aloof person. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PopTodd Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I believe in a combination of the two. Kind of like the hermaphrodite of origination theory, if you will. With a lot of other stuff thrown in the mix, too, though. I'm more interested in covering all my bases, in the end. I mean, the thing is... I believe in science: the Big Bang and all that.But, something had to come before.Given the theory of the conservation of matter: WHAT (or WHO) created the matter that coalesced into the tiny, dense thing that exploded out, becoming the universe? Science can't explain it, so it had to be something beyond our comprehension. I mean, obviously it is.Call it what you will: some just choose to call it God.I'm cool with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This is what I'm talking about: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html The U.S. Is already lagging way behind in science education. This sort of thing is exacerbating the situation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I mean, the thing is... I believe in science: the Big Bang and all that.But, something had to come before.Given the theory of the conservation of matter: WHAT (or WHO) created the matter that coalesced into the tiny, dense thing that exploded out, becoming the universe? Science can't explain it, so it had to be something beyond our comprehension. I mean, obviously it is.Call it what you will: some just choose to call it God.I'm cool with that. I agree with this 100%. I find it a little funny when scientists argue strongly against any kind of theism. That is almost as silly as saying the earth is only 6,000 years old. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're right. No one can really know. There's no reason why science and spirituality have to be incompatible. Heck, they taught evolution in my religion class in Catholic school in the 1980s. Not all religious people believe in a fundamentalist approach to Genesis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I mean, the thing is... I believe in science: the Big Bang and all that.But, something had to come before.Given the theory of the conservation of matter: WHAT (or WHO) created the matter that coalesced into the tiny, dense thing that exploded out, becoming the universe? Science can't explain it, so it had to be something beyond our comprehension. I mean, obviously it is.Call it what you will: some just choose to call it God.I'm cool with that. But who or what created "God"? Or are we to believe that God just appeared out of the nothingness? Is that easier to believe than the big bang miraculously happening? Either way you look at it, something is coming from nothing at some point down the line... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The problem is that these are two separate conversations. The origin of our universe has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is observed through the fossil record and explains how life on this planet came to be after everything began. Evolution is true. Our planet is old. Our universe is older. Creationism is proven false. It's also frustrating how evolution gets painted as something that is anti-religion. The two can coexist peacefully. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 bleedorange, yes, yes and yes. Any religious view that prompts an upset kind of response to any new scientific revelations is one that is allowing itself to become obsolete. The metaphorical application of an ancient hebrew folktale has limitless possibilities for insight. The literal application of it, at this point in history, can only serve to make the religion that demands said view obsolete and combative to knowledge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Evolution is science, religion is philosophy. An understanding of both are important to the human condition, but they are not the same. Science deals with the knowable, philosophy deals with the unknowable. They are compatible but not interchangeable. At the dawn of humankind, everything was philosophy. Due to our amazing cognitive abilities, not to mention our opposable thumbs, the list of things labeled philosophy gradually became smaller and smaller as science moved them from the unknowable to the knowable. There is no real debate between evolution and creationism. One is supported by scientific evidence, mainly facts. The other is supported by emotion, mainly fear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Evolution is observed through the fossil record and explains how life on this planet came to be after everything began. Evolution is true. Our planet is old. Our universe is older. Exactly what the aliens who planted the fossils want you to think. And yes, I just made a Friends reference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think quite a few people are using a very narrow definition of the word creationism. According to the wikipedia listing, creationism is simply "the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." The word has, over time, become associated with Christian fundamentalists and their nutty beliefs, but you can, as has been said here already, believe in both evolution and creationism. In fact, such a person is called an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Question is really: who created Wikipedia? it certainly isn't Scientific, either..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That wiki definition of creationism is accurate, which is why creationism should not be taught in public school nor seen as scientific. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That wiki definition of creationism is accurate, which is why creationism should not be taught in public school nor seen as scientific.Absolutely. And my point was, creationism wasn't even taught in my religious high school, evolution was. But it's a good idea to know what we're talking about here, because different people use the word creationism to mean different things. I happen to believe in both evolution and an original source, or God, if you like. I think it would be foolish to deny the validity of provable facts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Well, I'm gonna play God and change that Wikipedia answer. Then we'll see who the scientist is.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 seems awfully closed-minded not to accept the possibility that someone might have had an experience that makes her rationally believe in the existence of a god as surely as someone else rationally believes in the scientific evidence of evolution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 seems awfully closed-minded not to accept the possibility that someone might have had an experience that makes her rationally believe in the existence of a god as surely as someone else rationally believes in the scientific evidence of evolution. More lines from Friends? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 seems awfully closed-minded not to accept the possibility that someone might have had an experience that makes her rationally believe in the existence of a god as surely as someone else rationally believes in the scientific evidence of evolution.I agree. I've had an outer body experience but nothing that makes me necessarily believe in a "God". However, I've met and read and heard from plenty of people who can assuredly say that they have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 seems awfully closed-minded not to accept the possibility that someone might have had an experience that makes her rationally believe in the existence of a god as surely as someone else rationally believes in the scientific evidence of evolution.I understand what you are saying but the rationality of science is factual, the rationality of a religious experience isn't. Many religious experiences, such as "near-death" experiences, have rational scientific explanations (I cover them in AP Psych) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/12/211324316/brains-of-dying-rats-yield-clues-about-near-death-experiences . Choosing to interpret the light at the end of the tunnel as God, is fine, but it isn't rational. I accept that someone believes that the dream they had was God talking to them but I don't accept that it is rational to do so. That said, do I believe in things that aren't backed by objective, scientific evidence? Of course.I also don't understand "believing" in scientific evidence. You either rationally accept science or you irrationally don't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I also don't understand "believing" in scientific evidence. You either rationally accept science or you irrationally don't.That's a good point, and I do accept science; I said I believe in evolution, but you're not mincing words to point out the difference. I should have said I accept it as rational, factual, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand what you are saying but the rationality of science is factual, the rationality of a religious experience isn't. Many religious experiences, such as "near-death" experiences, have rational scientific explanations (I cover them in AP Psych) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/12/211324316/brains-of-dying-rats-yield-clues-about-near-death-experiences . Choosing to interpret the light at the end of the tunnel as God, is fine, but it isn't rational. I accept that someone believes that the dream they had was God talking to them but I don't accept that it is rational to do so. That said, do I believe in things that aren't backed by objective, scientific evidence? Of course.I also don't understand "believing" in scientific evidence. You either rationally accept science or you irrationally don't. Thanks. I was having trouble putting it into words. Also, this creationism vs. evolution "debate" generally centers around one thing: teaching creationism in schools, where it has no place. It shouldn't come down to a science vs. religion discussion. Somehow, it always does, though. And this is why so many people still don't "believe" in evolution. It has been presented to them by creationists as an attack on religion. And, forced to pick sides, they choose God. Not realizing that the two are not related. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RaspberryJam Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio brilliant: I spoke too soon: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand what you are saying but the rationality of science is factual, the rationality of a religious experience isn't. but take a step back. "facts" are only a result of perception. perception is often flawed. science has proclaimed as fact many things which later appeared to be false. stating that science can provide a non-spiritual explanation for every claimed spiritual experience doesn't prove that spiritual experiences did not occur. I will agree that a lot of things can be virtually ruled out by science, but I assert that it's hypocritical arrogance for one to claim absolutely that science can prove the irrationality of all things spiritual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "their" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.