Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

ID vs. Evolution

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

applesauce
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 130

09 May 2006, 7:42 am

I don't think there is a conflict. ID and evolution represent the same exact things. The bible (yes, I am a christian) is a historical text representing the perceptions of a society without scientific developments. They had their own manner of interpreting and explaining history based on their own methodological rules.

The creation story is simply their way of explaining what Darwin explained in his evolution of species theories in the nineteenth century.

People have always tried to seperate science and religion when in fact they are different interpretations of the same thing. All we have is different generations using different historical methodology. Nothing more.

Apple *history grad ;)*



Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

09 May 2006, 8:22 am

applesauce wrote:
The bible (yes, I am a christian) is a historical text representing the perceptions of a society without scientific developments.

No, it's not. It's a mythological text which happens to mention a few real people and places occasionally. Like how Harry Potter mentions London.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

09 May 2006, 12:58 pm

this interview with rupert sheldrake touches on some interesting ideas regarding evolution.

http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm

not saying its gospel :lol: but its interesting reading. his ideas are quite out there....
obviously i'm pretty much against the dogmatic christian ideas, ID etc., but i think theories regarding darwininan evolution might need improving as well. i'm no expert, just my point of view



Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

09 May 2006, 1:06 pm

applesauce wrote:
I don't think there is a conflict...

... they are different interpretations of the same thing.


I'd have to differ. The implications of waste, pain, suffering, and above all lack of direction implicit in evolution make a profound difference.

And if evolution is not simply chance, but has been set up or led, then the implications of where and how we have been led also sets up conflicts.

(see also my post early in this thread)



Scrapheap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Animal Farm

09 May 2006, 7:39 pm

applesauce wrote:
I don't think there is a conflict. ID and evolution represent the same exact things. The bible (yes, I am a christian) is a historical text representing the perceptions of a society without scientific developments. They had their own manner of interpreting and explaining history based on their own methodological rules.

The creation story is simply their way of explaining what Darwin explained in his evolution of species theories in the nineteenth century.

People have always tried to seperate science and religion when in fact they are different interpretations of the same thing. All we have is different generations using different historical methodology. Nothing more.

Apple *history grad ;)*


Science makes statements of provisional truth that can be verified or rejected based on empirical evidence. The statements religions make are called 'constructs'. They are niether provable nor disprovable therefore they are unscientific.


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

10 May 2006, 1:17 am

Emettman wrote:
applesauce wrote:
I don't think there is a conflict...

... they are different interpretations of the same thing.


I'd have to differ. The implications of waste, pain, suffering, and above all lack of direction implicit in evolution make a profound difference.

And if evolution is not simply chance, but has been set up or led, then the implications of where and how we have been led also sets up conflicts.

(see also my post early in this thread)


Whoever told you evolution is about chance was lying. It's about the laws of nature.



Scrapheap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Animal Farm

10 May 2006, 2:47 pm

Scaramouche wrote:
Emettman wrote:

I'd have to differ. The implications of waste, pain, suffering, and above all lack of direction implicit in evolution make a profound difference.

And if evolution is not simply chance, but has been set up or led, then the implications of where and how we have been led also sets up conflicts.

(see also my post early in this thread)


Whoever told you evolution is about chance was lying. It's about the laws of nature.


I think the word 'chance' is a poor choice of words. Evolution and history are both contingent on preceding events. So although there is an element of chance involved in evoultion, that chance is predicated on preceding events. Basically the "Butterfly Effect"


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


coyote
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

12 May 2006, 6:21 pm

Evolution IS intelligent desing....

Females chooses the best male (in some species it is the opposite but this does not change where i'm going...).

At each evolution microsteps (i mean at each conception), there is a concious beeing that chooses the better, the most beautiful, the most rapid, the most etc.... available beeing around. This has started with the first macromolecule up until us now, and is continuing.....



Scrapheap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Animal Farm

13 May 2006, 7:09 pm

coyote wrote:
Females chooses the best male (in some species it is the opposite but this does not change where i'm going...)



HEHEHEHEHEHEHE.... Isn't that the truth!! !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

LMAOROTF!! !!



Barracuda
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 698
Location: Pennsylvania

14 May 2006, 4:32 pm

Scaramouche wrote:
applesauce wrote:
The bible (yes, I am a christian) is a historical text representing the perceptions of a society without scientific developments.

No, it's not. It's a mythological text which happens to mention a few real people and places occasionally. Like how Harry Potter mentions London.

Historians said the bible was wrong because it mentioned the Hitites, a people group which the only evidence for was the bible. What did those historians say when the ruins from a Hitite city was found? That doesn't really disprove what you said, but it mentions real cizilazations and places to many times for your comfort.

The Theory of Intellegent Design is Bull. It is not science. Science is observing, it is not posibly to observe a creator.

Theistic Evolution still works, though. :D