Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 446,927 views
I'm not talking about blind prayer though, did you bother with the article?

Hmm. How was this medical research done? Was it done using the scientific method? Or did they pray for the answers?

That the church funded the research is irrelevant. The medical research was done using science, and all the hospitals and elderly homes and clinics are using techniques discovered by science. Without medical science, they'd be prescribing blood lettings and a course of leeches.

Just because people are religious, doesn't mean that they can't use the scientific method to get stuff done. And when they do, religion doesn't get to suddenly claim the results.

It's great that the church uses some of their great wealth to help the needy, but they're using scientific techniques to get it done.
 
So by that logic no people are given credit, just the method. I am saying prayer and religion plays a part in the advancement of modern medicine.
 
I'd hardly say that was true, to get to where we are now it took society as a whole. You can't discount peoples motivation, inspiration, etc. I'm feeling lazy so I'll just leave a wiki(hate doing that) concerning The Catholic Church and healthcare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care

I didn't click the link, but does it mention how many children suffered horrible abuse for decades, and how they covered up and protected all the bad men among their ranks that were responsible?
 
Nope, only the good things. Does science talk about the bad things it's done in testing drugs etc? How about electro shock therapy to cure gays?
There is a difference between the people of Science and the people of religion...
 
So by that logic no people are given credit, just the method. I am saying prayer and religion plays a part in the advancement of modern medicine.

Unless the Catholic Church pioneered some amazing Health Care related discovery they aren't pushing anything forward. Anyone can throw money at something they want but ultimately it's science that is employed to actually get it done.

Nope, only the good things. Does science talk about the bad things it's done in testing drugs etc? How about electro shock therapy to cure gays?

Science isn't about right or wrong and it certainly isn't about giving people credit, it's about discovering truth and refuting things that aren't true.
 
You guys don't seem to have any understanding of humanity or, you are simply not willing to admit there are religious people and organizations in medicine. That's ok, I figured as much.
 
I am saying prayer and religion plays a part in the advancement of modern medicine.

Have organised religions and people of religion played a part in the advancement of science? Most certainly.

Has prayer played a part in the advancement of science? I've never seen a single bit of evidence to support that one.

However I feel this discussion would be better placed in the more general 'God' thread.
 
Common sense is what I perceive.
Fair enough to define it that way. However perception is faulty, I think all can agree on that. It's not very accurate to perceive something and then go with your first interpretation.

Science is what other people figure out and then tell me to believe.
This is not right, science by definition is something you can yourself verify. If there is anything in science you don't agree with (like age of the Earth) you can go about trying to disprove it. Scientists will want you to go out and try to disprove it, if you succeed, then we know more than what we did five minutes ago.

The people in this thread that follow science rather than religion aren't just accepting what some person in a lab coat says. Often in school, you can verify well known science and at higher levels you get to challenge theory, possibly even add to it. Some people even do this as part of their jobs.



That's not what Christians believe at all- we believe the only path to salvation is through Christ; believing he is the son of God who died for our sins. It is good to have the lesser details, such as the details of creation, accurate, but in the end all humans sin and can still be saved. The truth is good, but the only truth we really need is Christ.
That was the point. You need to decided whether the Bible is true in the first place. As Slip pointed out, if the Bible is shown to be ignorant about how the world works, then how can God be perfect?



DCP
If it helps the meek, weak, poor, old, hungry and sick, then bring it on. Until then, I'll stick to what is powerful. Prayer
This is absolutely horrifying to read. Science is what helps those people, it is the only thing that can help those people. To ignore it in favor of prayer is to let them all suffer.


You guys don't seem to have any understanding of humanity or, you are simply not willing to admit there are religious people and organizations in medicine. That's ok, I figured as much.

Here is the thing, religions are organizations/groups. They have agendas and such. Some will do good things like donate money to research yes.

Science is knowledge, it doesn't have goals or desires. It is simply there for us to use.

All medicine is a result of science. Use of medicine (to cure, or to overdose on) is the work of people. Religion doctrine doesn't contribute to knowledge, but it can contribute to people trying to cure others (or overdoes them).
 
Last edited:
DCP
Where is @dylansan

Here is more evidence of evolution being just another religion:


I think you need a dictionary;

Definition of Religion; the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
 
DCP
Hmm, perhaps Charles Darwin is one.

Darwin was an agnostic (being an atheist was, as he said himself, unthinkable in his day). He never claimed to be able to kill other men for failing to follow his teachings, nor to resurrect, nor to have created all that is seen or unseen.

Darwin's Life and Letters - 1887 - p304
Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
 
I went 4 minutes into it and heard nothing but unsubstantiated claims pulled from thin air. I stopped when he talked about back trouble. He stated that according to evolution, humans have so much back trouble because the skeleton wasn't well adapted to bipedal posture. He stated that 4-legged animals have more back trouble than 2-legged ones, and so obviously human back trouble can't be cited as evidence for evolution.

Not a single citation given for any source to back up the statement that 4-legged animals have more back trouble. Do they buy more Doan's Pills? Are they lined up at the chiropractor's? He doesn't say why it's a "fact," so therefore it is NOT a fact, it's made up. Make something up, present it as fact, and use it as "evidence."

Something you get over and over and over from Creationists trying to be scientists.
 
DCP
Hmm, yep, it is time to move on.

Sorry - not allowed!

You are now our bitch, our whipping boy, a toy to fondle and torture. We need you in order to feel good about ourselves.
:rolleyes:

I always suspected that there was a kinky side to Dotini.

You should see me in my black leather motorcycle jacket and chaps. No jeans, but a holding a 34" sword.
:lol:

DCP
He he, bring your best...:):)
With this: We're now beating a dead horse.
 
Back