Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,146 views
- 29,374
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Swift
I go for both... but in different classes.... you cannot teach creationism in science class as if it were an equal and opposite 'science' to evolution... by all means, discuss issues of faith, belief, creation and religion in Religious Education class, but creation 'science; has no place in science class, for the simple reason that the 'science' side of it (not the entire subject) is full of misinformation. Theories about creation abound in science class as it is, without the religious dimension or any consideration of the Bible... to have a meaningful and open debate about how life originated, religious belief and indeed the Bible is, for me anyway, wholly irrelevant... no doubt the reality is far more interesting and comprehensible than is suggested in the Bible... ?
Creationists often think that since living things are so amazingly complicated, that we are somehow 'miraculous' creations... but I think that in reality, the origins of life ultimately involved some pretty basic chemistry, and probably isn't all that miraculous at all...
- 1,620
Swift
If religion of any kind didn't exist in your head, you would not attribute any kind of environmental condition/vision you experience etc to god. If someone IS religious they would be quick to assume (or WANT to think) its GOD who is talking to them instead of coming to a logical conclusion that the voice/vision is simply a product of their own imagination - ie they're a little nuts. If you think a bit more about my post, you'll see what I'm trying to say (but won't agree if you're religious, naturally). I was trying to put a wacky theory out there whilst being academically solid. Please don't get offended, I totally respect people who are religious, but they should also respect my scientific theory for explaining some people's 'spiritual' experiences...
If someone experiences visions and voices, has friends that don't really exist etc, things of that nature, its just one (or more!!) of many well known psychological conditions (hence the less than PC term of saying they're a bit mental). Any psychologist can identify these conditions (A Brilliant Mind anyone?). I'm saying there is no good reason to think people who have visions and/or talk to "God" should be in any different catagory of mental illness than those who experience any other kind of fake imaginings. Hence they are a bit mental, but because their visions are supposedly of "God" (whom the person has been educated about previously, probably religion is a big part of their life already... hence they have a predilection towards seeing/talking to God when they DO have a vision of something) they are not considered nuts like all the other mental patients, but even considered LUCKY and of GOOD FORTUNE in some circles because they got the chance to supposedly talk to God...
Kinda ironic wouldn't ya say?I want to know what kind of cheeseburger you eat that makes you have a religious experience...does it have peyote in it?! Cheeseburgers can be good, but not that good. I'm not saying EVERY vision a person may experience is because they're mentally ill, but they are certainly the product of their own mind, concious or unconcious, and drugs can be used to mess with their head to encourage this. Not a good idea IMO, I like to know what the crap I'm doing and where I am. Maybe if I had an imaginary friend I'd have someone intelligent to talk to however, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
BTW "Satan" (nor indeed any of his little goblins/demons/etc) doesn't make you eat the burger, you want to because its loaded with fat, sugar and salt, things our bodies biologically crave (and our taste buds are evolved to like) because before junk food, these things were hard to find in nature - we actually WANTED to store as much fat as possible as a survival mechanism. I am reasonably skinny so this is fine with me. 👍
Anyways, I'm not nuts, and I didn't really have that vision of Charles Darwin (just to clarify my joke). So how good is my theory? Totally logical from a medical/scientific point of view IMO. I conclude that people that have visions and talk to God (not during a normal dream, I stress - not while asleep) are either A: on drugs (and said vision is simply a product of their mind) or B: They have a psychological condition and are slightly nuts (and vision is still totally a product of their mind). It is impossible to really have a vision/conversation with God. Because funnily enough, the big bearded man in the sky is a figment of people's imaginations (widely documented and educated to be normal however). There you go, flame away.👍
Sorry for going off topic slightly though.
- 2,808
Read through the last few pages of the thread, thought I should comment on this since no one else did.sicbeing
To accept Christ and have a seat in Heaven doesn't require anything more than believing. All God asks is that you accept Him as the one and only God. That's it. No running out tomorrow and blowing things up, no running to school and telling all of your friends that they're going to hell tomorrow if they don't accept God. Besides, that would defeat the point; the only reason all of us weren't forced to accept God was because He didn't want us to be forced, he wanted to give us a choice. Apparently many of you have chosen not to believe in God, and I can't make you believe, He'll have to do that. However, what I can say is that you're missing out on a whole lot.
Besides that, it's crazy to try and compare religions as the ones pointed out to Christianity. Everything about them is so different. I'd tell you more about it, but I'm sure you already think you know everything about it, or at least to prove it 'wrong' in your mind, so I'm not going to bother.
However, I think that it'd be worth pointing out that the last 6 pages have been nothing but a few egotistical, close-minded, argumentative people trying to disprove God and Christianity. You can't do it, because it's true. Period. Maybe in your mind you've decided that there is no great God, your loss, its part of his plan. He gave you the choice, for you to make, I'm not going to try and make it for you.
Pako has really laid it out, read over his posts. You won't ever know God is real until you experience it for yourself, and none of our experiences will do it for you.
- 3,802
And you can't prove it. Seriously, you can't use faith to prove a point, it simply doesn't work like that. By all means, think what you like though ofc.
I could say stuff such as that a God can't exist because a God is in it's very nature perfect, and to feel the need to create implies inpefections (spelling?)...but lets not get in to that eh
.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
James2097, it's quite apparent by your post that you have not the slightest idea what spiritualality is or what it's about.
With as many "Christian" or "Godly" scientists out there that have contributed to th world of science and technology, to dismiss them as mental sounds like a very broad generalization to me.
With as many "Christian" or "Godly" scientists out there that have contributed to th world of science and technology, to dismiss them as mental sounds like a very broad generalization to me.
- 3,802
His generalisation is broad, but quite accurate. REAL scientists try to disprove their theories, religious scientists USUALLY twist science to fit in to their own ideas. You lot will believe a guy with no qualifications over some one who has over 30 years of knowledge in his field of expertise just because he's a Christian, and he says what you want to hear. Religion + science is a joke. This obviously does not apply to ALL religious scientists, just the fundies/ creationists.
- 87,585
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Burnout
I wish I could be a Christian! Then I could insult people who didn't agree with me!
Seriously, scientists are "egotistical, close-minded, argumentative people" when they admit they don't know everything and endeavour to find it all out, yet when those who have discovered religion say they don't need to find anything out, because they have their god and their holy book AREN'T closed-minded?
A scientist wants answers. He doesn't care what the answers ARE, so long as they are the truth. An orthodox Christian doesn't want answers. He knows them already and ignores totally any answers which disagree with his point of view, regardless of weight of evidence, because they do not agree with his pre-determined point of view.
The one thing I find MOST baffling of all is that anyone would sit on their chair, in their clothes (hoepfully), typing on their computer, over the internet - all things which have been developed through the auspices of the scientific method - decrying the scientific method when it is applied and disagrees with something they've already made their mind up about.
- 1,620
Swift
I'm very sorry but I just can't dumb it down any more for you, go read my post again and please try and work out what I'm actually talking about and that I do in fact make some kind of warped sense. It is meant to be funny and smartassy (and not THAT serious), but it DOES stand up to academic rigour. I garauntee, you will never be able to disprove my idea as a possibility. I am totally confident of being able to back it up regardless of who debates me, anyone on GTPlanet easily. I find inferrences that I'm an idiot hilarious and only point to your own limited grasp of what was said...
The whole thing about christian scientists was completely irrelevant to what my idea was. But I'll set you straight on them anyway... although not relevant.
Any true scientist (in the strictest sense) would not "believe" in anything, but only go on what he can prove exists (this thread has covered this ad nauseum, how anyone can not understand this by now is beyond me). Science has changed hugely over the years. Both Newton and Kelven are from a different era (like all the guys religious people love to bring up), it was totally normal and expected to just believe in God without questioning it back then, even though they were 'scientists'. Their works didn't have any crossover relevance to biology, evolution or anything that would definately cast doubt on religion. Physics and mathematics from that time was hardly pushing into conceptual physics theories. Also, very little was known about the world in general. I'm sure Newton at least would find it very hard to believe in God in modern times. He would be too rational for that. Don't know enough about Kelvin's character. Besides, for every religious scientist, there are thousands who think religion is totally irrational.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
James2097
Well, if you were trying to be sarcastic, you might want to work on delivery.
A true scientist only believes what he can prove? I thought that was a philosopher. Anyway.
I mentioned Newton and Kelvin because they are from different eras, but there research is still valid today.
My point was simply that being a person that believes in creation DOES NOT make you any less of a potential scientist.
- 87,585
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
This:
Whether or not Newton, Kelvin, Rutherford, Crick or anyone was or was not a Christian has little relevance. Christianity (or Islam, or any other religion) and science are not mutually exclusive.
What ARE mutually exclusive are the terms "Creation" and "science". Creation has no relevance to science because it is fundamentally unsupportable in the face of all known scientific evidence. If you are a creation scientist you are conducting "research" into a discipline where you have already determined the answer. A scientist CANNOT be impartial in this framework. In order to conduct valid research, one must be disinterested.
Ultimate proof of this can be seen in any "creation science" website - where the most appalling parodies of "science" are espoused as gospel truth (forgive the pun) - and their "research" is never submitted for review to accredited, recognised, independant scientific journals as it would be soundly torn apart by the sub-editors before it approached publication - by printing such obviously biased, unprofessional, a-scientific "works" in their publication, they would destroy their credibility in an instant, and their mailbox would break inside 20 minutes of publication.
Newton, Kelvin and others did not study or research the origin of biological organisms, so their beliefs did not impinge on their objectivity. Their research and ideas only remain valid to this day by being based on sound scientific principles, unhindered by notions of supernaturality - exactly the same principles which has lead to evolutionary theory. Yet "believers" accept Newton's works on gravity, but not evolutionary theory. Baffling.
James2097
Whether or not Newton, Kelvin, Rutherford, Crick or anyone was or was not a Christian has little relevance. Christianity (or Islam, or any other religion) and science are not mutually exclusive.
What ARE mutually exclusive are the terms "Creation" and "science". Creation has no relevance to science because it is fundamentally unsupportable in the face of all known scientific evidence. If you are a creation scientist you are conducting "research" into a discipline where you have already determined the answer. A scientist CANNOT be impartial in this framework. In order to conduct valid research, one must be disinterested.
Ultimate proof of this can be seen in any "creation science" website - where the most appalling parodies of "science" are espoused as gospel truth (forgive the pun) - and their "research" is never submitted for review to accredited, recognised, independant scientific journals as it would be soundly torn apart by the sub-editors before it approached publication - by printing such obviously biased, unprofessional, a-scientific "works" in their publication, they would destroy their credibility in an instant, and their mailbox would break inside 20 minutes of publication.
Newton, Kelvin and others did not study or research the origin of biological organisms, so their beliefs did not impinge on their objectivity. Their research and ideas only remain valid to this day by being based on sound scientific principles, unhindered by notions of supernaturality - exactly the same principles which has lead to evolutionary theory. Yet "believers" accept Newton's works on gravity, but not evolutionary theory. Baffling.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
Pretty much....
The idea of evolution, as it has been put in this thread is just not a feasible possibility to me. Now, the idea the animals and plants evolve within their own species makes very good sense.
Also, if Evolution is the case. Then Humans will go no further. or it'll be a few billion years before we do. For the simply fact that many genetic illnesses, like asthma, epilipsy and others can be treated and hence those people can reproduce. By the rules of Darwin, these people should die off and only the stronger survive. That's no longer the case.
- 1,620
Its called subtlety. That makes it funnier to us Aussies and also to Brits. The general concept of my idea was serious however. I wasn't saying I "believed" it, but its a good theory worth looking into (like any good scientific minded person might).Swift
Erm thats definately a scientist. Philsophers can think whatever they like, they are many and varied in their outlook. Bloody hell thats a simple thing to get wrong.
But still not from a truly modern era, given today's technology etc those two would most likely think differently in regards to religion. I'm not discounting their works at all. Pre-conceptual physics/mathematics from those eras have very little to do with religion in terms of potential for discovering anything that could cast doubt on God's existence. Scientists who believe in God have pretty much limited their field of study to things not pertaining to religion, because they couldn't ever do biology, conceptual physics etc without writing completely anti-academic stupid conclusions. Its fine for a religious "scientist" (although an oxymoron in concept) to work out F=MA or something of that nature without running into a conflict of interest. Its simple observaional physics on a non-atomic level.
So long as said scientist steers clear of biology, chemistry, archeaology, and modern physics. Mathematics is also banned if you get into things as complex as M-theory stuff. There is no conflict of faith if they stick to reciting the times tables, it'll get you stuck in a rut just like religious people love.
Edit: Famine has already put this stuff far better than I bothered doing... its 3:22am here, I can't think right now. Thats my excuse. Anyway, G'night.
- 87,585
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
Ah, no. You're confusing evolution with "natural selection".
Humanity is still subject to "natural selection", though in slightly different terms than every other animal subject to it. We are still predisposed to find our mate from characteristics we are nearly always unaware that we see. There is also some small measure of "artifical selection". But whether it's artificial or natural selection, evolution still occurs.
Evolution is not always advancement either. It's based on the tendency of creatures to survive to procreate in their environment. If our environment allows "weaker" members of our species to survive and procreate, then there is STILL evolution occurring.
- 1,620
Evolution, as a term, seems to always to be used in the context of 'advancing', so thats probably where the confusion came in. If we evolve into a crappier species, is that technically devolving or some crap? I assume its still called evolving regardless. Its not like future humans (the geeks shall inherit the Earth - those ones - AHHH!) will ever admit they are devolved compared to us anyway.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
James2097
Then I guess it works better in person then online.
So long as said scientist steers clear of biology, chemistry, archeaology, and modern physics. Mathematics is also banned if you get into things as complex as M-theory stuff. There is no conflict of faith if they stick to reciting the times tables, it'll get you stuck in a rut just like religious people love.
Edit: Famine has already put this stuff far better than I bothered doing... its 3:22am here, I can't think right now. Thats my excuse. Anyway, G'night.
So, Einstein was totally off his rocker?
- 1,620
Einstein was one of the greatest scientists to probe the universe; naturally, his thoughts regarding God and religion are often sought out. There is, unfortunately, much confusion about his views. This stems from the unorthodox way he used the words "Religion" and "God," and also from a systematic campaign by the religious community to claim him as a believer.
Einstein was quite clearly an unbeliever. His unbelief is substantiated in the quotations and references which follow the Historical Notes.
Historical Notes
Einsteins family was of Jewish descent, but his father regarded the customs of the Jewish faith as "an ancient superstition." At an early age, after reading some science books, Einstein abandoned revealed religion and turned to the laws of nature.
In 1911 Einstein was offered a professorship in Prague, but was denied the post because he put "unaffiliated" for his religion. To get the job he asked the officials to change the entry.
At a prayer breakfast in 1929, Cardinal OConnell charged that behind Relativity stood the "ghastly apparition of Atheism." A Rabbi immediately sent a letter to Einstein asking him if he believed in God. Einstein replied that he believed in the God of Spinoza. His
definition of God was just another word for Nature and its laws. Einstein did not believe in a superintelligence, the existence of the Trinity, the miracles of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, astrology, or the existence of the supernatural.
When Einstein made the often quoted (and misused) remark--"God does not play dice with the Universe--" he meant that there are no random motions in the Universe; all Nature conforms to mathematical laws.
Einstein also used the word "Religion" in a different sense. For him it meant the human wish to understand and to be moral, whether associated with a God or not. In that sense only he regarded religion as necessary. This is why he remarked, "In this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly
religious people." [3, p. 40]
Einstein remained an unbeliever. After his death in 1955 he was cremated without a religious ceremony.
His Thoughts About God
"It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it." [2, p. 38]
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." [4, p.6]
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic." [2, p. 43]
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony of the universe which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem--the most important of all human problems." [7, p. 95]
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God." [5, p.27]
"I cannot accept any concept of a God based on the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." [1, p. 622]
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests." [5, p. 28]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events...He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little of social or moral religion." [6]
The Soul and Immortality
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." [2, p. 34]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [2, p. 35]
"Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [4, p. 6]
Prayer
A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday school in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. His reply:
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by the laws of nature...For this reason. a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being." [2, p. 27]
The Bible
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be true." [1, p. 17]
Mysticism
"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spirtualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion." [2, p. 35]
"What I see in nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." [2, p. 34]
Morality
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A mans ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [3, p. 39]
References
1.Clark, Ronald, The Life and Times of Einstein, New York, World Publishing Co., 1971.
2.Dukas, Helen, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1979.
3.Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York, Crown Books, 1954.
4.Einstein, Albert, Living Philosophies, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1931.
5.Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, New York, Philosophical Library, 1950.
6.Einstein, Albert, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, Nov. 9, 1930.
7.Hoffmann, Banesh, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, New York, Viking Press, 1972.
There you go, G'night.
Einstein was quite clearly an unbeliever. His unbelief is substantiated in the quotations and references which follow the Historical Notes.
Historical Notes
Einsteins family was of Jewish descent, but his father regarded the customs of the Jewish faith as "an ancient superstition." At an early age, after reading some science books, Einstein abandoned revealed religion and turned to the laws of nature.
In 1911 Einstein was offered a professorship in Prague, but was denied the post because he put "unaffiliated" for his religion. To get the job he asked the officials to change the entry.
At a prayer breakfast in 1929, Cardinal OConnell charged that behind Relativity stood the "ghastly apparition of Atheism." A Rabbi immediately sent a letter to Einstein asking him if he believed in God. Einstein replied that he believed in the God of Spinoza. His
definition of God was just another word for Nature and its laws. Einstein did not believe in a superintelligence, the existence of the Trinity, the miracles of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, astrology, or the existence of the supernatural.
When Einstein made the often quoted (and misused) remark--"God does not play dice with the Universe--" he meant that there are no random motions in the Universe; all Nature conforms to mathematical laws.
Einstein also used the word "Religion" in a different sense. For him it meant the human wish to understand and to be moral, whether associated with a God or not. In that sense only he regarded religion as necessary. This is why he remarked, "In this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly
religious people." [3, p. 40]
Einstein remained an unbeliever. After his death in 1955 he was cremated without a religious ceremony.
His Thoughts About God
"It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it." [2, p. 38]
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." [4, p.6]
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic." [2, p. 43]
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony of the universe which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem--the most important of all human problems." [7, p. 95]
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God." [5, p.27]
"I cannot accept any concept of a God based on the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." [1, p. 622]
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests." [5, p. 28]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events...He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little of social or moral religion." [6]
The Soul and Immortality
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." [2, p. 34]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [2, p. 35]
"Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [4, p. 6]
Prayer
A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday school in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. His reply:
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by the laws of nature...For this reason. a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being." [2, p. 27]
The Bible
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be true." [1, p. 17]
Mysticism
"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spirtualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion." [2, p. 35]
"What I see in nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." [2, p. 34]
Morality
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A mans ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [3, p. 39]
References
1.Clark, Ronald, The Life and Times of Einstein, New York, World Publishing Co., 1971.
2.Dukas, Helen, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1979.
3.Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York, Crown Books, 1954.
4.Einstein, Albert, Living Philosophies, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1931.
5.Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, New York, Philosophical Library, 1950.
6.Einstein, Albert, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, Nov. 9, 1930.
7.Hoffmann, Banesh, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, New York, Viking Press, 1972.
There you go, G'night.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Thanks for the great info James. Always good to have more knowledge.
I didn't respond to it because I don't feel I'm insulting anyone. It is sad however how some christians(like everyone else) get upset and insult others that don't agree with them.
PS
I didn't respond to it because I don't feel I'm insulting anyone. It is sad however how some christians(like everyone else) get upset and insult others that don't agree with them.
- 87,585
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
Part of, not wholly.
You posited that humans aren't evolving because those that would naturally die are in fact surviving to procreate - the part of the theory called "natural selection" or the often-confused "survival of the fittest" (meaning most-suited to the environment, not most-physically-adept).
In fact natural selection DOES occur - our environment deems that most survive, so we are still subject to "survival of the fittest" - along with artificial selection to ensure that we do still evolve. That direction need not be that of "more advanced" to the layman, though by definition we would be a more advanced species. Probably fatter and slower - but then we're fatter and slower than Cro-Magnon Man. We're just smarter.
The geek will take over the world!
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PS
I'm beginning to remember why I had you on my ignore list.
Anyway, we went over that months ago literally. I infact said the same thing just opposite. So it was nothing new to me. Man, seriously, investigate a little before you get all high and mighty on me.
- 2,808
First paragraph:Famine
I was waiting for someone to say something about that.
Second and Third Paragaphs:
In the given figure of speech, how is a Christian any different from a Scientist? He wants answers, as does every other human on this planet, it's in our nature. However, we don't need to go and try to come up with crazy answers, we already have much more believable ones.
There isn't any scientific proof or evidence with enough weight to show one Christian that there is no God. End or story.
