Religion or not? (split from science thread)

[knobren]

[knobren]

[knobren]

[seekingmyLord]

The ideology of science is pure, however the practice of science is tainted with what is politically correct so that one's career may advance and one's work will be recognized. One may step to the edge, but those who dare to step too far from the group's agreed conformance will quickly be given the label of "quack" to be sure their careers die the lonely death of ridicule.

The only real truths that are accepted in the scientific community have been stamped with group mentality approval and the group with the most clout currently is pro evolution. There is no evidence against evolution because they don't accept it--basically the same thing they accuse of creationists.

Every opinion regarding the origins of the world and man are theories based on circular reasoning. Not one theory can be proven because nothing can be recreated to observe the process objectively. Regardless of what evidence is produce to argue against opposing theory, it is deflected because it does not fit into one's circle of reasoning. This is how it works in science on this particular subject and it is also how it works with faith/religion, therefore the debates about both are endless and all they really prove is how well one can defend his own little circle of reasoning. In the end, I have found this is the only truth that I learned in debating issues of this kind:

You only find what you seek and you only believe what you choose to believe.

Have fun everyone! I have been there, done that, and have much better things to do with my time.

By the way, I am a believer in a 6-day creation and a young earth. It does not matter to me how illogical that is. What matters to me is the doubt. Whenever there is any doubt, I choose to take the Bible quite literally, as a child would, for I am a child in God's eyes and I believe He had the Bible written for that purpose.

As for what I teach my child, I have to teach evolution to some extent because it is so ingrained in our society and in so many books on science that I really have no choice in the matter--if I did have a choice, I probably still would as one of a number of theories regarding origin. However, I also tell my daughter that mankind all over has made up all kinds of stories to explain how we and the earth came to be, because they did not know God and there are always disputes in the interpretation of evidence, even with all our technology.

Maybe she will choose to believe in evolution...? That is fine with me. I will not kick her out and call her a "quack," nor debate her for years to harden her heart against me or, worse, against God. It is not as important to me that she believe as I do about how and when the universe was created as it that she develops the desire to seek God's heart.

So, I will leave with this last question for you all: What is your purpose in debating this issue?

[knobren]

[Theodore]

There is no such thing as a good mutation. All the microevolution in the world will only produce an advantage under certain specific conditions, and outside of those conditions, the species is weaker. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are stronger than non-resistant bacteria in the presence of antiobiotics, but as soon as the antibiotics are removed, they quickly lose their resistance because the new form is weaker overall. That's not improving the bacteria, that's damaging them.

Let's say there are a bunch of people trapped inside a cave. The only opening left is a very small one. Most of the people can't get out because their shoulders are too wide, but one was born without arms due to a genetic error and is able to slide his way to safety. Would you say that being born without arms is an improvement? No. So how can you extrapolate from microevolution - which only improves things under specific local conditions - to macroevolution - which advances life overall? It makes zero sense.

[knobren]

[knobren]

[Mark]

[Mark]

[seekingmyLord]

[knobren]

[Theodore]

None of this proves how lizards could have evolved into birds, or monkeys into humans. I don't know how many ways I can say that. You've given about a million examples of microevolution, and not one for macroevolution - because macroevolution is by nature not observable or reproduceable. The only similarity between the two is the name. If antiobiotic-resistant bacteria are a step forward for bacteria as a whole, then why do they lose their resistance when taken to an area with no antibiotics? If this were going to be proof for evolution (and by that I mean macro), resistance would have to be a permanent advantage, not something that weakens the bacteria overall.

I'm sure you will disagree on this one point until the end of time, and so will I, so further posting is pointless.

[seekingmyLord]

[knobren]