Thoughts and prayers for Paris, France.

[avliner]

I totally agree on that one with you, Gene!

I never understood that either. You know what, I believe that Religion will never accept Science in this particular, due to the fact that whatever is explainable - with concrete arguments - will be refused/denied by Religion, for logical reasons, though.

 

[GO-NAD!]

There is nothing wrong being religious or having faith. The problem in my view is when one uses it to deny science. I never understood why people of faith can't embrace the science of evolution as a way of explaining God's process or grande plan of life.

I think I can safely say that here in Canada, most Christians don't have an issue with evolution, although I don't have statistics to back that up. But, the evolution/creation debate isn't really a thing here, as it seems to be in the US.

 

[lsiberian]

There is nothing wrong being religious or having faith. The problem in my view is when one uses it to deny science. I never understood why people of faith can't embrace the science of evolution as a way of explaining God's process or grande plan of life.

I'd say it's because evolution is inadequate in answering the question why.

 

[rnatalli]

With regards to climate change, didn't the Pope himself come out and say we need to start dealing with it?

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'd say it's because evolution is inadequate in answering the question why.

It's not that the answer is inadequate, the answer is unacceptable to those of faith. The most likely scenario with evolution, whether it happened on Earth or somewhere else, is an exceedingly rare case of random chance. I know several people who truly believe that evolution is real, but can't accept random origin. I've also seen people weird out a little bit, people who say they believe in evolution, when forced to confront the reality that we share about 99% of our DNA with a chimp. Theory is one thing, actual numbers are another. But like I've posted before, I understand this position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Even Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and cosmologist, who was probably smarter on his worst day than I'll ever be, couldn't believe in random chance either. He was a believer in micro-intervention.

 

[Swerd]

I'd say it's because evolution is inadequate in answering the question why.

To say that evolution provides an inadequate answer to the question why, implies that evolution addresses the question. It doesn't.

Evolution only tells us how animals, plants, or bacteria change over time as conditions change, sometimes leading to new and different species. It never addresses the question of how the first animals, plants, or bacteria came to exist in the first place.

… we share about 99% of our DNA with a chimp.

True, but that's total DNA without regard to time. If you examine what genes are expressed and when during development they are expressed, the picture looks different.

Still, we are remarkably close to all of the great apes because we are great apes.

 

[haraldo]

Polish minister says Syrians can return to fight and 'liberate' homeland

Warsaw (AFP) - The hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe can be trained to form an army and return to "liberate" their homeland, Poland's new foreign minister said on Sunday.

Witold Waszczykowski also told public television that the refugees could be gainfully employed in this manner rather than sipping coffee on an iconic Berlin avenue or other European cities.

http://news.yahoo.com/polish-minister-says-syrians-return-fight-liberate-homeland-225004972.html

 

[Rickster71]

I think I can safely say that here in Canada, most Christians don't have an issue with evolution, although I don't have statistics to back that up.
But, the evolution/creation debate isn't really a thing here, as it seems to be in the US.

The topic mostly comes up, along with other emotional issues, just in time for election season.
Those issues are meant to distract from the fact that governments aren't doing their job.

 

[markw]

How did this go from a discussion on Islamic terrorism in France to evolution and Christian bashing in general? Weren't we supposed to stick to the original subject?

Or are we only allowed to veer into certain approved off-topics?

 

[avliner]

Out of curiosity, just a last thought on this:

how the Radical Muslims would react (ISIS, for instance), by interpreting this:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing”.
( The Hitchhikers's Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams).

Let's just change the word God by Allah, on the above text, though... any ideas??

 

[Irvrobinson]

How did this go from a discussion on Islamic terrorism in France to evolution and Christian bashing in general?

Well... it's not really Christian-bashing, Mark, it's more anti-science bashing, and the politicians we were discussing just happen to be Christian. We'd be just as obnoxious regardless of their faith, even if they were anti-science atheists. But, as one of the leading bad-boys in this regard, I apologize if I offended you.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I'd say it's because evolution is inadequate in answering the question why.

I suppose evolution is more "what" than "why". As a "what", I would think it's pretty adequate. As for "why", the atheistic answer can be boiled down to "$hit happens". That doesn't cut it for many people.

 

[markw]

Well... it's not really Christian-bashing, Mark, it's more anti-science bashing, and the politicians we were discussing just happen to be Christian. We'd be just as obnoxious regardless of their faith, even if they were anti-science atheists. But, as one of the leading bad-boys in this regard, I apologize if I offended you.

Interesting. Reading your post 73 I'd say it was simply veiled insults towards believers.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Interesting. Reading your post 73 I'd say it was simply veiled insults towards believers.

Hmmm... that's not one of the posts I thought you'd have a problem with. I was just quoting survey results, and judging if Gene's post had any validity.

 

[gene]

I'd say it's because evolution is inadequate in answering the question why.

That is not the point of science. It shows how not why. Thus, keep the why to religion/faith and the how to science and there should be no conflict IMO.

 

[gene]

It's not that the answer is inadequate, the answer is unacceptable to those of faith. The most likely scenario with evolution, whether it happened on Earth or somewhere else, is an exceedingly rare case of random chance. I know several people who truly believe that evolution is real, but can't accept random origin. I've also seen people weird out a little bit, people who say they believe in evolution, when forced to confront the reality that we share about 99% of our DNA with a chimp. Theory is one thing, actual numbers are another. But like I've posted before, I understand this position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Even Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and cosmologist, who was probably smarter on his worst day than I'll ever be, couldn't believe in random chance either. He was a believer in micro-intervention.

Believing micro-evolution but not macro-evolution as if they are some how mutually exclusive isn't a sign of intelligence. It's ignorance.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Believing micro-evolution but not macro-evolution as if they are some how mutually exclusive isn't a sign of intelligence. It's ignorance.

Well, Fred Hoyle caused quite a stir in the 1980s with his book "The Intelligent Universe", which became the go-to reference for intelligent design supporters everywhere, Hoyle being a British Royal Academy scientist and all. I actually own a 1st edition copy. It is entertaining.

 

[markw]

So, I see where evolution/creation and their detractors/supporters is still the crux of this thread. Whatever happened to the 127 dead French?

Can we talk about how global warming is the cause of this turmoil? That's an interesting topic, too.

 

[gene]

Well, Fred Hoyle caused quite a stir in the 1980s with his book "The Intelligent Universe", which became the go-to reference for intelligent design supporters everywhere, Hoyle being a British Royal Academy scientist and all. I actually own a 1st edition copy. It is entertaining.

The Intelligent Design or better identified Un-Intelligent Design Movement is dead in terms of being pushed as academia in our schools and NOBODY other than evangelicals are attempting to equate it as an alternative to Evolution.

Neal DeGrasse absolutely destroyed this nonsense in this interview:

and on his Cosmos Show which sadly Fox cancelled he showed the whole process of how the eye was originally formed in the sea by single cell bacteria fleeing light to survive. Wish I could link to it but all of the episodes are off the net due to copyright I suppose or the evangelic protests to Fox.

 

[markw]

All well and good as far as evolution of physical beings goes, but what about the creation of life itself from absolutely nothing? I think this was brought up before but I haven't seen any good answers.

Has anyone come up with an explanation for that?