1. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    27 Mar '06 22:44
    Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
    There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any conflict between evolutionary and religious views, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    27 Mar '06 22:50
    Originally posted by amannion
    Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
    There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
    There are a lot of ridiculous people in the world.
  3. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    27 Mar '06 22:52
    There is no confict between science and religion; the conflict is between knowledge and fundamentalist dogma.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    28 Mar '06 06:06
    Originally posted by amannion
    Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
    There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
    How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
    evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
    to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
    will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
    people argue over.
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    28 Mar '06 06:41
    Why does religion have to be antagonistic to evolution?
    There are many religious people who are scientists - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept the Bible means rejecting the scientific process, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any conflict between evolutionary and religious views, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.

    I've fixed it for you.
  6. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    28 Mar '06 06:57
    Originally posted by amannion
    Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
    There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
    Here mannion dude is why evolution is incomatible with religion:

    "if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. " -Kelly Jay

    Its because fundamentalists don't understand evolution.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 Mar '06 07:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
    evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
    to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
    will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
    people argue over.
    Kelly
    You clearly have no understanding of what science is. What you have described (The Theory of Evolution) as faith is most definately science. To believe it to be 100% true may be faith but to say that it is a well defined theory that is currently the best explanation for the evidence available is most definately science.
  8. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    28 Mar '06 21:37
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
    evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
    to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
    will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
    people argue over.
    Kelly
    Just a quick question KJ - did you ever actually study any science?
  9. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    28 Mar '06 22:04
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
    evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
    to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
    will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
    people argue over.
    Kelly
    nutter
  10. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    28 Mar '06 22:06
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Here mannion dude is why evolution is incomatible with religion:

    "if you think it is changes over time taking a some
    what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
    that is faith not science. " -Kelly Jay

    Its because fundamentalists don't want to understand evolution.
    There, fixed it
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    28 Mar '06 22:59
    Not yet.
  12. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    28 Mar '06 23:35
    Originally posted by amannion
    Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
    There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
    Why is this?
    Does it have to be the case?
    I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
    Hebrews 11:3
    By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
  13. Joined
    06 Jan '06
    Moves
    3711
    29 Mar '06 00:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You clearly have no understanding of what science is. What you have described (The Theory of Evolution) as faith is most definately science. To believe it to be 100% true may be faith but to say that it is a well defined theory that is currently the best explanation for the evidence available is most definately science.
    I think KellyJay's statement is accurate.
    Evolutionists don't stop their argument with what is happening around us today that can be measured, tested, and proven. They feel the need to extrapolate their observations millions of years into the past and say that it's the most likely thing to have caused life on this planet. That's faith, not science. The guesses made to draw that conclusion are based on what the scientist presumes must have happened for this theory to hold water. That's not science.
    You can't have your cake and eat it to. Stick to what science has proven and theists won't argue with you. What bothers me the most is when evolutions won't admit their faith in science.

    DF
  14. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    29 Mar '06 00:28
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    I think KellyJay's statement is accurate.
    Evolutionists don't stop their argument with what is happening around us today that can be measured, tested, and proven. They feel the need to extrapolate their observations millions of years into the past and say that it's the most likely thing to have caused life on this planet. That's faith, not science. The ...[text shortened]... u. What bothers me the most is when evolutions won't admit their faith in science.

    DF
    LEARN WHAT SCIENCE IS BEFORE CLAIMING SOMETHING ISN'T SCIENCE!
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    29 Mar '06 00:57
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    I think KellyJay's statement is accurate.
    Evolutionists don't stop their argument with what is happening around us today that can be measured, tested, and proven. They feel the need to extrapolate their observations millions of years into the past and say that it's the most likely thing to have caused life on this planet. That's faith, not science. The ...[text shortened]... u. What bothers me the most is when evolutions won't admit their faith in science.

    DF
    Firstly past extrapolations ARE science.
    Secondly, can you tell me what are the guesses that scientists have made that prepresume the theory?
Back to Top