Religion Debates and Discussions

Was it a story in the quaran? Or something... thought that was just something stupid...

Thats not the problem we have against the idea of god, it's possible someone created the earth, but there's multiple theories that explain life on earth.

ALSO where the hell does god have control over? Don't you think if god existed he would put people on Mars or some other planet? Unless you think nothing exist besides the thing you have interactions with...

 

Erm no, I was saying that it is unlikely that a fully functioning human clone could ever exist. My "religion" is still perfectly intact XD

Actually, I was reading a Pew Research article on how the religions will change for the next 10-50 years or so. Here is the link if anyone is interested. It's long but interesting.

Hmm, well I believe the word you were looking for is empathy and not sympathy. Anyways, since you didn't give any examples of these animals that can have empathy (or sympathy if that was what you were going for) then I can only assume that dogs would be on that list. Here is a link to an article that questions if animals (specifically dogs) really do feel the humane feeling of empathy, but I will sum up one of the points. According to the article,

"The problem is that empathy is a fairly complex emotion. There is a consensus that the mind of a dog is very similar in capacity and behaviors to the mind of a human 2 to 3-year-old. Although there is some data suggesting that human toddlers begin to show the beginnings of empathy sometime around their second birthday, it is quite primitive at that age and many scientists think that clear evidence of empathy doesn't really show up until the child is four years old or more. That would, of course, require a more advanced mental capacity than what is usually credited to canines."

I hope we are not referring to cats as being sympathetic XD That or goldfish...

 

Once again, @Proterozoic.

You're misusing 'theory'.

From scientific american:
"
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
"

 

You're getting very finicky about definitions on what is essentially a religious debate on a minecraft forum. Nevertheless, you are correct that from that definition of "fact" I'm misusing it. I'm using a more vague definition because I didn't think that anyone would particular care all that much (and boy was I wrong).

Evolution is IN PART a fact. We do have in certain situations direct evidence to prove that evolution is a thing and happens in some organisms, bacteria being the major example. We also have substantial evidence that in the past the record has shown that it is likely (although we do not have first hand direct evidence) that these processes have been going on. It is also widely accepted that things now evolve (although a lot of the details have since changed from the Origin of the Species). With that said, I would debate the argument that indirect evidence is never as good as direct. The fossil record exists, but we don't fully understand the circumstances at the time. We're also dealing with a religious debate, in which not all religious circumstances can be fully explained scientifically (remember that point that God may well have placed the fossils themselves?

We know that evolution as a fact exists in some organisms. We do not however no directly for a fact that this happens for all organisms, although of course there are substantial piles of evidence to suggest it. The problem is, we're dealing with a religious explanation, which really requires direct evidence for anything to be fully proven.

Finally, science and academia frequently relies on indirect evidence, but it's also proved wrong frequently. Studies are done under these assumptions, and they can always be called into question

 

when you begin to have to make room for things that are regarded as accepted scientific theories in our world (evolution COULD have been made by god because it contradicts my religion), that is when your religion becomes pretty weak

 

Why do Christians always want solid proofs but can't bring up any themself?

 

If you don't mind me saying you don't know religion very well, which is why it is pretty easy to refute this comment. You seem to think that by me saying that Evolution is possible from a Catholic perspective, it is me trying to create a way for God to still exist while science is proving otherwise. Actually, most Atheists in this thread seem to think along these lines. I brought it up before, but it seems I will need to bring it up again. The Catholic Church has always thought that the idea of Evolution is a possibility. They had this stance when Evolution was merely an idea, with no evidence or proof to support it at the time.

Since this is the case then I should thank you for calling The Church intelligent and very scientific. Because, according to you, The Church is using this as a scapegoat to allow itself to continue believing in God. By that reasoning, The Church must have been smart enough to realize that Evolution must be undeniably true in the 1800s, so therefore it was planted as the scapegoat early on to justify itself in the future. That sounds completely ridiculous, because at the same time according to Atheists The Church is not scientific and follows its faith and not logic. So, is The Church intelligent and scientific after all?

Pretty simple actually, just as a "scientific theory" is different than the word "theory" so is an Atheists proof compared to a religious person's proof. Atheists view a proof as something they can see, touch, hear, etc... While a religious person's proof consists of philosophy, logic, faith, and in some cases visual proof. This, in my mind, is one of the main reasons why Atheists and the religious have a very difficult time seeing eye to eye. Both sides claim to have undeniable proof, however, the opposing side will always have difficulty in seeing the other sides' proof. Hence why Atheists are befuddled to why religious people still believe in religion and vice versa.

 

Rejecting the null means you accept the alternative hypothesis.

And for everyone else, you should look up Occam's Razor. Is it more likely that the earth is really old or that someone put fossils in the ground to deceive humanity?

 

You may want to rethink that photosynthesis part my man...
Photosynthesis has been proven by analysing the building of molecular structures under the availability of CO2, and the main possibility due to the calculated intake of CO2 and measured exhale of O2, the most plausible structure in this case is C6H12O6, which is however quickly built into other key substances.

 

Are there any scientific calculations you believe to be proven fact?

 

we use parts of physics to determine other parts of science... selectively choosing what you want to believe doesnt make sense IF the evidence produced points to a clear conclusion

 

I'm finicky about definitions because definitions are what we rely on to make sure we're having the same conversation. You were using the term theory incorrectly, especially because the two definitions for theory are wholly different. Scientific theory is essentially a compilation of facts about our world that can be and have been used to make accurate predictions about it.

As for the 'theory ' of evolution, fossil records confirmed through dozens of independent techniques appear around the globe that confirm animal species did exist which can be near-perfectly linked to eachother. DNA records can trace the genome to such a high degree of accuracy that we now know we are in a family of apes evolving from a common ancestor.


---

For all we know God could have put those fossils there. This isn't considered by the scientific community however because
a) the only evidence to point to this being true tests in a book written by humans in the desert that never mentions them once, and
b) the fossils have been shown to be way older than the timeline described in the Bible let alone the Bible itself.

Science does move forward by essentially being proven incorrect. Religion doesn't do that. Religion CLAIMS science is incorrect and when asked to provide evidence, holds up the same book that was used to 'prove' the earth is flat and to 'prove' that plagues were signs of god.

It's a god of the gaps: "oh you can't explain this therefore god". Then it claims victory until it can be explained, wherein it claims that that's what God meant all along ( like you're trying to do with fossils.)

It has no predictive power. That's what theories are entirely about; proven predictive power.

Edit: although I like that you're quite moderate about this issue, attempting to inject God into evolution as a potential answer without having any conclusive, predictive evidence for it is wrong.

I'd also like to point out that until modern medicine confirmed it through sight with high powered microscopes, indirect evidence was all Germ theory had to back it up. Still had predictive power and was still fact though.

 

dna is not obvious, i have no clue what your definition of "obvious" is