-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science doesn't belong to atheism
- Thread starter uberrobonomicon4000
- Start date
i hope my edits can help articulate how ridiculous this mode of thinking is.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
I think science does not belong to anyone, what a stupid question.
Science is the laws of how our universe works, It belongs to the Earth..not to one group of believers or disbelievers.
It does not always have to be science vs religion!!! Have we learned nothing from the early Muslim Scientists and Scholars...wait a second there was the whole renaissance and "the Moors" were kicked out of Spain and history rewritten.
Science and Religion have always gone hand in hand...It was only with the rise of Christianity and its faltered Doctrine that gave any weight to the argument of Science vs Religion..the reason for the european dark ages..because everything was blasphemy...If you guys open your eyes and research Muslim history, you will suprised at how much of the foundations of Modern Science owes its revival and further research to Muslim Scientists. The Muslims did not have a dark age, infact Islam and its commandment to "Read in the name of your Lord" was the reason the illiterate pagan sheep herders of Arabia were able illuminate themselves with knowledge and bring science back to Europe.
Science is the laws of how our universe works, It belongs to the Earth..not to one group of believers or disbelievers.
It does not always have to be science vs religion!!! Have we learned nothing from the early Muslim Scientists and Scholars...wait a second there was the whole renaissance and "the Moors" were kicked out of Spain and history rewritten.
Science and Religion have always gone hand in hand...It was only with the rise of Christianity and its faltered Doctrine that gave any weight to the argument of Science vs Religion..the reason for the european dark ages..because everything was blasphemy...If you guys open your eyes and research Muslim history, you will suprised at how much of the foundations of Modern Science owes its revival and further research to Muslim Scientists. The Muslims did not have a dark age, infact Islam and its commandment to "Read in the name of your Lord" was the reason the illiterate pagan sheep herders of Arabia were able illuminate themselves with knowledge and bring science back to Europe.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
Not everyone who believes in Adam is a Young Earth Creationist.
I believe Adam was the first person, I dont put a date on it..Might have been millions of years ago...
jonman122
Active Member
Anyone who believes Adam was the first man inherently denies a belief in science because science and the facts of evolution state that there never was a "first" man. With only one man and one woman it's been proven that the gene pool would never be diverse enough for the ancestors to survive for very long, they would die out within a few generations if they were not killed sooner by wildlife or accident of some kind.
We evolved from apes, and the first humans (homo sapiens, modern-ish humans) evolved possibly around 100 000 years ago to 250 000 years ago. There was no "first man" or "first person" in the way the bible describes it.
We evolved from apes, and the first humans (homo sapiens, modern-ish humans) evolved possibly around 100 000 years ago to 250 000 years ago. There was no "first man" or "first person" in the way the bible describes it.
Last edited:
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
Scientist disagree with eachother over alot of various theories..Why does disagreeing with one thing put me out of the whole of science?
Your theory of evolution (concerning Human evolution from microscopic organisms) is still a theory..it is yet to be proven as fact.
On a personal level I dont disagree with alot of evolution and believe that Human beings have evolved to an extent and continue to keep evolving.. I agree with survival of the fittest and natural selection..but not to the extent of where it stops being scientific fact and turns into a could have should have argument...
I dont think if I disagree with one scientific theory it puts me over the line and into the 'brain washed religious folk"..Everyone has a right to their opinion, you can not jump to the conclusion that if I disagree with one aspect of science that I have completely stopped taking insight from other scientific findings..No one has a right to claim they own science..Science is an understanding of how our world/universe works.. I look at it the same way as you do..what makes your science so different to mine?
jonman122
Active Member
Because I'm not trying to claim that all life on earth started with one man and one woman. That's literally, physically not possible. If every human on earth was killed right now, and there were only 2 left alive, Humans would die out completely within a few generations at the most. Species with far superior numbers have gone extinct, even since humans have been recording written data. Birth defects run rampant to the point that they can no longer survive or even breed, and then humanity would be gone forever.
This is why Adam cannot have been the first man. This isn't just an evolutionary argument, it covers multiple facets of science including biology and chemistry, as both of those are necessary for understanding the basic components of life that would ultimately lead to humanities extinction through genetic defects if only 2 humans were alive to breed.
Ignoring that much evidence, while it's right there, is proving that you don't really believe in what science has to offer, you are just picking and choosing what you think fits with your religious world view and sticking it where you want it to be. If you truly followed the knowledge of science, you wouldn't just shut down your mind to half of all of the sciences just because they disagree with a book.
This is why Adam cannot have been the first man. This isn't just an evolutionary argument, it covers multiple facets of science including biology and chemistry, as both of those are necessary for understanding the basic components of life that would ultimately lead to humanities extinction through genetic defects if only 2 humans were alive to breed.
Ignoring that much evidence, while it's right there, is proving that you don't really believe in what science has to offer, you are just picking and choosing what you think fits with your religious world view and sticking it where you want it to be. If you truly followed the knowledge of science, you wouldn't just shut down your mind to half of all of the sciences just because they disagree with a book.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
Maybe the first Humans had extra ordinary productive organs, and Humans had litters of 12
, Maybe our reproductive systems evolved, or we became smaller in size than we were..You are jumping to another conclusion again that I am denying scientific fact..It is not fact that Humans evolved from some other species (bar the homos..lol..no gay pun intended), It is highly improbable or highly unlikely according to modern scientific findings and theories that we came from Adam..No one has been able to definatly prove it wrong..The best they have been able to do is hint at what might have happened.. I will stop believing in the Adam creationist view when we find the missing link..until then personally believing this makes more sense...It might not to you..I am not pressuring you into believing anything..all I am asking is that you show the same respect to my beliefs as I have shown to yours.. And stop talking about science like you own it..you and I most probably have learned about science from the same sources and gained the same insights..disagreeing on one thing shouldnt close the door on me or you what gives you more authority over it than me or any other dweller of this earth. I hate how people make it a Religion vs Science argument.. I dont see it that way...stop judging me based on your perception of what the average believer in God is like (in your head)
Last edited:
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
You are completly wrong in saying that.. All life on earth did not start through Adam. Adam was the first of Mankind (the Father of Mankind)..According to what your saying you think that I believe all the animal and organisms came from Adam? Thats the stupidest argument Ive read against Creationism..You should go educate yourself (not with the evolutionary material adopted by school syllabuses) into what other people believe before jumping to conclusions..
My God what a Joke...All life on earth came from Adam and Eve. (Guess they were ****tting animals ey?)
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Pigeon Chess any one?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Interesting...
Perhaps you should also chastise loveroftruth:
jonman122
Active Member
Ok I can make that more specific, All of MANKIND. Either way you haven't actually proven any points, even if you had litters of 30, you'd still fall prey to inbreeding depression and your species would go extinct, there has never, in the history of any species we've ever recorded, been exactly 2 parents to the entire species. We've actually SEEN species go extinct that had well over 2 surviving members, the genetically rare White Tiger is actually going extinct because of inbreeding depression.
Being human doesnt make us special, but believing in creationism does lump you in to a group of fundamentalists who would rather deny the evidence as it stands there in front of them.
I should also add that all tigers are actually an endangered species, white tigers are a genetic mutation that seemed to occur rarely and they managed to get enough of them to start a "family" of them I guess, but the group they had has since come down to one incredibly mentally challenged tiger who is on the verge of death, due to inbreeding depression.
but now I've been up all night working and I need sleep. You know, there is actually, as far as i can recall, no evidence for why humans need to sleep, but we know that if they don't for a few weeks they actually might even die. Weird.
Last edited:
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
And we meet again..
Please give some more proof about these facts of Human evolution, Where is the missing link?
jonman122
Active Member
Humanity never had a "missing link" to apes
Here she is, but as this explains, there is not one missing link. Humans evolution divergence from apes came gradually over millions of years, with many many different transitional fossils, not one "missing link." Lucy is one of the best transitional fossils found yet though.
Here she is, but as this explains, there is not one missing link. Humans evolution divergence from apes came gradually over millions of years, with many many different transitional fossils, not one "missing link." Lucy is one of the best transitional fossils found yet though.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
The evidence that we need sleep lies in the fact that you would die if you didnt sleep for a few weeks (although i doubt it is likely anyone could stay awake so long that they would die, I mean a normal person would pass out due to anxiety and stress way before they get closing to dying from staying awake)
I am not a scientist or even a religious scholar.. Im a 22 year old Uni student in my search for my creator..I know he is there, he has helped me guard against evil things/entities.. I would have been an atheist if I hadnt experienced the weird paranormal stuff that I have..The Occult brought me to Islam..I have no interest in convincing people of this reality(that we cannot percieve because it is not 3D). No I am not cuckoo.. I am very sane..and pretty normal in all aspects of life.
To each his own.. I just dont like being put completely out of the scope of science because I believe in Adam being the first human..It doesnt mean that I believe Newtons Law of Motions dont apply anymore..
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
And we meet again..
Please give some more proof about these facts of Human evolution, Where is the missing link?
You have revealed not only your gross ignorance of science and evolution, but also your blatant refusal to learn about them.
Since I am not interested in your Pigeon Chess Challenge, I shall allow others, who have more patience and or free time, to once again attempt to educate you on these matters.
Fly on home now and claim your victory..
jonman122
Active Member
I would keep going but I agree, so far the evidence hasn't changed his mind and with how much is in front of him I don't think it ever will.
I've been out of the game too long and I'm too excited, I really should go to bed now.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
"...too many dingbats think that somehow the theory of evolution is a fact."
This is true. I can't count how many times I've heard people say, "Evolution is a fact!"
Well, no, it's not. Evolution is a theory -- and a theory is a story which explains a *set of facts.* (Facts being empirical experiences which are measured.) But a theory itself is not a fact.
Just like gravity is a theory which explains a fact (the measured empirical experience of falling bodies). But the theory of gravity itself is not a fact.
And further, no matter how much a theory is supported by facts, theories themselves can never be transformed into facts...
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
The problem is that the term "evolution" is meant to cover several things. In the simplest sense - "change over time" - evolution is a fact, and refers to the empirical data (fossil record, antibiotic resistance, etc). However, the term is also used to encompass theories such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc, that all explain the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
Same I wasnt interested in what you have to say and deny..
Have a good day tho
Peace and God Bless
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
You are not interested in anything that you think shows your beliefs wrong.Same I wasnt interested in what you have to say and deny..
Have a good day tho
Peace and God Bless
You have already proven it with your blatant denial of truth and facts already presented.
Though it is refreshing to see that you readily admit it.