Religion vs. Science

[Powerman]

Man, I can't wait for the day that people aren't this stupid anymore

If anyone watches this series of videos and believes that this is somehow proof for evolution being false, they need to be evaluated.

Every one of these videos is a contest to see how many illogical statements can be put into a short video.



In case you're wondering, yes, I do think you're stupid if you agree with these people.

[darin]

science POINTS to God.

[Nienna]

Man, I can't wait for the day that people aren't this stupid anymore

If anyone watches this series of videos and believes that this is somehow proof for evolution being false, they need to be evaluated.

Every one of these videos is a contest to see how many illogical statements can be put into a short video.



In case you're wondering, yes, I do think you're stupid if you agree with these people.

Guess you think I'm stupid, then. Everything in that video made sense to me.

[KarlMarx]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

Again, modern humans arose 50,000 years ago in the plains of Africa, why are we still the same as those humans? The only differences seem to be in race, which is an adaptation to the sun, not necessarily evolution.

Furthermore, I would expect that humans should be very different from one continent to another and perhaps have become separate species by now. After all, the environment of the Sahara is very different than that of the tropical jungle. Why for instance haven't Eskimos become furry to adapt to the cold?

[Missileman]

If I were to accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I would expect to see a difference, albeit a slight one.

What about differences in immune systems from one region to another?

[KarlMarx]

What about differences in immune systems from one region to another?

tell me about it

[Missileman]

tell me about it

Things like the Mexicans can drink the water, but it makes tourists ill, or Amazon natives being wiped out by the flu virus because they had no immunity to it. Eskimos have developed the ability to digest blubber, etc.

[Nienna]

Things like the Mexicans can drink the water, but it makes tourists ill, or Amazon natives being wiped out by the flu virus because they had no immunity to it. Eskimos have developed the ability to digest blubber, etc.

Natural selection fits in perfectly with the Biblical Creation model. It's the philosophy of materialism and macroevolution that don't work with Creation, and, also, have very little (if any) scientific evidence to back them up.

[Hobbit]

Not only that, but the examples Missleman gave are all things that can change within a single person and do not require generations of natural selection. If I drank a little bit of Mexican water one day, and increased the dosage each day, I would eventually be able to drink it with no ill effect. My parents are immune to smallpox, but I would possibly die if exposed to it in large amounts. As for the blubber, there's a Guiness World Record for eating glass.

[Gaffer]

What a bunch of crap. I could only stand to watch three of them. But I took away from those three, no PROOF of anything. A lot of demonizing Darwin, and "it's say so right there in the bible".

Evolution is still a theory. It has not been proven. Therefore the theory changes as more information is added to the theory. That's how science works. They are still working on proving evolution. If creationism wants to be considered it has to be proven too. And since creationism relies of the bible entirely it cannot be proven. As the bible only goes back about 4000 years. But the chinese have records that date back over 5000 years. Which means there's a discrepancy in the bible, which according to believers there cannot be. So they begin to manufacture their own data to disprove scientific and historical fact. Psuedo-science.

And there are intermedia fossils of many animals. Horses are a prime example.

As I have said before. Evolution is a slow processes that takes thousands and millions of years. We as a species have only had the ability to observe changes for a few hundred years. As for skin color being effected by the sun. If that's the case then its an evolutionary process. As people adapted to their enviroment. Developing immunity to a virus is an evolutionary process as well.

To deny evolution because it doesn't fit in biblical skeem of things is as bad as evolutionists saying there could be no creator because there is no proof.

[Missileman]

Natural selection fits in perfectly with the Biblical Creation model. It's the philosophy of materialism and macroevolution that don't work with Creation, and, also, have very little (if any) scientific evidence to back them up.

Unlike the mountain of pseudo-scientific evidence that supports the earth being ony a few thousand years old and Noah carrying dinosaurs on the ark, right?

I've yet to have any reasonable explanation of how a handful of middle-eastern Jews morphed into non-Jewish Asians, Africans, Australian aborigines, Native Americans, etc with totally different languages, alphabets, and religious lore within a few generations. There's not even a shred of evidence that Noah and company had the ability to make a ship capable of crossing an ocean. They would have to have constructed several navigable mini-arks to carry all of the indigenous wildlife to each of the continents as well...funny how that's not mentioned.

The bottom line is that I place more credibility in the observable than in the supernatural. You can try to wish away the scientific evidence that the earth is billions-of-years-old and that we are descended from lower, pre-historic lifeforms, but the evidence exists and is irrefuteable.

Let the Bible serve as a moral compass. Trying to use it as a scientific guide will always leave you pointed in the wrong direction.

[5stringJeff]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

[Gaffer]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

I can go along with that. It's much more logical and sensible than the 6 day idea.

[gabosaurus]

Religion is a BELIEF.
Science is a process of educated thought and study.

There is no accurate "word of God." Since God rarely gives press conferences. Jesus never appeared before any Biblical media. The Bible was not even put together until approximately 300 years after his death.

I believe in God. I have religious values. But I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. dmb probably has underwear older than that.

In the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "I have a one-word question for those who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old -- dinosaurs."

[Hobbit]

Why must it always be religion vs. science, as if those two are mutually exclusive. Most Western science was largely driven by a desire to understand God, and the Atheistic view that the two cannot intermingle has actually stifled science in some places.