Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

Just to make things short and sweet ... it is wrong to say that EVOLUTION is a HOAX because there are studies being done to it .

It is also not right to say that EVOLUTION is TRUE since it is still a THEORY .

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 belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

source : merriam-webster online

As long as walay CONCLUSION as per SCIENCE RESEARCH's mandate of how to make case studies , it will remain a study .

The argument should remain only as a belief on where the individual stands firm in believing if you are a person who supports the CREATION or the EVOLUTION . Should there be another form discussion about this , I know the people from SPIRITUAL and OCCULT would be laughing out loud because we all know walay mag daug hantod nasara na lang ang sub forum .

Again ... if you guys wish to continue , RESPECT each other and ayaw mo ug personalay and instead , use your wits and smarts because trust me .... it is not certain yet as of the moment today @ 0930 hours , June 16,2010 unsay sakto and sayop so dont shove it to each other's mouth unsay tinuod ug unsay dili .

For the record also as what most people know me , I am a THEIST ... a Catholic and I also believed and rely in science also .

[SioDenz]

Padaghanay diay ni ug post dire no? karon pa ko kabalo..tnx for informing ha

Ok then..no need to shine..kay shine nman kaha daan...ang imo opaw

just prove the existence of your God so that we'll have a discussion here


Mao mani imo post oh...explain na dayon aron walay daghan istorya..ikaw na bahala if spiritual or scientific imo gamiton..


Basin diay convincing kaayo imo spiritual or scientific explanation..
Sama ra gud na sa Science side..ngano mo post pa man sila dre ug mga evidence nga di man gihapon mo-tou ang Religious side..
Siguro in this way we can have a good discussion...di ba

Unsaon man pag explain ug spiritual nga ang imu rasun why wa ka nituo ug Ginoo kay wa ka kita. ani nalan, I believe nga naay God kay bisan si Albert Einstien nga mas utukan pa nimu ug usa ka Scientist nituo man Gani ug God or Supreme being.

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

[necrotic freak]

Evolutionist - still searching for the missing link

Creaionist - still waiting for the second coming

same no conculsion..

[hitch22]

Just to make things short and sweet ... it is wrong to say that EVOLUTION is a HOAX because there are studies being done to it .

It is also not right to say that EVOLUTION is TRUE since it is still a THEORY .

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 belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

source : merriam-webster online

As long as walay CONCLUSION as per SCIENCE RESEARCH's mandate of how to make case studies , it will remain a study .

The argument should remain only as a belief on where the individual stands firm in believing if you are a person who supports the CREATION or the EVOLUTION . Should there be another form discussion about this , I know the people from SPIRITUAL and OCCULT would be laughing out loud because we all know walay mag daug hantod nasara na lang ang sub forum .

Again ... if you guys wish to continue , RESPECT each other and ayaw mo ug personalay and instead , use your wits and smarts because trust me .... it is not certain yet as of the moment today @ 0930 hours , June 16,2010 unsay sakto and sayop so dont shove it to each other's mouth unsay tinuod ug unsay dili .

For the record also as what most people know me , I am a THEIST ... a Catholic and I also believed and rely in science also .

Trust me. I'm not taking any of these personally. I'm having fun shredding every possible opposing arguments to ribbons.

First of all, I'm not trying to shove Darwin's Theory of Evolution down people's throats. If you've followed my conversations with robert_papalid_ece, for example, you can see that I've always emphasized the "non-overlapping magisteria" between science and religion...because they're not supposed to overlap. It's when religious apologists suddenly start making judgments about a very well-respected scientific theory that I contest such matters.

Secondly, as long as you say that your faith is incompatible with the Theory of Evolution, I will always respect that distance. But when somebody advances "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationism) to supplant Darwin's Theory, then you're essentially going up against the heavyweights of evolutionary biology like Craig Venter, Massimo Pigliucci, Richard Lewontin, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and even our very own homegrown Dr. Michael Purugganan...as well as the National Academy of Sciences, with its 200 Nobel-prize winning scientists.

Thirdly, it is a valid statement to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Take Jerry Coyne's book: WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

Lastly, there is a lot of misconception about the term SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Please do not confuse this with Webster's definition. At best, when Webster's define esoteric terms that belong to the phraseology of specific domains, they're only giving a layman's definition. Take the Webster's definition of "Economics". I'm sure Economists would find such definition a bit simplistic.

FAQ gave a very good description of what a Scientific Theory is. Read his post here: https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...cience-11.html.

What really gets me is when people say Evolution is just a theory. Evolution is a FACT. THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE PHENOMENON. It's like gravity. Gravity is a fact. If anyone doesn't believe in gravity, then he can go jump out the window and find out. Likewise, if anyone doesn't believe in evolution, then try not completing your antibiotics course the next time you have a bacterial infection and see if those bacteria would develop drug-resistance.

I don't want to sound like I'm shoving this down people's throat. If you'll say "AS A MATTER OF FAITH, I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THEORY," then we can get along fine. Again, non-overlapping magisteria. Just take this similar stance of Kurt Wise, a scientist with a B.A. from University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Harvard:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

In other words, religious apologists don't need evidence or persuasion or credible sources that support Darwin's Theory. Their choice not to believe in the Theory of Evolution is not a matter of science...but a matter of incompatibility with their FAITH.

[hitch22]

For the record also as what most people know me , I am a THEIST ... a Catholic and I also believed and rely in science also .

Sir, before I forget, the Vatican finds no incompatibility between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Roman Catholic faith. I've already posted that many times.

Go to the last post of this page: [URL="https://www.istorya.net/forums/general-discussions/286312-kinsa-jud-imo-gituohan-kung-diin-jud-tah-gikan-ang-bible-or-science-38.html"]https://www.istorya.net/forums/general-discussions/286312-kinsa-jud-imo-gituohan-kung-diin-jud-tah-gikan-ang-bible-or-science-38.html[/URL].

If, like bungot25, you choose to disagree with the Vatican...kay dili kuno "from the chair" (ex cathedra)...then obviously I won't argue with that.

Even Francis Collins, co-founder of the Human Genome Project with Craig Venter, is a Christian Evangelical and a believer in Darwin's Theory as well. That only proves that you can be a believer and still accept the fact-hood of Darwin's Theory.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Peace.

[necrotic freak]

Sir, if someone doesn’t believe in evolution would it be disturbing or would cause troublesome on science itself?

[hitch22]

Sir, if someone doesn’t believe in evolution would it be disturbing or would cause troublesome on science itself?

It depends. If that rejection of Darwin's theory translates to legislations that would impose schools to teach Creationism, especially in the US, then obviously it runs into the problem with the verdict of the Dover Trial. In the Philippines, maybe, it won't have any problem...knowing fully well how the law may bend at the behest of powerful religious organizations. But that's just a maybe.

In these forums, however, you can continue bashing Darwin's Theory...and people on our side of the fence would continue to post counter-arguments...and occasionally mocking it (if we can't help it)...as long as the moderator allows such exchanges to continue. Like what the moderator said, just don't take it personally.

And like I also once said, if I find a very good argument or evidence against Evolution, I will reject Darwin's Theory...BUT...BUT...that doesn't mean that Creationism/Intelligent Design suddenly becomes a valid proposition. It doesn't work that way. It has to pass scientific scrutiny. I hope everyone's read the position taken by the National Academy of Sciences in this regard.

Keep up your interest on this subject. Who knows? You may actually come to accept it one day.

Cheers!

[hitch22]

Unsaon man pag explain ug spiritual nga ang imu rasun why wa ka nituo ug Ginoo kay wa ka kita. ani nalan, I believe nga naay God kay bisan si Albert Einstien nga mas utukan pa nimu ug usa ka Scientist nituo man Gani ug God or Supreme being.

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

SioDenz, how's Singapore? Perhaps we may bump into each other one day, in one of those crowded MRT commutes.

I think I've posted a response on this issue of Einstein and his beliefs: https://www.istorya.net/forums/general-discussions/286312-kinsa-jud-imo-gituohan-kung-diin-jud-tah-gikan-ang-bible-or-science-12.html#post7281781

I'll post it here anyway...bisag balik balik na. It's my response to chad_tukes.

Also, nice heads up, chad_tukes, for setting the record straight on Einstein's views about God. However, he did made statements that were liable to be misinterpreted. As such, we've seen apologists who try to conscript Einstein to their religious camps by wrongly misinterpreting his quotes.

For example, he gave this statement to Time magazine explaining this belief that man could not understand the nature of God:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

and then years later, he clarified his stance....

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Clearly, when Einstein used the word "God", he seemed to be referring to it in a metaphorical sense...like when he commented on the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics with this famous quote: "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The reason he said this was because he believed that the universe is predictable and can be known. But, as far as the God in religion is concerned, he certainly made his position very clear.

[INRI]

Unsaon man pag explain ug spiritual nga ang imu rasun why wa ka nituo ug Ginoo kay wa ka kita. ani nalan, I believe nga naay God kay bisan si Albert Einstien nga mas utukan pa nimu ug usa ka Scientist nituo man Gani ug God or Supreme being.

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

Pagka nice sa imo argument bai uy...dili ko katubag

Thanks Hitch22 for answering the question for me..
Oh mo tou naka ni Einstein? Unless mas bright pa ka niya

Anyways daghan pa atheist/skeptics/free thinkers bro ka mga bright like you:
Bertrand Russel, Sigmund Freud, Carl Sagan, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, William Buffet and the list goes a long way...But I think mas bright pa jud ka ani nga mga tao bai..

And for that I will rest my case..
You win nah..
Your intelligence is just too high for me

[necrotic freak]

It depends. If that rejection of Darwin's theory translates to legislations that would impose schools to teach Creationism, especially in the US, then obviously it runs into the problem with the verdict on the Dover Trial. In the Philippines, maybe, it won't have any problem...knowing fully well how the law may bend at the behest of powerful religious organizations. But that's just a maybe.

In these forums, however, you can continue bashing Darwin's Theory...and people on our side of the fence would continue to post counter-arguments...and occasionally mocking it (if we can't help it)...as long as the moderator allows such exchanges to continue. Like what the moderator said, just don't take it personally.

And like I also once said, if I find a very good argument or evidence against Evolution, I will reject Darwin's Theory...BUT...BUT...that doesn't mean that Creationism/Intelligent Design suddenly becomes a valid proposition. It doesn't work that way. It has to pass scientific scrutiny. I hope everyone's read the position taken by the National Academy of Sciences in this regard.

Keep up your interest on this subject. Who knows? You may actually come to accept it one day.

Cheers!

Essentially, i have no problem what so ever on that mocking thing since the SnO days with the atheists.

Yes accepting it one day is an option… BUT… BUT… until science is done studying that theory and make a conclusions that might be imposed in schools like the Law of Gravity for instance.

Unfortunately, how can science give conclusion? Coz until now they can’t even tell how life has started…