How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?

[Greatest I am]

Margaret Mead's war theory kicks butt of neo-Darwinian and Malthusian models

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=margaret-meads-war-theory-kicks-but-2010-11-08
By John Horgan

Interesting but how do they know what man was doing 15,000 years ago. We have nothing written from that day?
That was also near the time man settled down with the plow and was likely a wanderer before that major historical event that would have changed life as they knew it.
Before that, if social pressures outstripped the environment, they would have just moved.

I am no expert. Just thinking out load.

Regards
DL

 

[edgray]

Interesting but how do they know what man was doing 15,000 years ago. We have nothing written from that day?

It's called "archaeology", amongst other techniques.

 

[Greatest I am]

Explain the mentally retarded. Sociopaths. Rapists. Murderers. Megalomaniacs.


Are they perfect in their current state?

Reciprocity is fair play.
You answer mine and I will answer yours.

I can rephrase it if you did not quite get it.

Is there any way that nature could have made you better or more perfect than she did with the DNA and conditions at hand when you were born?

Regards
DL

 

[Alexis]

Since probably Billions of people still believe in God, and that belief has not been threatened too much by Evolution, it will continue. It's not for a lack of information for those who believe, as you may assume. Some things in this strange universe are beyond the realm of Science to grasp. It's better to just say you don't know, rather than to absolutely say there isn't a God. I still see us as a primitive species. We may be impressed by all the technology before us, and that's understandable. Science is compiled by Humans, and is therefore quite flawed. Having Faith in a theory that is 150 years old needs to be upgraded to face reality.

 

[All Else Failed]

Reciprocity is fair play.
You answer mine and I will answer yours.

I can rephrase it if you did not quite get it.

Is there any way that nature could have made you better or more perfect than she did with the DNA and conditions at hand when you were born?

Regards
DL

No, I was not born perfect because perfection cannot exist. We will always have deficits either physically, mentally or emotionally.

If you were to freeze time right now, you'd see that I have two bad knees and slight color blindness in my left eye. That is not perfection. I don't buy this "American definition of perfect". There is usually an agreed upon definition of perfection. Perfection is without flaw. There is not "varying degrees" of perfection. There is "good enough".


Now explain to me how a mentally disabled pervert is "perfection".

Since probably Billions of people still believe in God, and that belief has not been threatened too much by Evolution, it will continue. It's not for a lack of information for those who believe, as you may assume. Some things in this strange universe are beyond the realm of Science to grasp. It's better to just say you don't know, rather than to absolutely say there isn't a God. I still see us as a primitive species. We may be impressed by all the technology before us, and that's understandable. Science is compiled by Humans, and is therefore quite flawed. Having Faith in a theory that is 150 years old needs to be upgraded to face reality.

A) You probably don't know what a theory is


B) You do not have "faith" in theories. "Faith" is for believing in something without proof. Theories have abundances of proofs behind them.

 

[Alexis]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Faith", since that word is loaded with various meanings. I see Evolution as circular reasoning. You have the Assumption that it is correct, and the "Evidence" you may may see is packaged and molded to fit your assumptions. Anything else that doesn't conform is discarded as not being "Scientific".

 

[mazHur]

Science is like study to acquire knowledge of that which already exists. Atoms exist hence their study is science, and so on. Science Cannot Create an Atom!! Hence Science has its limitations..........Faith and God are limitless, dimension-free!!

 

[All Else Failed]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Faith", since that word is loaded with various meanings. I see Evolution as circular reasoning. You have the Assumption that it is correct, and the "Evidence" you may may see is packaged and molded to fit your assumptions. Anything else that doesn't conform is discarded as not being "Scientific".

What


No, thats not how it works. There is so much evidence for micro and macro evolution it is undeniable


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Science is like study to acquire knowledge of that which already exists. Atoms exist hence their study is science, and so on. Science Cannot Create an Atom!! Hence Science has its limitations..........Faith and God are limitless, dimension-free!!

Actually, we can make atoms.


http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/957365745.Ph.r.html

 

[edgray]

Science, just to clear things up, is the study of the natural world. If it exists, the scientific method can be used to study it.

 

[All Else Failed]

Wow, we actually agree on something.

 

[Greatest I am]

Since probably Billions of people still believe in God, and that belief has not been threatened too much by Evolution, it will continue. It's not for a lack of information for those who believe, as you may assume. Some things in this strange universe are beyond the realm of Science to grasp. It's better to just say you don't know, rather than to absolutely say there isn't a God. I still see us as a primitive species. We may be impressed by all the technology before us, and that's understandable. Science is compiled by Humans, and is therefore quite flawed. Having Faith in a theory that is 150 years old needs to be upgraded to face reality.

I do not know of any scientist who will say definitively that there is no God. They know that it is impossible to know the negative of this issue.

Happily, it is to those who cry wolf to show the tracks or the shit.
It is not to the rest of the town to show that the wolf was never there.

Presently, they do not put up or shut up while science puts up for their claims.

Theists have had 3,000 years and have shown absolutely nothing yet have done and continue to do tons of damage.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No, I was not born perfect because perfection cannot exist. We will always have deficits either physically, mentally or emotionally.

If you were to freeze time right now, you'd see that I have two bad knees and slight color blindness in my left eye. That is not perfection. I don't buy this "American definition of perfect". There is usually an agreed upon definition of perfection. Perfection is without flaw. There is not "varying degrees" of perfection. There is "good enough".


Now explain to me how a mentally disabled pervert is "perfection".

.

Slow and easy now.

Could nature have created you any better with the DNA and conditions at hand? That was part of the question.

Regards
DL

 

[All Else Failed]

Slow and easy now.

Could nature have created you any better with the DNA and conditions at hand? That was part of the question.

Regards
DL

Actually there are ways to improve the health and viability of your child, so basically yes.



Also, what you are saying doesn't make that much sense. It goes back to the "eh, good enough" thing I was talking about earlier. If someone is born with deformations and a mental disability it is a complete mockery to call them "perfect as they are".

 

[Greatest I am]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Faith", since that word is loaded with various meanings. I see Evolution as circular reasoning. You have the Assumption that it is correct, and the "Evidence" you may may see is packaged and molded to fit your assumptions. Anything else that doesn't conform is discarded as not being "Scientific".

What do you see being discarded?
Be specific please. What piece of information that does not fit.
Here is a list of sciences that accept and use the principles of evolution.
One small discarded piece for any and or all will do.

Biology proves evolution to be true.
Genetics proves evolution to be true.
Geology proves evolution to be true.
Chemistry proves evolution to be true.
Molecular biology proves evolution to be true.
Even physics.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Actually there are ways to improve the health and viability of your child, so basically yes.

Is that a yes to you were as perfect as nature could produce with the DNA and conditions at hand?

The way you added the improve thing throws me off.


Also, what you are saying doesn't make that much sense. It goes back to the "eh, good enough" thing I was talking about earlier. If someone is born with deformations and a mental disability it is a complete mockery to call them "perfect as they are".

If the good enough is also the best it can be then is that not also as perfect as it can be with the DNA and conditions at hand? Even if crazy are malformed or half blind?

Do not be angry with my persistence because it is just that if you do not have the right mind set and use the words evolving perfection right, you will not get it, and really, this is not a dificult concept if looked at a certain way.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Science is like study to acquire knowledge of that which already exists. Atoms exist hence their study is science, and so on. Science Cannot Create an Atom!! Hence Science has its limitations..........Faith and God are limitless, dimension-free!!

Which is why Martin Luther said that when you have faith, logic and reason go out the window. I add, intelligence.

Regards
DL

 

[Alexis]

Which is why Martin Luther said that when you have faith, logic and reason go out the window. I add, intelligence.

Regards
DL

Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists believe in God. Maybe they're more open minded than their closed minded brethren in the Science Religion.

 

[edgray]

Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists believe in God. Maybe they're more open minded than their closed minded brethren in the Science Religion.

In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years.

I think it's highly unfair to call a non-believer in religion or god or anything supernatural, closed-minded. Religion or any belief in God to an extent is an exercise in closed-mindedness. The religious rejection of science is a good example of that. Believers in God "know" they're God exists, and is the reason behind everything. That is the ultimate closed minded belief as it doesn't allow for change nor discovery. Science, by it's very nature, is an emergent process, as the journey of discovering the natural world continues and continues. By that sense, no scientist can be called closed-minded.

The only non-closed minded believer in God would be someone who is open to the possibility that God may not exist.

 

[Greatest I am]

Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists believe in God. Maybe they're more open minded than their closed minded brethren in the Science Religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Intelligence_distribution

Look again friend. In some cases 95% do not believe.
it depends on how bright you are and social pressure.

Regards
DL

 

[mazHur]

Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists believe in God. Maybe they're more open minded than their closed minded brethren in the Science Religion.

Science is lovely, Faith is lovelier!!