Science vs. Religion Who wins? Maybe neither

[HannibalBarca]

A very intriguing subject, but Darwin probably didnt know what he was getting himself into. In fact, he probably just wrote stuff down to fool around with all of us. And Albert Einstein said: Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame. Or something like that.

[HannibalBarca]

I'd like to add on to my message. Perhaps Adam and Eve were monkeys? It never really says in the Bible or any known text. ???

[JCamilo]

Quotes from Einstein are much more than what he said...
Well, the bible does not say they are monkeys - say they are mud. It is considerable worst...

[Lote-Tree]

I'd like to add on to my message. Perhaps Adam and Eve were monkeys? It never really says in the Bible or any known text. ???

Erm. No. We share common ancestory with monkies, yes. But we did not evolve from them.

[Babbalanja]

Science has actually given us a much more interesting perspective on our place in the universe than religion ever has.

What we know thanks to science is that Homo Sap is just a hairless ape that makes neat tools. We share ancestry with every other living thing on Earth. This universe was around for tens of billions of years before humans showed up and will do just fine after we're gone.

And we have a lot left to learn.

[Lote-Tree]

We share ancestry with every other living thing on Earth.

That alone should be amazes us because it shows the underlying Unity behind all the disconnectedness we see around us. If there is a God then it would show up in these amazing Unity that lies at the heart of nature.

[HannibalBarca]

Now I'm thinking that God has two different races going- the human race, which was human all along, and the Bigfoot race, who are still in play.

[HannibalBarca]

my very last choice is this : maybe the story of Adam and Eve isnt actually true, that there is a God but somebody made up this story to convince us to not defy him ???

[SFG75]

And the alternative explanation for origin with fossil evidence and numerous replicated studies would be?.........;) :lol:

[readinlots]

the theory of evolution is not contrary to religion. those who take the bible too literaly are bound to find more errors in these new science movements but if you approach the bible as you would the asope fables or such things and think of it as a morale guidline then you see they dont contridict. the fact of the matter is during dinosaur time humans did not exist. the fossils we have prove as much. no sign of human life were found until much later. i am a firm catholic but have no problem seeing the 2 coexist. we must have evolved. if not from primates from something else. we must learn to be more flexible and these brilliant ideas would come faster to us!;)

[Jilvin]

In reading "The Origin", I could not help but laugh at your statement that Darwin wrote it to just mess around with people. That anybody could make a more uneducated statement would be depressing. Darwin spent 15 years writing the masterpiece, (1844 was his start and its published version was 1859), and spent another 13 years scrupulously considering all critiques in writing another five versions (the Sixth, and last is the copy I have, and was published in 1872.)

"The Origin" in itself has potent evidence for common descent, even by today's standards, and is catalyzed one million fold at the appearance of genetics and the further uncovering of the fossil record.

[JCamilo]

Darwin had an ill health, constant nervous breakdowns, crisis of insecurity with the fear of the reaction that would his work cause. Some of his friends (He was a friend with Owen) could be lost, his wife could be lost. It was only because Wallace sent him a letter with his research and conclusion that Darwin was pushed to publish his own paralel research. He certainly meant no joke, but I suppose the thread was a joking.