Bible vs Darwin

[enarees]

The truth is hidden in The Bible - androgenesis among humans(generally-mammals) related with male lactation.

Darwin also hide the truth of biological alchemy.

[David George]

(proving again that atheists are offended by people having beliefs)

Well I am not offended by people having other beliefs being an atheist infact being in India i need to see a lot of different religious people and who are mostly very so called faithful to their "God".I donot fell offended by their presence infact I learn more about human mind and how it would and could have been in our ancestral times[Hinduism is a very old religion with few changes] and it is good to know why they believe it.

[poochpamperer]

In the Bible many scientific errors are written. But still, if you believe in Bible you have to accept that science is wrong and if you believe in science you have to accept that Bible is wrong (not God).

Science is based on OBSERVATION, faith isn't. The Bible is a faith book, not a science book. The Bible records a second hand acount of creation. God told Moses what to write. No one actually observed creation, therefore the Bible is not scientific. Neither is evolution, nor most other religions. Without observation, there is no science.

[alextemplet]

Science is based on OBSERVATION, faith isn't. The Bible is a faith book, not a science book. The Bible records a second hand acount of creation. God told Moses what to write. No one actually observed creation, therefore the Bible is not scientific. Neither is evolution, nor most other religions. Without observation, there is no science.

First point: Yes, science is based on observation.

Second point: The Pentateuch (at least the form in which it exists today) was written a few centuries after Moses died; in fact it is doubtful if Moses himself ever wrote a single book.

Third point: Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion.

[poochpamperer]

[
Third point: Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion.

How could it be scientific if it wasn't observed??
Evolution was NOT observed, therefore it cannot be a scientific theory.

[alextemplet]

Evolution is observed. Just look at the rate at which bacteria and viruses evolve resistance to medicine.

[poochpamperer]

But the evolution of the world was not observed....

[canalon]

But the evolution of the world was not observed....

No, but by observing life as it is now, and even as it was before (and is now presented in fossils) some correlations can be made, and some hypotheses suggested. and tested when new observations are made. That is how the theory of evolution has shaped in what is sometimes refferd as the modern synthesis (between evolution and genetics in fact), and this is completely scientific, even though we did not observe the facts by themselves.
It is a bit like CSI, observe the facts after the event, and deduce the sequence of events that lead to the present state. Deductions being confirmed (or sometimes infirmed) by facts found later.

EDIT: removing some unnecessary repeats. I will not post too late at night in the future...

[mith]

right, it would be hard to convict criminals otherwise...

[alextemplet]

But the evolution of the world was not observed....

I'm sure your local law enforcement agency would be very pleased of you to inform them that their entire job is a bunch of hog-wash, since surely no criminal can ever be convicted if the crime was not directly observed!

Come to think of it, that might be handy excuse to get out of a speeding ticket . . .

[canalon]

Come to think of it, that might be handy excuse to get out of a speeding ticket . . .

Although that is probably one of those offenses that actually get observed. At least that was the case when I got one. Butyes science is not necessarily about direct observation of a phenomenon, but can also be about the observation of predicted effects of an otherwise invisible event. Hey, I do not think anyone has ever seen a graviton pulling an apple towards a scientist head, but the "theory of gravitation" is considered solid science...

[alextemplet]

I'm reminded of something that I think Andrew said once, when his teacher said that evolution is "only a theory." He responded, "An apple falling is a fact; gravity is a theory."

In my speeding ticket example, I'll try to claim that since the police officer couldn't actually see (ie, observe) the radar waves but merely read the reading, then he cannot write me a ticket based on such an unscientific theory as the electromagnetic spectrum.