RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Is science a religion?

["F Vernon Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

>But to me, that's a very similar question to:
>If chickens evolve (hatch) from eggs, then why are there still eggs? 
>Shouldn't all the eggs have evolved into chickens?

You cannot make this argument. An egg is part of the reproduction
requirements of making a chicken. That would be the same in mammals, if a
fetus evolves into a child wouldn't it be feasible that a child would just
appear? Or how about an adult? 

>To turn the argument around, if all mankind descended from a common 
>ancestor (Adam and Eve), then why do people have such diversity? Would 
>it be because people have "evolved" to better adapt to their 
>environment, or is there another explanation? Additionally, why are we 
>so structurally similar to chimpanzees (98.4% identical DNA). Why do 
>some apes appear to have the ability to think freely and communicate?

I never said that people do not adapt, or in a way evolve, but what I am
talking about here is people. There is diversity and even some physical
difference between all the people in the world, but are there Neanderthals?
Or even ape-man like Lucy anywhere in the world? Bigfoot excluded of course.

Also you have to understand that the bible is really not clear on whether
Adam and Eve were the only human type people in the world. The literal
translation accepted by many of the Jewish faith is that there were other
humans in the world at that time, but Adam and Eve were the first of God's
people, the first Jews if you will. 

This is supported somewhat when you look at the story of Cain and Able, Cain
was banished to Nod where he begat some children as told in the bible, now
if Eve was the only woman in the world at that time and Cain was her son
then how could Cain have any sons?

I did not say that religion had all the answers either, my point is that
bible and science can live together without compromising either.

>I disagree with science as a "religion" for the most part. Perhaps if 
>someone blindly accepts what is handed down from the scientists on high 
>without question, then science may be --that-- person's religion. The 
>scientific process, by definition, precludes this.

>Given the opportunity, I will question (and debate) just about anything 
>and am very pleased we've been debating this for several days without 
>degenerating into a worthless argument.  Sadly, no one will give me a 
>positron collider to test some of my more "wild" theories...

 Well, let's just say, 'if your VCR is still blinking 12:00, you don't want
Linux'. 



_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion