Is anybody here educated on this theory? I am so uneducated about it that I don't even know the actual name of it, sorry.

Religion IS evolution is how the theory goes. Sounds odd I know but it is based on the premise that biblical events are also explained in Darwin's theories and subsequent evolutionary writings.

For example. The Bible talks about ascending to the heavens and God creating man in his own image. Are these things, in coporeal terms, the same as space travel and cloning?

Using that slant of thinking it is possible that, by the time this planet becomes uninhabitable, we will have the technology to ascend to the heavens. Cloning technology already exists regardless of the moral aspects. Many people believe that those who have faith will be saved in heaven and that Earth will become hell. Which is also possible in this theory. Is it possible that the being we refer to as God was a previous race of humans whos world became uninhabitable?

Can we agree that we would also leave behind the building blocks of life and a list of rules which our underlings would treat as gospel if we were to ever evacuate the planet?

More importantly, do I have more important things to think about?

Probably.

But that's certainly subjective.

I go by the mother of all theories:

Que Sara Sara.

It can't be wrong.

How come the bible didn't tell anybody the Earth was round and not flat? Or that the Earth circled the sun? Or provide a single piece of medical knowledge? Or howabout electricity? Why isnt that in the bible? No, evolution is NOT in the bible. Charles Darwin was a scientist not a theologian.

Thats true. But then again (there is always a "then again") I think the bible DOES in fact plainly discuss what would later become the theory of evolution. This passage here.

Genesis 1

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Hrmm. Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. Maybe Genesis is describing biological evolution right there.

"Religion of Evolution" would be the appropiate term for it...

I assume you are talking about "Creationist Religion"?

(All 3 Major Religions... Judasim, Christianity and Islam are "Creationist Religions"...)


Evolution is promulgated strictly as an ideology, and has never been shown to be anything other than a "Theory"...

Not one "Missing Link" has ever been provided to "Prove" Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Creationist Religion" and "Evolution" aren't compatible...

There is "Diversification" within the varied Species, but that IS NOT evolution.

Why doesnt the bible say anything scientifically useful? Not even the most basic stuff. Why doesnt it say the Earth isn't flat? Why doesnt it say the Earth revolves around the sun? Why doesnt it give any useful medical advice? Why doesnt it answer even the most basic gradeschool level questions about science?

Evolution is based in scientific theory that can be independently verified. That is the difference. That other stuff is just fairy tales with no evidence.



Charles Darwin was a scientist and not a theologian.

Because god wasnt a science major obviously. I was pointing that passage out mainly as a joke Mirror, relax.

Im relaxed.

Yes but there is supportive evidence for evolutionary biology, not so much for the creationist religions and their presumptive understanding for how life evolved on the face of this planet. To each their own however and Im assuming you didnt want this thread to turn into yet another Creationism/Evolution debate. We have about 8 of those running right now.

Yes and you cant have micro evolution and not macro. It is the same process, you just add time.

It's a little long, but watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I dont think the term "missing link" is still used anymore. Thats a bit outdated. Ooops.

Actually Mirror, almost all of the things you mentioned were mysteries to man back then so they named them god or gods as an explanation. Most gods came from the things man could not understand ie Sun, Moon, air, sky, life, death, illness, lightening, fire, auria porealis, dinosaur bones, birth, rain, snow, tidal waves, earthquakes, etc...

All of those things birthed religions, so in a way they are connected....lol

Are you talking about the book "Evolution is religion"??? I cannot find anything that resembles the title of this thread.

Well, although I do not want to take a side in this argument, I feel it needed to be pointed out that the reason that a Bible, for instance doesn't teach us natural science is self-evident. It is the same reason we do not teach our children how to have sex. And what is that reason? It could be thought of as a conditional time release. Children will learn about sex in the due time, when they are ready. (I do not support sex education for this very reason). And they do. I wasn't taught sex in the school, and no, there isn't any single thing that I have missed, because of that.

So, as an argument, I think it is conceivable that if we assume that the planet was seeded by our "ancestors", and they have left the religious documents for our use, then it is not illogical to understand why they have left us the commandments, and not the stuff we will learn ourselves in due time.

Oops, I forgot to translate my post in MirrorMirror...
Here you go, man:

Well, although I do not want to take a side in this argument, I feel it needed to be pointed out that the reason that a Bible, for instance doesn't teach us natural science is self-evident. It is the same reason we do not teach our children how to have sex. And what is that reason? It could be thought of as a conditional time release. Children will learn about sex in the due time, when they are ready. (I do not support sex education for thisvery reason). And they do. I wasn't taught sex in the school, and no, there isn't any single thing that I have missed, because of that.

So, as an argument, I think it is conceivable that if we assume that the planet was seeded by our "ancestors", and they have left the religious documents for our use, then it is not illogical to understand why they have left us the commandments, and not the stuff we will learn ourselves in due time.

Well in that case, why did they even bother with the Old Testament which is a lot of bloody mayhem and stoning people for inappropriate reasons? The commandments were nothing new anyway. I do believe the code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved ancient law code, created around 1760 BC.