Why are modern sciences and evolution considered inworkable with Abrahamic religions?

[KING G]

Let it be very clear that I do not wish for a religious debate, for that, I would've gone to the religion board. Instead, I wish to discuss another matter concerning biology and other modern science that smear illusions that every religion claim is a myth simply because of geographical or otherwise scientific conclusions that tell that the universe is of a certain age and\or is created by a certain reaction, all of these claims have yet to be refute my personal belief of a divine creator with an unknown process of creation. It seems to me that the majority of scientists are rather hard atheists that simply refuse a divine unknown regardless of its origins, claims, whatsoever because of past experience or a single unchangeable view-of-point, rather than the more logically scientific agonistic view.

To Abrahamic religions (I'm on familiar with the Muhammedian version, to be honest), the simplest conclusion that can be retrieved from religious texts is that a simple divine entity has created the universe (sometimes within a certain timeframe), including man, time, and everything thereabout. What I fail to understand is why believers of certain faiths choose to refuse to accept scientific evidence of such theories as the Big Bang and evolution wherein they simply do no collide with what their respective religion describes. For example, I fail to see how the Qur'an, for example, refutes Adam as being a directly-created entity rather than a descendant of another creature.

What is your opinion on the subject? Scientist with swirling ambitions trying to propagandize certain theories? Societies misunderstanding texts and taking them out of context as they usually do? Religious conspiracy? Or am I simply missing a vital piece?

I request inquiries of your thought, regardless.

[Toothlessjoe]

Religion doesn't have to make sense, it all works on faith. Which is a marvelous cop-out.

Anyway, big bang theory, evolution can all still be linked to being God's work through the religious model. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. God made it all happen that way .

They can still co-habitate as it were. People want absolute turth, that's the problem.

[half-wit goon]

Scientists are empiricist, they believe what they believe because evidence tells them so. Has evidence shown proof of a divine creator? No? Well, until there is empirical proof then there is no divine creator.

Religious people believe what they believe because God tells them so. Did God mention man from monkey? No? There you have it, evolution is bullshit.

What's not to get?

[KING G]

Originally Posted by Toothlessjoe

Religion doesn't have to make sense, it all works on faith. Which is a marvelous cop-out.

Anyway, big bang theory, evolution can all still be linked to being God's work through the religious model. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. God made it all happen that way .

They can still co-habitate as it were. People want absolute turth, that's the problem.

I agree, the uncountable actions of people using an allged face of Jesus on peice of bread (or whatever that was) to prove the exisitance of a divine entity only that could be very easily proven if such entity had created the universe is agonizing.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by KING G

I wish to discuss another matter concerning biology and other modern science that smear illusions that every religion claim is a myth...

So you want to discuss a huge strawman then? Because no element of Biology says that every religion is a myth or that religion couldn't possibly co-exist with science in some way...


What is said is that if your religious text/dogma contradicts emprical evidence then you cannot co-exist with modern Science. It just so happens that many religious, specially when their texts are taken literally, contradict Science. If you are part of a religion that doesn't contradict empircal evidence or sceintific results, then wonderful! There might be many other reasons not to believe in your religion (lack of evidence, it being superflous, etc.) but you can co-exist with Science.

[KikoSanchez]

The Abrahamic religions wouldn't have much of a problem with the big bang and evolution if they just cut out the creation story. But once you add in "God made the universe in 7 days and created 2 humans, whence forth came all of humanity...some 10,000 years ago" then they have problems accepting theories that conflict with said creation story. Nonetheless, there are many ..."progressives" that choose to read this story and many others as simply being metaphorical and allow such scientific theories credibility in their worldview.

[KING G]

Originally Posted by KikoSanchez

The Abrahamic religions wouldn't have much of a problem with the big bang and evolution if they just cut out the creation story. But once you add in "God made the universe in 7 days and created 2 humans, whence forth came all of humanity...some 10,000 years ago" then they have problems accepting theories that conflict with said creation story. Nonetheless, there are many ..."progressives" that choose to read this story and many others as simply being metaphorical and allow such scientific theories credibility in their worldview.

How do you know that the first two humans were infact human? how do you know that the first two humans aren't infact descendants of another group of inferior beings (at least intellectually) that were considered unhuman (like science would make of the cavemen and such)? In which Abrahamic religion is is written that humanity developed after 100,000 years? Also, what makes you think that those years units actually reffer to static human beings where they might as well be some-sort of a time paradox? that perhaps earth's position, or perhaps another entities position would have a morphed set of time based upon certian factors that only existed around the Big Bang or whatever the started the world (based on Eienstien's theory that time is a 4th dimension that could very well be affected by certian factors)?

[Rust]

^ [In this post we desperately try to rationalize fairytales]

[KikoSanchez]

Originally Posted by KING G

How do you know that the first two humans were infact human? how do you know that the first two humans aren't infact descendants of another group of inferior beings (at least intellectually) that were considered unhuman (like science would make of the cavemen and such)? In which Abrahamic religion is is written that humanity developed after 100,000 years? Also, what makes you think that those years units actually reffer to static human beings where they might as well be some-sort of a time paradox? that perhaps earth's position, or perhaps another entities position would have a morphed set of time based upon certian factors that only existed around the Big Bang or whatever the started the world (based on Eienstien's theory that time is a 4th dimension that could very well be affected by certian factors)?

I'm going by the creation story of those religious texts, where they are clearly intelligent humans with language. As for the age of humanity/earth, I didn't say 100,000 years, I said 10,000. This is because if you add up the lineage written in these texts, supposedly you end up with a roughly 6-10,000 year old earth. As for the last bit, well if the texts are to be taken literally and are the infallible word of god, there is no reason for trickery in what a 'day' or 'year' refers to. Again, I'm going by a literal, straightforward interpretation as taken by many moderate-conservative followers.

[Star Wars Fan]

Originally Posted by KING G

It seems to me that the majority of scientists are rather hard atheists that simply refuse a divine unknown regardless of its origins, claims, whatsoever because of past experience or a single unchangeable view-of-point, rather than the more logically scientific agonistic view.

I know a Chemical Engineer who teaches environmental science and he seems to not be an atheist, same with a guy who was an agricultural engineer and taught Business and Economics in HS; they have mentioned 'god' in conversation lightly but not heavily. Supposedly Engineers are more religious, or at least can see creation in more things-given that's their training to design new things, etc. I remember some guy saying that most engineers in the Middle East are more literal creationists according to the Qu'ran supposedly.

Just because a person is s scientist does not make them atheist. Though there arguably is a correlation..

To Abrahamic religions (I'm on familiar with the Muhammedian version, to be honest), the simplest conclusion that can be retrieved from religious texts is that a simple divine entity has created the universe (sometimes within a certain timeframe), including man, time, and everything thereabout. What I fail to understand is why believers of certain faiths choose to refuse to accept scientific evidence of such theories as the Big Bang and evolution wherein they simply do no collide with what their respective religion describes. For example, I fail to see how the Qur'an, for example, refutes Adam as being a directly-created entity rather than a descendant of another creature.

Oddly enough Islam accepts and WANTS people to learn more about the Earth, etc as Allah created it and it's good to learn more about his creation.

Originally Posted by Rust

^ [In this post we desperately try to rationalize fairytales]

fail man...