The theory of evolution and religion

Temat przeniesiony do archwium.
Proszę o sprawdzenie wypracowania na temat teorii ewolucji i religii.

For the last few days I have been thinking about reconciling science and religion. Scientists believe in what can be proved, religious people do not need proofs to have faith. But what if we can prove some theories but Catholics reject it? For example, try to imagine the world hundreds years ago, when our life began. Were Adam and Eve our parents or was it started from apes?
The theory of evolution says that modern organisms have evolved from older ones and that this development is constant. This theory was at first suggested mainly by Charles Robert Darwin who set it forth in his book called “The Origin of Species”. According to Darwin both people and apes have the same ancestor and I share his opinion. I do not believe that fish can evolve into reptile or something like that but this theory assumes evolving between the same species, namely mammals: apes into human beings.
The idea of evolution has always been questioned by religion. Some people believe that it conflicts with their religious convictions. Most of my religious friends I sometimes talk about it with, cannot answer my questions so in some parts I can only suspect what they think of it. In my opinion one of the reasons the theory of evolution is turned down is that people have souls but animals do not, so we could not have evolved from them. However, if we ignore this argument, can we still reject proofs? Is somewhere in the Bible written how exactly the first people looked like? If not, we can only assume that our appearance and physique is different that it was then.
I truly believe in biological evolution. From the one hand, I just feel that it is true. From the other hand, I see how fast our appearance can change even in one generation. Even from a history book we can learn that at the same beginning we were more bent down than now, we used more primitive tools and some of our parts of body looked a bit different. I saw pictures of transitional cell between a monkey and a human. I consider evolution as a fact. I only regret I do not know biology good enough to talk about it in more scientific way. I would have known more details about it then. However, what interests me the most, is not evolving from apes to humans, but evolving some beings into apes. I would like to know and see all the periods of developing life from the same beginning, from the birth of our planet.
PROOF to have faith.

But what if we can prove some theories but Catholics reject THEM?

kto to jest WE?

>world hundreds OF years ago
evolve into reptileS
>that but this theory assumes EVOLUTION between the same species, namely
>mammals:

ssaki to nie gatunek

>Most of my religious friends I sometimes talk TO about it

>think of it. In my opinion one of the reasons WHY the theory of evolution
>can we still reject EVIDENCE? Is IT WRITTEN somewhere in the Bible WHAT exactly
>our appearance and physique is different thaN it was then.
ON the one hand, I just
>feel that it is true. ON the other hand - ale tu nie ma przeciwstawienia! zamiast wyrażonka z HAND napisz "For one thing... For another...)

at the VERY beginning
I saw pictures of transitional LIFE FORMS I consider evolution [as- usuń] a fact.
>know biology WELL enough to talk about it in A more scientific way.
I>would KNOW more details about it then. However, what interests
>me the most, USUN PRZECINEK is not THE EVOLUTION from apes INto humans, but THE EVOLUTION OF some

>developing life from the VERY beginning,
Dziękuję bardzo za sprawdzenie. Widzę, że zrobiłam banalne błędy, także "same beginning", które ubzdurało mi się już dość dawno. Jakby ktoś jeszcze chciał na to zerknąć, to wklejam poprawioną wersję.

For the last few days I have been thinking about reconciling science and religion. Scientists believe in what can be proved, religious people do not need proof to have faith. But what if some people can prove some theories but Catholics reject it? For example, try to imagine the world hundreds of years ago, when our life began. Were Adam and Eve our parents or was it started from apes?
The theory of evolution says that modern organisms have evolved from older ones and that this development is constant. This theory was at first suggested mainly by Charles Robert Darwin who set it forth in his book called “The Origin of Species”. According to Darwin both people and apes have the same ancestor and I share his opinion. I do not believe that fish can evolve into reptiles or something like that but this theory assumes evolution between the same types of animals, namely mammals: apes into human beings.
The idea of evolution has always been questioned by religion. Some people believe that it conflicts with their religious convictions. Most of my religious friends I sometimes talk to about it, cannot answer my questions so in some parts I can only suspect what they think of it. In my opinion one of the reasons why the theory of evolution is turned down is that people have souls but animals do not, so we could not have evolved from them. However, if we ignore this argument, can we still reject evidence? Is it written in the Bible what exactly the first people looked like? If not, we can only assume that our appearance and physique is different than it was then.
I truly believe in biological evolution. For one thing, I just feel that it is true. For another, I see how fast our appearance can change even in one generation. Even from a history book we can learn that at the very beginning we were more bent down than now, we used more primitive tools and some of our parts of body looked a bit different. I saw pictures of transitional life forms and I consider evolution a fact. I only regret I do not know biology well enough to talk about it in a more scientific way. I would know more details about it then. However, what interests me the most is not evolution from apes into humans, but the evolution of some beings into apes. I would like to know and see all the periods of developing life from the very beginning, from the birth of our planet.
W drugim zdaniu...
Scientists believe in what can be proved (nie wiem, ale mysle, ze lepiej uzyc 'proven') but/while religious people....
https://www.ang.pl/czasownik.html?tab=2
Obie wersje są poprawne.
Tak, zgadzam sie ze obie wersje sa poprawne - ale jest malenka roznica.
Jaka? Jest jeszcze kilka słówek, które mają 2 poprawne wersje, np. 3 forma od learn: learned i learnt, ale z tego co wiem to zależy od tego którego słówka wolę użyć.
Terri, dla mnie 'proven' to
1. bardziej amerykańska forma od czasownika prove
lub
2. przymiotnik (a proven track record)

Nie użyłbym proven w "that can be proven" - czy jest to naprawdę popularne w Wlk. Brytanii?

Co o tym myślisz?
a mnie się rzucił w oczy taki szczegół

... nie lubie jak ktos pisze/mówi 'or something like that', bo często to taki 'łatacz dziur' .można np napisac 'or the likes' , jest też takie już bardzo formalne 'or words to that effect' (nie zawsze pasuje)
Zmieniłam na "or the likes". A czy wypada w rozmowie użyć "and so on"?
mg,
jak zawsze myslalam duzo - ale musze przyznac racje ze 'proved' jest wiecej uzywane jak 'proven'. Z tego co moglam znalezc, to widaje mi sie ze 'proven' moze jest wiecej uzywane w formie pisemnej niz w mowie.
Znalazlam przyklady:
...it might have proven to be...no drug has been proven...
...has been proven to have a substantial...
...it wasn't possible, given what we know to say that his existence is proven by....an item yet to be proven.....shall remain in the dock until he is proven innocent.
ale -
...this charge could not be proved....this has been proved elsewhere...
Moze mylnie mialam na mysli cos takiego, ze jak 'they proved' to ze ktos tylko to udowodnil, ale jak 'it was/can be proven', jakby bylo udowodnione nawet bez wkladu czlowieka.
znalazlam jeszcze....
...why the theory of evolution is 'turned down' is that people have souls. Moze zamiast 'turned down' - 'rejected' a dalej ...is that it is believed or assumed that people have souls.
wiesz co, faktycznie mozna i tak, i tak.
myślę, że tak. Tylko trzeba pamiętać, że nie mówi się 'and so on, and so on' (tak jak my powtarzamy 'i tak dalej, i tak dalej') tylko np 'and so on, and so forth' albo samo 'so on', albo samo 'so forth'
Temat przeniesiony do archwium.

« 

Pomoc językowa

 »

Studia językowe