:lol: LOL very very busy indeed, like how many kids each day, just to fill up an entire planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Printable View
:lol: LOL very very busy indeed, like how many kids each day, just to fill up an entire planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Hey kids, I cannot see the point of the debate.
You forget that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences.
There is no place for a God, to this gnoseological extent.
The notion that we, our existance, was the unplanned result of purely materialistic causes bothers me.
The problem with the idea that our entire existance can be explained without remainder by some event which happened 15 billions ago in blind obediance to purely materialistic causes (nature, the natural world) is that it leaves no room for the very things which we really value. It may be that the universe was formed from some primeval soup at some far distant point in time. It may be that in so forming it has become what it is, in obediance to laws which were themselve formed either at that time or prior to this formation. (But what prior to means in this context is problematic.) I was going to write "prior to this creation". But of course on the hypothesis that our existance was not the product of anything other than material causes then creation is what it most certainly cannot be.
On this view before this event happened there was no time, no matter nothing. The whole show has been proceeding to some future point in obediance to the laws of physics which have are themselves part of the material universe; its organising principles Thus ultimately I am sitting here at my computer thinking like I am, believing as I do, in fact existing at all in every aspect simply as the outworking of some causeless and purposeless event. The idea of freedom that I have is surely then an allusion. My ideas of justice, beauty, love, my hopes and dreams are merely the way the initial event has worked itself out in that point of space time which I occupy. When I say that some parts of the Dylan Thomas poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" are good or beautiful it is simply the state into which certain complex energy, spatial and material relations have at worked themselves. When I say that kindness to the needy is good or exploitation of children is bad all I am doing is acting out my part in the way the whole universe was bound to go, in obediance to purposeless laws. A fart would have been as significant. Both are the end product of the same process.
Now I accept that that in one sense, the idea that all that exists is nature, on one level explains all that we can see or sense. There is no need for God to exist, to create, to plan or have purposes. The material universe, open to investigation to the scientists needs no outside interference. But one part of the universe rebells against this notion. Me, myself. The one part of existance that touches the universe, over which I have inside knowledge, will not accept that life has no more fundamental root than the blind workings out of purposeless nature.
We read a book. We say that a passage is beautiful. When I read the Count of Monte Christo I say that thirst for revenge the drove Edmond Dantes to destroy his tormentors, while understandable, was wrong. I do not want to believe, cannot believe, that these thoughts are just the outworkings of purposeless nature. If nature is all there is then my ideas of beauty and justice and stone rolling down some lost hillside have the same root cause and are just as significant.
I anyone can live with that then so be it. I cannot and will not. Justice, beauty, right and wrong are just as much part of the the world as planets, chocolates and footballs. Any explanation of existance that destroys the reality and significance that I give to the justice and beauty must be modified.
If there is no place for God then there is also no place for most of the things which really matter.
By the way the idea that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences is an interesting one. What part of physics has done this?
Chook,
I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.
But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes ;) ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.
If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.
I can't imagine why this wouldn't be terrifying. One thing that needs to be clarified here, however, is whether or not people are believing that they are special and have a purpose because they are scared, or believing that they are special and have a purpose for any other reason. I won't deny that the naturalist postulation that people aren't unique, special, or inherently worthwhile is extremely powerful.Quote:
I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
Imagine telling a person that they are made in the image of the Creator of the universe, that they were personally redeemed through the death of God's Son, and that they are genuine moral agents with an honorable purpose.
Contrast this to telling a person that they are a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm floating around in an arbitrary hot soup, 3.5 billion years ago. They are a blind product of time, chance, and natural forces. They exist on a tiny planet, in a minute solar system, in an obscure galaxy in a remote and empty corner of a vast, cold, and meaningless universe. They are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.
By no means! Any rational, logical, honest seeker needs to have real and empirical reasons for deciding to believe in, and consequently, love God. The question of God is so important! Something so ultimately and all-encompassingly crucial inherently neccesitates our complete and honest appraisal, not to mention legitimate research and consideration.Quote:
But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative?
It would be. Hopefully, the majority or theists out there aren't believing in God out of dread apprehension of the unknown hereafter. Burying our heads in the sand couldn't be an option, as it relates to something so important. If there is one thing that I got out of reading Emerson (naturalist? I'm pretty sure) it is being honest with yourself. The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.Quote:
Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand?
It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.Quote:
My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.
William Lane Craig debates
Secular Web library
One thing that comforts me is that horrendously educated, brilliant, passionate people have been debating God for 3,000 years.
Sadly, any idiot with a bullet in his gun can take it away at any time. And you can also lose it through Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, CJD, any number of other diseases, or accidental brain damage without even needing to be killed. Sooner or later, that integrity is going to leave every one of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
You are assuming here that you have something to trade; I certainly don't believe that. There is neither proof nor even a reasonable expectation of eternal beauty, truth, or eternal anything else for us; or any eternity at all for that matter. Our consciousness ends when our brains stop receiving oxygenated blood - that's it. We have what there is here and now; it is ours to waste or enjoy.Quote:
It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.
Call me bleak; I call me honest. Your hoping for a vague "something complete" is exactly the kind of wishful thinking I was referring to.
One thing that concerns me is that so many otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in glorified fairy tales for (far longer than) 3000 years - I have no idea where you got that figure from. :nod:
Otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in a lot of things that when examined without prejudice begin to crack somewhat around the edges. The problem becomes whether or not the person(s) doing the examining are actually being open-minded. A deeply religious person, (and recall that I am a Minister) can easily be misled down the path of "If I don't believe it, it must be false." This is not an objective viewpoint. It begins by surmising that the person is correct to begin with, so any results that do not match that pre-determined view are automatically deleted. A person who is convinced of the truth of evolution may easily take an opposite view, that no possibility exists that any data has been misreported or corrupted in a way that makes it give a false reading. This, also, is not an objective viewpoint, for science has and will continue to make mistakes. There have been documented deliberate and accidental misrepresentations made while studying evolution. So a possibility always exists either way that a person is mistaken.
I feel the truth lies with the two combined, and I ask questions about Genesis: Like how would a person trying to simplify the whole process of creation (which he certainly was incapable of understanding himself) write it down for others, for whom oral tradition was the usual way of history? Then, years later, when someone else tries to translate that into another language, did they catch the correct meanings of the words? Was there more than two people, since it never says there were only two of each animal? Was part of the manuscript missing?
With scientific evidence, can we be certain of carbon dating? Does the pieces of skull actually mean a whole race, or one creature? Does the scientific drawing really match the completed skull, or is it forensically impossible? Can you build an entire creature upon one tooth? What about data that doesn't seem to fit, such as human footprints fossilized along with dinosaur’s footprints? Haven't we all seen people who look somewhat, if not exactly, like cavemen?
I am not trying to shake anyone's faith. I just ask be more objective. ;)
Pen,
We can be certain enough about carbon dating to be quite sure that the world is far older (approximately 500,000 times older) than the 6,000 years claimed by a literal reading of Genesis. I was referring to this kind of fairy story above, not belief in general. Besides, carbon dating is not used for dating inorganic material, radioactive decay of trace elements is utilised for that purpose. But still, though both of these methods are not 100% accurate, they are certainly not out by a factor of half a billion!
A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look.
I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)
My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.
I figured if I got a response, it would be from you, XC, mon ami. We will not argue, as you once told me that you respect my beliefs, I also respect yours. So we have no quarrels, just different oppinions--Hey, I guess that makes us humans! :)
I must disagree with you, and say only that the skull fragments mean one such creature existed. It may have been a freak of nature as easily as a new species if only one is ever found. If one discovered the skeleton of say, The Elephant Man, and all they had was fragments of the skull, they might easily mistake it for another race of man. Or Andre the Giant, with his 48 teeth, not to mention his huge size. Or the world's smallest woman, who now stands 25 inches high and weighs 14 pounds at age 39. It could be another race, I am not saying it cannot be. And it could be just one creature, with a deformity. *Chuckle* Ever see Professional Wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan? There's a living Neanderthal for you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I won't refute the huge shark, I am well aware of its existance at some point in time, and as the ocean is very deep and wide, who knows, it may still be out there, somewhere. Misidentify a Tyranosaurus skull? No. But the Smithsonian DID fake parts of the triceratops skeleton for more than 90 years, which caused scientific drawings of the creature to be wrong. What happened was the skeleton was about 85% complete. The feet were missing, and various other bones. So they put Duckbill feet on it and scavanged bones for the missing ones. With the development of CGI, they decided to enter all known data and produce a CGI Tricereatops. Using that as a model, they then could recreate the bone structure. As I say, sometimes things get mixed up and sorted out later. Peking Man is another example.
I am afraid you would not. Unfortunately for people who should definately know better, the fossils are housed in a museum that devotes itself to disproving evolution. Bad move. Had I found such evidence in the fossil beds on the mountains where perhaps only I know, I would have invited the world to come and view them, so that people could rule out fakery at once. These people did not chose to do so, and so that is exactly what people will say. Some people never learn about how to preserve evidence if you wish it to be accepted.Quote:
I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)
Well, you have to accept that what you have learned about the Scientific Method is truth, and I am not really sure how you personally would test that. To me, and remember, I am always ready to admit I could be wrong, that takes at least a bit of faith. As I said in a fomer post, God resists proof, so belief requires faith. I find trouble with blind faith, however. I think questioning is the only way to learn anything. I don't toss my science books out because I believe in God. I am far too courious about this world for that!Quote:
My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.
:nod:
Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen
Here's a request:
Could somebody kind enough and knowlegeable enough PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain the theory of evolution, what it actually is. Somehow, it tends to get mixed up with what people believes it means and all the other things. Who would volunteer to do that? Anybody?
And then, I could help to write out the creation explained in the Bible. No more and no less. From there on, we can understand what people is talking about, or referring to. I must confess sometimes I get lost. :D
Hopefully after this, it will help a bit.
So... who's going to volunteer and help me with the evolution part? I don't know enough about it to give a good background. Besides, I'd be too biased. :D We need someone who doesn't get too biased easily.
Adelheid.....
The theory of evolution is the process of change over geological time. This change can affect many things, from physiological appearance, to cultural evolution.
Most of people's thoughts on evolution are concerned in the evolution of mankind, but as has been pointed out by previous posts, evolution is not as cut and dry as that.
The process of evolution is affected, sped up or slowed down, by a number of factors, namely, the desires of reproductive dependants - i.e., in a group of animals who rely heavily on competition for mates, where more males of the species exist than females, this leads to female selection, so evolution will be affected by the needs and wants of the females of the species.
This is not to say that evolution only operates and exhibits itself when women are unhappy about their men!!
There is also the utilitarian aspect to consider, the best example I've heard is put across by use of the relationship between male and female long tailed wrens - accepting that the theory that a male wren's tail is so decorative, solely for the use of attracting a mate, and accepting what was proposed earlier, about feminine selection, the wrens tail should in theory grow to the end of time.
From a utilitarian perspective, this obviously cannot happen, as the bird would not be able to fly, so evolution has to balance between the two. Generally, the exhibited feature would be found to be the average of the two aspects.
There are other aspects which will affect evolution, for example, parasites will have a large role to play in selection and change.
The most interesting fields of evolution I find are those that are exhibited in a social or cultural environment. For example, one of the reasons I believe the world has managed to cope with such unsegregated societies, as compared with how segregated the world was only a hundred years ago, is the evolution of man's ability to empathise. Granted, a lot of this has come from education and understanding, but I feel that evolution is still ongoing within our own minds, as well as physiologically, and it is here that we will see the most evolutionary progress over the next hundred years or more.
So in short, evolution is a strive for efficiency and stability with an organisms surroundings, and is affected by it's surrounding environment, organisms, physical ability and sexual tendencies, and also is affected and driven within the human mind, and can be expressed in the form of human culture.
From this you could think that I am incredibally biased for evolution, and I admit that I am, in a way, however, only because religion never answered any of the questions I had to ask. However, I don't HATE religions, as I feel it has had a large part to play in the world today, and would be surprised if religion itslelf has not affected the process of human evolution over the few thousand years that human kind have had a religion of sorts. Personally, i don't think what you believe is important, not as much as belief itself.
Hi Jay. And I just said the words "may have been". Wiggle room. Maybe. Maybe not. But if only one of the lineup of the descent of man figures could be a "freak of nature", then while it would not disprove evolution, it would make us more cautious in our work of identifing fossil records. This is not from a religious site but from the Wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
In this we see that a mistake was made, reported, and acknowledged, for which I salute the scientific community, they are only human, and these things happen. They tried to clear the mess up. But Java Man still appears in many textbooks to this day. Now I would think a 342 page scientific report a good refute of the find. Evidently, most scientists agree. Why does it keep slipping into the textbooks? Who knows?Quote:
Java Man was one of the first specimens of Homo erectus to be discovered. It was originally given the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugène Dubois. The word "pithecanthropos" was derived from Greek roots and means ape man.
Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342-page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today.
With the tangled mess that religous people can make out of things, I would be the first to say that the creationist camp could hardly point fingers. I know many preachers who won't even speak to each other while claiming to believe the same Bible. You'll find that if I am anything, I am fair. I won't take sides, even if I believe in God, I believe in right. I still think it takes both to make sense of this old world. A creator and evolution work together.
I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I agree that believing in the existence of God merely because we don't like the alternative would be a very weak position. It is true that I do not find the alternative very attractive. But it is not merely a matter of taste or emotion. (Though it is that also.) Any theory which attempts to explain our existence or the existence of a universe such as the one we find ourselves in has to be able to give an account of the real universe, not a subset of it. I agree that a resort to nature as a total explanation of our exixtance may be able to explain the existence of the natural world. But my experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought are as much a part of my existence as are the sun the moon and the stars. Any explanation of my world which precludes an explanation of the existance of the significance that we find in these other things is at best incomplete. I do not say that the naturalist position is totally wrong. I am sure that there is much truth in it,but it cannot be all that there is.
Or if we were able to show that the the naturalist position was actually the whole truth, then we should at least face up to the consequnces of it. If when I say that the abuse of children is wrong, then all that is happening is that some complex arrangement of space,time,matter and energy has come into play then let us at least stop acting as though it had significance. We might still continue to use the words right and wrong, should and should not, but we should at least be aware that as we do so we are merely giving vent to steam, complex steam, more complex but of the same sort as the emissions of a volcano. We might still go on doing good (or evil) but we must realize that at the core these words have been emptied of any meaning. By good I would simply mean that my collection of atoms and energy reacted in a certain fashion to the actions of your atoms and energy, no different than a collision between billard balls. It is no good saying that there are some wicked theists and good atheists. The words good and bad have a natural, physical cause. We would be better to use the words convenient or inconvenient. Furthermore it seems to me that an acceptance of the fully naturalist position also destroys the very possiblity of rational thought. But that is to much for this forum and I will not debate it here.
Though then you may disagree with my views I hope that you see that it is not entirely a matter of taste. I want an explanation of existence that includes all of my universe. Either much of what I thought was real was actually an illusion and I need to radically change the way I see the world. Or ultimate reality is more than mere nature.
Chook,
You made some good points but (as always, I'm afraid ;) ), I have a few points to make.
My belief is that to all of us this is all there is to enjoy. Of course you have the right to differ. My only regret is that, assuming for a moment that I am right, there will never be an opportunity to say, "I told you so!"Quote:
I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.
I am not at all sure that what you are describing is the naturalist viewpoint. It reads closer to the existentialist viewpoint to me. Knowing that "experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought" are merely the result of the passage of electrons in my brain in no way invalidates them, nor makes them any the less worthwhile from my perspective; these kinds of experience are what makes life worth living to all of us, it is invalid to claim them as the sole preserve of the theist.
On good and evil, lack of credence in the existence of a deity has no bearing on empathy either; causing pain deliberately for selfish motives is as abhorrent to me as I am sure that it is to you. Added to this, is the rationalist approach that treating other people well is likely to be reciprocated. Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! :brow: )
And on your final paragraph; of course it is not a matter of taste - there is a right and a wrong answer out there somewhere. It is a matter of deciding what one personally believes and, importantly to me, why one believes it.
"Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! )"
Xamonas Chegwe
I think that we would be both very surprised to find how little difference that there is between what we would both describe as 'morally correct" actions though you might not use the same words to describe such actions. I have heard the words 'appropriate and inappropriate" also used in this context. Atheists of good intent are no more or less prone to good or bad behaviour than anybody else. It is misconceived pride by some on myside of the debate that causes some of us to talk at times as though a belief in God of itself somehow made us better people. I could wish it were true but I know full well it does not. There would of course be some differences in what we considered a good or bad action, but not so much as you might imagine. There are as many varieties of theists as atheists. For myself and I am not so unusual, I have little time for simply religious duties, such as not working on Sundays. Certainly, if you believe in the sort of God that I do, then there will be time for worship etc but these are a personal matter. If you were my neighbour I suspect that my mower would be safe from theft and that you would find me a very normal chap who happens to like football, timber and poetry. It is the fanatics on both sides that give the problem. That is not to say that I believe that it makes no difference in the end what side you come down on. If ultimate reality is what I believe it to be then to reject this is to miss the point for which we were created. But you are right, whatever may be the case neither of us will get the chance to poke out our tongue and say I told you so!
I will do some research on existentialism. Maybe that is what I was describing.
Wow. You take some time off and threads almost disappear. I thought this a bit funny. People often do not take too well to opinions different from their own, and will even ridicule them. So here's something to think about:
People laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.
People have laughed at every religious leader there has ever been.
None of this helps to prove them right or wrong.
People also laughed at The Three Stooges! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/n020.gif
Were you not leaving Pen? I don't suppose this is the right place to discuss tolerance, but, although we should be open to new ideas, and carefully consider them, we need not accept everything as right, and we can say why we do not agree.
Sorry to see me back, my dear little Piglet? I'm not saying anything about people not being able to disagree or think for themselves. I'm simply saying that when you do so, do it with a logical, straight forward approach without snide remarks. The rightness or wrongness of a belief will never be taught to anyone simply by laughing at them, and telling them they are wrong. An understanding of the other man's viewpoint may either solidify or cast doubt upon your own belief. In the meantime, have a nice day! :)
I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!
Well... When you come to think of it... The idea of having descended from a man who could not say no to an apple is not very flattering either!Quote:
Originally Posted by WhimsySA
Although I don't really want to venture deep into this battlefield, I will mention that I did not come from a monkey either, but still accept the theory of evolution.
Just because my Grandgrand x10000 father was a 'monkey', doesn't mean I came from one, my father is homo sapiens, and so is my mother.
Then again, I wouldn't so easily refuse an apple offered by Eva either.
Anyway, time for a tactical retreat to safer pastures.
No, but many of your ancestors were something that, if you saw it, you would call it a monkey. And before that, your ancestors were probably some sort of slime.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhimsySA
"Apemen are not proud of their ancestors, and never invite them round for dinner"
-Douglas Noel Adams
"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."
Mark Twain
Twain did have a way with words, didn't he? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."
I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!"
Note: The above line containing the word "stupid" is not personally directed towards anyone. It is simply a quotation. Thank you. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/h020.gif
I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I do believe you are correct! How embarassing! And my favorite author... :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
If you will recall, I've always said that I fully intend to be fair, if I am nothing else. I made a compelling case about how cross-breeding animals resulted in larger, stronger beasts, but they came out infertile and could not reproduce. Examples would be the mule and the liger.
I recentlly learned of a natural cross-breeding that happens among bears; specifically polar and grizzley bears. It doesn't happen often, and I woundn't want to run into one of these babies, but it seems they are fertile, and can reproduce. The only reason we don't have a new species of bear is because I guess two of the opposite sex have not yet managed to meet. So it seems that in certain cases, a new species can and will develop given time. We may see this one during my own lifetime, who knows?
Boy, here's a thought. What if the polar bear fancies a Kodiak as a mate? That would be getting back to the old Cave Bear size!
So you see, when I find something interesting to pass along even if it shoots down one of my ideas, I am not slow to say that I was wrong. Who really knows what's out there anyway? God bless. ;)
I'm of the mind that creationism, and the evolution of whatever was created are two totally different things. Big bang, I don't buy it. That all these factors came together in our vast and possibly infinite universe and lined up by sheer happenstance to form a planet where we can even survive, and yet I can't manage to guess the lottery numbers...it's just a bit much for my mind to grasp.
After reading all the arguments, I'm going to wait until the movie comes out before I make a firm decision either way.
I went on another forum and I saw this guy who made a brilliant point. He said that humans have more vertebrae than apes. So if apes evolved into humans, they would have to evolve more vertebrae. I don't know how this could happen through random mutation, but if it did, it would be incredibly painful for the ape-men. They wouldn't be able to defend themselves properly or get enough food, and probably would have died out through natural selection.
Also, if life spontaneously arose from the dirt, how would this happen? One possible explanation is this experiment. One guy ran electrical current through what he thought was the primitive earth's atmosphere and got amino acids, the precursors to life. The only problem? He didn't use the right atmosphere. What happens if you run the same experiment with the right atmosphere that a primitve earth would have had? You get cyanide. :lol:
As a boy in elementary school I went though years of not searching for any religion, but trying to find human-centered psychic power, etc. I had great fears and melancholy, but these in no way had any bearing on my becoming a Christian. I agreed that it was the worst tragedy to wish there were GOD and not find HIM at the end of our lives. I didn't know what to do, but I in no way found solace in telling myself I believed in GOD so lond as a shadow of a doubt oppressed my heart. I sometimes cried myself to sleep as accepting the then seeming likeliness of nothing but a nihilistic hope at best. I also had a sense of GOD at times, but as something I didn't want to rest on just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
One day, when my family were beginning, at a neighbor's invitation, to go to protestant "services" (the sect actually did a great disservice to their members, trying to prevent direct Communion with GOD), I stayed home and turned my attention to lust. This was a regular Sunday theme for me, until, one day, without any input from my family, nor from any other human, I, who had thought of GOD (when I wasn't having an agnostic soul pang) as a universe away, and coldly remote, suddenly percieved HIM near, and heard HIS very Words to me. I then, at age 11, cast off my lust from myself, and never had an agnostic moment ever again. It was because I now peacably knew GOD to be real that I had no room in my heart for an empty existence apart from HIM. In a short time, I had such Faith in HIM, that, when my little sister's tongue split upon falling against something, after initially freaking out over all the blood she was choking on, suddenly decided not to call an ambulance, and believed she would be healed at once by GOD.
I placed my hand upon the little toddler, commanded her tongue to go back together at once, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST, begged the HEAVENLY FATHER to please make this work right away, and recited the Words from Isaiah the Prophet, "By HIS Stripes we are healed". I didn't see at first that it had worked. I turned in disappointment and was intent on rushing into another room to shout at GOD in great anger for not honoring the Faith that told me a Healing was meant then to occur. I had only taken steps about a meter away when suddenly the loud voices in the room took on a new ambience of emotion. I turned quickly to see what I had just sensed, and everyone were shouting for Joy, no longer in a panick. The baby's tongue was no longer injured, and the others excitedly told me they had seen the tongue while it mended!
I also have a nonreligious witness to the fact that his broken finger completely healed in just over 2 minutes from when it was first broken, retaining not so much as a bruise, at our workplace. He thought over it for days, trying to figure out if something other than GOD had healed him on the instant, when I had just happened to be there to pray for him. He said that he couldn't think of an answer as good as that GOD had done it, but that his feelings of fear to raise his hopes are so great that they seem greater than logic to him.
Before I knew GOD to be real, as I now do, I did not think that things were all important. Only good people and sacrificing for them.
As people have stated before the theory of evolution doesn't really contradict with intelligent design. I believe in creationism but I don't see much wrong with evolution unless it is the only basis and tries to stand on its own. The moral and ethical implications of doing so are huge. To take words from Darwin himself
In regards to the post by Xamonas Chegwe I am forced to disagree.Quote:
"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?"
I would say that nothing really matters if you take on a naturalistic viewpoint and leave no room for God. You live, you die, nothing happens after. So...why does it matter what you did in between A and B? If it felt good at the moment its good right?Quote:
If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.
God is Evolution
Explain Yourself
Do you mean that God invented evolution, or that evolution is a kind of god?
I'm just wondering, because only one of those positions makes even the slightest bit of sense.
By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes?
I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no?
And no, i don't think the Big Bang theory is part of Creationism.
Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
Two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
1.) Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?
2.) You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking. ;) :nod:
Yes, and that is exactly what I am trying to say. We have a common ancestor with modern apes, and if you saw it, you would probably say that it was an ape or a monkey. I mention it because when somebody asks me why monkeys and apes still exist if we evolved from monkeys and apes, I have to strongly resist the urge to yell at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
A femur would do it, but a complete human skeleton would be a whole lot better. It was just an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Hey, XC, you think I should totally confuse the poor man now? Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution. The first to start the engine, the second to keep it running and develop finished products along the way. So I never discount science, or their discoveries, although I may question them; nor do I discount creation, though I have questions about the hows and timeline. I do not believe time as we count it began until creation was completed. Which leaves a large gap in the timeframe, so I have no doubt the Earth is very old. ;)
Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon