Evolution vs. Creation

Here are a couple of links to the subject of "synthetic biology" which I haven't seen discussed on this thread yet. The importance of synthetic biology is that the scientists are trying to use the "tools of evolution" to create "life without god". They are close to making that happen. The second link goes into the 12 criteria that define synthetic life at the cellular level.

If it is possible for the scientists to set up the conditions in the lab for natural elements and natural processes to form new life where no life existed before, then it is possible that those same conditions once existed on earth and that life on earth started then.


http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18836/

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/1/1/30/1/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.

---

Does "Zorro" come from there?

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.

Wow, this topic, along with 'Do you belive in god or not...explain' have got to be among the most popular and interesting discussions of all time. I love discussing this with others. I agree with Jester. Logically it just makes too much sense for me to believe anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.

---

My point then is this: If you will not allow me to respect you for your stand which I find illogical, mathematically improbable on the basis of the statistics of chance, and so forth; and you continue to brush aside my beliefs as "delusional", then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs. I only wish to find middle ground. If I can partially accept evolution, that took a lot of study and thinking about things and how they might HAVE to be, not how I might have been TAUGHT to perceive them. I went with an open mind, realizing that truth is never what we think it is. When you have everything all figured out something comes along to spoil the equation. Always. The truth is a learning process. I believe what I believe, call it nonsense or delusion or whatever. But I won't back down. I extend an olive branch and say "Our quarrel is not so great that we cannot yet have peace." Your move, my friend. Cheers.

<then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs>

Pendragon,

Have I actually stated that I have <respect for the other person's belief>? If I have, then I apologise for misleading you. After all, blanket respect for everybody's belief is pointless, it lacks value and is probably harmful anyway. So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people. People and beliefs are separate, and there is no contradiction in respecting someone who's belief you openly criticise and cast as meaningless.

BTW, in case you thought I was singling you out, I would like to add that my statement that you quoted <and if your belief is illogical,> etc, I used the term 'your' in a general sense of anyone's rather than yours in particular.

sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..




Thank u Pendragon for being polite..and rational

And people wonder why there is so little peace in the world. When everyone says that you attack my belief you attack me, then how can there ever be peace. Either we grow up and differentiate existence from belief or we kill each other over stupid ideas or we live in silence.

Thankfully, some of us can differentiate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by falling*moon

sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..




Thank u Pendragon for being polite..and rational

---

I appreciate that, Falling Moon. I strive to be so. The olive leaf is still waiting, atiguhya, as I myself find it foolish to kill people over beliefs and ideas with which you don't agree. Sadly, a lot of that goes on, and persons should know by now that it solves nothing. It just strengthens the other person's resolve to have nothing to do with that sort of belief. Olive branch?

"Olive branch?
__________________
And an arm rose above the waves and grasped the sword..."

Scary

Please don't offer an olive branch... They might use it as a weapon to attack each other!

:p

Please remember that these threads are here to discuss religious ideas and learn from others' experiences, not to force them to chenge their views. Declaring views which are different from ours wrong and attacking other members personally do very little to develop a valid argument.

Pendragon,

What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes.

Many people totally change their beliefs in the course of a life. If the Christian of yesterday becomes the atheist of tomorrow, does that really mean they are two different people? or does it just mean that they have changed their beliefs?

Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.

So thanks for the offer, but I am in no need of an olive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.

---

As I recall, when Madylin Murray O'Hara went to the surpreme court to sue to have prayer removed from public schools, she used her son, Bill (who by a stroke of fate is now a Christian Minister), claiming his rights were being invaded by the prayers, since he was an Atheist. So, yes, Atheists do expect me to respect their belief, or at the least, their righ to their belief which I do. I will even defend that right, since to take away that right would be the begining of taking away everybody's right to believe what they wish to believe. Anytime they move against one group, they target us all. As the man said "...They came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. Finally they came for me and there was no one left to stand up for me."

Quote:

---

What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes.

---

How do you define your being then and how do you define your existence? Is your existence just the physical composition of your body? Is your being your mind and your reason? If you claim that your being is not synonymous with your existence, then it means that your body can exist on its own. It means that you can separate one, your being (mind, reason, soul), from your physical existence (body). However, if you accept that a human being consists of both of those compoments, and that one cannot exist without the other, then your claim is absurd.

Pendragon,

It seems to me your example is confusing. The atheist in this case is demonstrating the necessity of freedom from having religious views shoved down your throat, which is a claim for democracy. I don't see any claim about special protection from criticism of atheism.