Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs say we were made by God to look like him.
I'm sure others do the same.
Printable View
Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs say we were made by God to look like him.
I'm sure others do the same.
p'raps it's not a matter of lying - p'raps it's in the (breadth of) ability to understand god fully.
Muslims do not believe that people look like God or that they resemble Him in any way.
niebies: as Amuse said it isn't about religion lying, but about the point that it's just an individual belief and just because a lot of people hold it doesn't make it true in any absolute sense.
Amra: Isn't that technically because Allah is not to be seen, has no face and no image to be viewed by man?
It's not so much the lying, more...well, each religion has different beliefs, right? And why should some particular beliefs be more true than others? There's nothing wrong with believing something, even if it's not true; but in trying to push someone into your own beliefs...Quote:
Originally Posted by niebiskipolak
*Grins rather sheepishly* or into your own opinions...or perhaps even into the facts...
But what's wrong with facts?
What's wrong with religion?
As long as we keep the line between the two...
I can't think about this. It would drive me nuts....
I'd have to think that there was a little of both invloved...just my opinion.
Yup with Amra muslims dont belive we were made tto look like GOd as we dont know what God is suppose to look like all we Know is that we were created in the best possible image.
Drywn: actually its more like God/Allah (Allah basicly means THE GOD) is any shape and every shape and that he can be seen in anything and everything as a power... and Im getting out of my depth here so Id better swim back to the shallow and say yeah HE/she/It (sexless and all) has no face to be viewed by man.
Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??
It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know :D)....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees? We are, after all, in the family of the Great Apes - we're closer to chimpanzees than orangutans are), and consequently, his "pet". I know it's tempting to think God is human(-like), but how do we know he doesn't have a jackal's head if we've never even seen him? And why not suppose that he came down to earth in the form of a sheep and died for our sins at the butcher's hand? Pity we don't believe this, it would save a lot of animals' lives...however it would probably affect the poor butchers in a bad way. ;) In fact, how do we know that God, incidentally, didn't create the fish in his image and that man only evolved? Who knows but that Adam and Eve were really salmon? I think that would diminish our importance a deal - I suppose we'd start worshipping fish. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...it always seems to be "belief" because there's nothing to prove it. (If there was then I'm sure it would be far more credible for a lot more people; sadly, God seems to not want to prove himself. He seems to want to make it difficult for his followers by making himself obscure and unreachable, cloaked by enigma...)Quote:
Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??
I know I'm probably "wrong" in all my conclusions about God, etc. but I think I'm not any more wrong than the traditional viewpoint established thousands of years ago. They deified Jesus...there was no Christianity before then. Why not? Why didn't God show himself to the Egyptians, for example? Or is it perhaps just as good to believe in Anubis and Amun-Re and Bastet?
Loki
From what I recall, weren't the Shinto deities natural ones? Such as mountains and rivers and trees? Then they would be in a sense correct; we were born from water. We in fact are water. And soil. And stardust. And particles that were created (created themselves) at the beginning of time....Quote:
Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.
Sorry that wasnt clear, the belief is that everything GOd created is perfect and the best image for its purpose in life. Ie some is blond because blond is the coulour that best suits them. Flies look they way they do because that is the best and most perfect image for them. etc.Quote:
It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know )....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees?
:D
No I wasnt actually I was referrimng more to the power of belief. In that if you believe somthing is real, true or a fact them it is so if only to you.Quote:
If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...
Ive had this argument with other people before so before anyone states the obvious flaw I am not saying that if you believe gravity doesne exsist it wont, Just that for most beliefs that are taken for facts (the shape of the earth for instance once it was a fact that it was flat).
So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.
Fascinating. :D So does that mean God created every individual...er...pair of individuals...for example the first two flies, the first two blondes, the first two...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I still maintain what I said about Jesus being a sheep. He could have come down multiple times already (our sins are fast accumalating) and nobody noticed. Why not?
Have you ever realised that the Bible indicates the Earth to be flat? Of course, you'll say, because that was the belief at that time. I'd perfectly agree with you. It also says there are insects with only four legs (creepy), that we should sacrifice our children to God, that kids should be whipped multiple times (as long as they survive)...all this alongside with God created Adam and Eve, etc. etc. etc. which people really cite as Christianity. I respect those who follow the Bible's better half, though they're obviously not full Christians...but I think that most people don't even read Deutronomy (for good reasons) and therefore can still think that this book was written by God. Otherwise they would be appalled, shocked, horrified. Many Christians deconvert after reading the Bible.
Would this also mean that, because Christianity is the dominant world religion, the Christian god is a fact more than any other god? That gods still believed in today are any more true than those believed in during the past? I think I know what you're getting at...but that would not be true "fact", it would only be thought of as fact. If I believed I could fly (see Dyrwen's post near the beginning of this thread) would it then make it a fact?Quote:
So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.
This is becoming a very interesting discussion...
Well it means whatever you take it to mean exept that God in some way had somthing to do with it.Quote:
So does that mean God created every individual...er...pair of individuals...for example the first two flies, the first two blondes, the first two...
Personally I belive it means God decided the genitics of it and made all the rules aboout genes and things and then let things evolve from there.
So 2 eyes 2 feet 2hands 1 head for humans 6 legs compound eyes , wings ect for flies.
Also that certain traits go together red hair, pale complextion.. things like that and usually peoples natural hair colour actually suits them best!
(genetics again)
I dont think I can comment on the bible as I am not a christian but The Qu'arn (Koran) indicates that it is round, revolves around the sun and other things. Also I think that it depends how you are reading these things. If they are trully holy books ment to last forever then different things will have different meanings through time.Quote:
Have you ever realised that the Bible indicates the Earth to be flat?
No I think the socially dominat accepted fact today is that God does not exsit.Quote:
Would this also mean that, because Christianity is the dominant world religion, the Christian god is a fact more than any other god?
But what I mean is that facts are realtive the christian God is a fact to Christians and and to other people their God is a fact. Thats what faith is all about isnt it believing and knowing somthing is true?
Maybe mother nature is just another name for God maybe evolution is too. maybe any unhuman power is God or s manifestation of at least?
Very interesting. But then there is no need for a God...it seems to be a rule of nature that unnecessary things don't exist/come to exist/continue to exist. Back in the old days, people didn't know anything about science etc. as we do today, the sky was held up by giants, the world was flat and resting on a mountain of turtles, etc...all those beliefs sprang from the need to explain why we are here and how we came to get here. How did we get here, after all? And so God was born. God was exactly the right sort of thing to make a world and solve their problems of how they got there, why this happened, why that happened, etc. God, or the gods, of course...long before Christianity there were other religions, such as the Ancients of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Norway, of course :D - my personal favourite.....but nowadays there's no need for a God to create planet Earth - planet Earth creates itself. There no need for a god to plant fully-formed humans onto that Earth and command them to live. There is no need for someone to make things happen. Things happen by themselves.Quote:
Well it means whatever you take it to mean exept that God in some way had somthing to do with it.
Personally I belive it means God decided the genitics of it and made all the rules aboout genes and things and then let things evolve from there.
Or do they? Some people, deists if I am correct, think that God started the Big Bang and then decided to disappear since he wasn't needed (or became extinct, whatever you like) after that. The universe blowed up from the size of a nothing to the size of a pea to the size of - it's still growing today...Antimatter fought matter, and matter won...but you see, Anthropic principle does not necessarily imply that there is a god. It's more to do with this universe being the universe with the best conditions for human life - in any other sort it would be impossible. We ask, why are we here? Why is everything exactly right? But we would not be here if it weren't exactly right, and wouldn't be here to ask it. There are multiple histories of our universe out there - and we observe it from this one because it is the one suited for us to develop. I may not be making much sense here, but it is a fascinating subject...I'd suggest reading The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, it's a fantastic book.
You'd be surprised. The source I have saysQuote:
No I think the socially dominat accepted fact today is that God does not exsit.
This statistic was updated in 2005...Quote:
World Population Percentages by Religious Group
religious 86%, non-religious and anti-religious 14%.
I know what you mean, but wouldn't that still be non-fact in real life? I suppose you could say fact can only be observed by humans (?) and so whatever we observe is correct but...truth doesn't change by observer. The truth is there without us, isn't it? If the whole solar system had never come into being, would it mean that the rest of the universe didn't exist because nobody was there to say it was a fact that it did? You're right, it is a fact to them...but without them, or anybody else, would it still be? I don't think so. Facts are the things that are unchanged by perspective. Much is called fact, undoubtedly, which is not fact at all...Quote:
But what I mean is that facts are realtive the christian God is a fact to Christians and and to other people their God is a fact. Thats what faith is all about isnt it believing and knowing somthing is true?
Nice thinking. IQuote:
Maybe mother nature is just another name for God maybe evolution is too. maybe any unhuman power is God or s manifestation of at least?
Loki.
Things are not evolving, they never did evolve, and never will evolve. Are they evolving in front of you? Answer is NO. Then why believe it so? Surely in the hundreds of years that people have started to believe in this thinking, they would have seen SOMETHING evolve. (assuming that the fishes now would change into birds later), surely out of the thousands of days so far, something would happen? But NO. Nothing HAS evolved. Sometimes I wonder whether science, REAL science (not applied science and technology), but real science is not moving backwards. The thinking seems so to me.
You can see the fruitfly adapting to changes in its environment. How come virus's get more and more resistant to anti-biotics?
Adelheid: In my humble opinion.......Evolution is an incremental process taking place over an infitestimally lengthy time continuum. Scientific study of this process is neccessarily limited by the relative 'blink-of-an-eye' existence that is the individual human lifespan. But current accumulated scientific evidence indicates the hypothesis/theory of evolution of life forms seems to concretely answer many questions concerning the ongoing wonder that is life. Only continued study and a penchant for the truth will eventually solve the debate surrounding evolution. Man, as well as being many other things, is a logical animal, considerate enought to weigh many factors in arriving at a plausable explanation for any given phenomenon. But I am suspicious this thread is trying to compare supposed diametrically opposed theories when in fact evolution vs. creation theories are not diametrically opposed, but totally disconnected from each other, and are not limited to having relatively little in common, but have nothing at all in common and yet both equally share the possibility of truth.
Spiritual aspects of life, if they exist for one's self, can be compared to the physical/concrete world. And yes, a screwdriver can be used to peel potato...... but why bother? Personally I find a theory that allows for both possibilities (a spiritual existence seperate from the physical) intellectually pleasing and infinitely wonderous.........
Several comments regarding various matters:
I occured to me just now, as I read this thread, that we do live in a caring universe. The caring part of the universe is that very part which complains so bitterly that the universe is uncaring. A truly uncaring universe would be devoid of such sentimental rhetoric.
The great rabbi of the 12th century, Moses Maimonides (Rambam) who wrote "The Guide for the Perplexed" in Arabic, in Spain, often mentions the Muslim sect of the Mutakallimum, who advocated the use of philosophical reason in theological matters. Maimonides spends much time arguing against the literal interpretation of verses which suggest that God has some form.
Even in the New Testament, there is one verse in which Christ explicitly says, "No man as seen the Father at any time" (but then Jesus adds, "He who sees me sees the Father.")
There are Greek Orthodox who censure the Russian iconographers who portray God the Father in Icons as an old man with a beard. The Russians argue that the "Ancient of Days" in the vision of Prophet Daniel is God the Father, seated upon a throne, but the Greeks argue that it is Christ as the pre-eternal Logos.
I once asked a very strict, conservative Greek monastic, of the Athonite tradition, what Eastern Orthodoxy believes about evolution. He explained that there was no conflict in thinking that God used evolutionary means to create mankind. He pointed out that Basil the Great, theologian of the 4th century, who wrote "The Six Day Creation" (Exemeron), concedes that a day could be metaphorical for an eon of time. For the Psalms say, in one verse "With the Lord, a day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years is as a day."
There IS some dispute, between various Islamic sects, regarding the attributes of Allah. Here are some links on the matter:
http://ahmadjibril.com/students/tawheednames.html
http://www.ghazali.org/works/gz-itiqad.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by The Throne of Allah
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fingers of Allah
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...religion.islam
===================Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand of Allah
The way I see it, evolution and change spells survival through adaptation.
Languages are constantly changing and evolving, which is why Chaucer and Shakespeare sound so different from our everyday speech.
The universe itself seems to be changing and evolving, from the big bang, and continual expansion, with occasional supernovas, and baby stars.
I think that religions and philosophies which have the capacity for change are preferable to religions and philosophies which are frozen in time.
You know, it wasn't until the 1846 that general anesthesia was first used at Mass General Hospital
http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/d...m?amit_id=2234
Islam speaks against intoxication. Anesthesia is definitely a form of intoxication. Also Islam is very much in favor of imitating the Prophet Muhammed in every aspect of his life, grooming, attire, cuisine, etc. Now, I am quite certain that Muhammed never had a surgical or dental procedure. But if he DID happen to have an operation, I am quite certain that he had to suffer through it without the aid of local or general anesthesia. Now the world has changed, since then. So, if someone were really sincere about Islam, and avoiding intoxication, and imitating the Prophet Mohammed, then I would expect them to refuse any sort of anesthesia. Yet, I am quite certain that all Muslims, up to the most respected Imams and Ayatollahs, hasten to have surgical and dental procedures when the need arises, and do so with the aid of local and general anesthesia.
This seems to me a bit of a "sticky wicket".
By the way, did you know that George Washington had major surgery, without anesthesia, and that it possibly extended his life by an additional 10 years?
http://www.founderspatriots.org/articles_wash_med.htm
Both Judaism and Islam forbid lending on interest, which is deemed usury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbuncle
No one in the times of either Moses or Mohammed could possibly foresee this world of modern economy and medicine. In our world, it becomes essential to use banking of some sort, as well as stocks and bonds, which automatically involves us in the loan business, indirectly. Islamic countries have devised institutions which allow religious Muslims to borrow and repay without any involvement in usury. Jewish Talmudic scholars have devised rules which allow an observant Jew to invest in the stock market, and yet not feel guilty for having the investment labor on the Sabbath day.
But all of this legalism is a struggle to force something static and frozen to evolve with changing times.
If God/Allah is all-wise and creates humans in the image and likeness of God, then why is there some necessity for male circumcision (or female circumcision in some cultures, though this practice is disputed)? Why are we created with something which ought not to be there, and requires removal?
There is a verse in the Psalms which explicitly states that "the years allotted to a human being are three score and 10 (70) or perhaps four score (80) and what is beyond this is toil and travail." Suppose medical science reaches a point where it is possible to extend an individual's life to 150 or 200 years. Does this mean that God did not have the foresight to realize that one day such longevity might be possible? Would it be sinful in the eyes of a fundamentalist to avail ourselves of a technology which permits such longevity?
(continuation of post above).
Why were swine created, if they are unclean and haram (forbidden)? Each year, many animal and plant species become extinct. Why are pigs not cast into extinction by the divine will of the Almighty?
http://www.world-destiny.org/a44com.htm
Pig is one of the most curious of all words. It is in Old English as pigga, but its origins are unknown. The Hebrew word piggool (Strongs number 6269 )means "fetid," "unclean," and "to stink!"
(end of continuation)
==================================
Let us compare the 96th Surah of the Qu'ran with the Biblical account of creation in Chapter 2 of Genesis:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/096.qmt.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust and Clots
Neither account precludes the concept of evolution. God/Allah is a Fashioner who fashions man out of something which is pre-existing. These accounts may scarcely be called creation "ex nihil" (out of nothing), a presto-chango wave of a magician-Deity's wand.
And where did the blood come from? Or where did the dust come from?
I, just now, searched google.com on : scientists evolution "a proven fact"
Most of the links returned were religious organizations arguing against evolution. The following link seems to be a useful summary of the scientific arguments in favor of evolution
http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5.htm
I wonder why a perfect and unchanging Deity would take the trouble to create an imperfect and changing universe (or universes).
There is an old conundrum which poses the same question in this manner:
"IF we assume that God is perfect, lacking in no respect, and also all-wise, doing nothing without a reason, then we may deduce one of the two following conclusions: either act of creation on the part of the Deity serves no purpose since the Deity is perfect and lacks nothing (making the creation extraneous and superfluous), and hence the Deity is not all-wise, having done something which serves no purpose; OR the act of creation WAS necessary, since something WAS lacking, which would imply that, prior to the creation the Deity was somehow lacking and incomplete, and therefore, not perfect."
We cannot have a Deity who is both perfect and all-wise and who also creates. One or the other must go. Perfection or Wisdom, which shall it be?
Sitaram feels that wood is at the heart of all these problems. Everyone has a chip on their shoulder, the theists, the atheists, the scientists, the theologians.
The origin of 'chip on someone's shoulder' is from an early American schoolboy ritual before fights. One boy would place a woodchip on his shoulder and dare the other boy to knock it off. If the other boy knocked the chip of wood off of the first boy's shoulder then a fight would occur.
It all depends upon your point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud and Stars
Keep in mind that Evolution is still a theory. Theories cannot be proven. In spite of all supporting evidence, we can never say that evolution is fact. If one case arises which contradicts the theory, the theory becomes void.
Conversely, it takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in something like Creationism. I'm a Catholic but that doesnt mean I have to believe God created the universe in a week. Technically, if He lit the fuse on the Big Bang, it only took a fraction of a second :)
Evolution takes faith, just as creationism does...it's just a more logical answer so it's easier to believe in. If you want to know a little about the theories around the start of the universe etc I recomend "a brief history of time" - Stephen Hawking. It won't give you a definitive answer but it might shed some light on personal beliefs, whatever they may be. It isnt really a partisen work and its a fairly easy read, considering the subject matter.
To me at least, Evolution takes MORE faith than Creation. More faith in chance, fate and time. To those who believe in Evolution- those are your gods. Still atheists?
And Evolution, the theory bit, makes no sense to me...like I said it takes more faith to believe that time, fate and Chance (such are your gods and goddesses) came together at exactly the same precise moment, randomly, and that's how the big bang happened. Time monitered her work, and little atoms began to form, and with Fate's help, put together to form cells. And all three gods put their heads together to form the simplest life form on earth. Time improved the form, chance put it in earth, and fate provided air, oxygen, water and food for that masterpiece to live.... and time went on...... insects were formed, fish were formed, birds were formed, animals were formed, humans were formed..... and time, chance and fate decided to stop, for they were happy with progress.....
Come, come! Surely you must own that the simple believe which states that God created everything in six days on unquestionable authority and evidence is by FAR easier to believe compared to everything happening at the EXACT SAME split second in order to form what no MAN or scientists or Professor of science has ever done? Create something out of nothing, life out of stillness, and the equivalent of sunshine, food, water and air to nourish it....as well as the cycle which ensures that the sunshine, food, water and air never fades away?
Can you presume to say that? None has done such a thing! And yet your faith is so strong in Time, Fate and Chance as to say that they did it??? Out of the thousands of years to meet, they all chose the SAME moment to??? :brow:
Wouldn't you say the same thing about Virgin Mary as well? That it hadn't before and hasn't happened since then? Or the Jesus' coming back alive?
Aberration,
Evolution is a theory, like Quantum Theory. Without Quantum Theory, you wouldn't have been able to post to the LNF. Like Quantum Theory, Evolution is one of the best explanations the human mind has created to explain the way the world works. It is to the credit of science that it maintains that these explanations are theories. One can't imagine many theologians talking about the theory of God.
I suspect that the 'Evolution is only a theory' brigade are really trying to say that scientific theory is no better than religious theory. Of course, that is complete rubbish. The theory of God is a poor explanation of the way the world works in comparison to Evolution or Quantum Theory
Regarding scientific theory, i suggest you read this http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...1alabama.shtml
Correct, I think there is nothing to add.
except that i was trying not to take i side in my little post there :)
I BELIEVE in evolution, gravity (which is still theory) and two-for-one icecreams on thursday. I also believe in God but I dont believe that He created the world in six days, nor in heaven, hell, or divine intervention. Philosophical debates like this arise when people read too much into texts like the bible, which is merely a moral guideline. A few of my teachers at school (catholic school) hated me because I refused to listen to their dogmatic doo doo. For a while I thought of becoming an aetheist but I didnt much feel like gaining 30kgs and I dont really like Star Trek.
I see no reason that scientific theory cannot co-exist with a divine presence.
You are from Brisbane.
Robbie MacEwen is from there, isn't he.
He has just won his third stage at the Tour, great!
Thus, from your last sentence, everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers.
Scientific theories do not contradict God's existence, anyway a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality, he must read the world in physical terms, since the two languages, of Sciences and Religion, CANNOT have the same ends, means, power, meaning, as Galileo first understood and demonstrated.
Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge.
You CANNOT believe in scientific theories, they are ways to put some oder in our universe of feelings, the problem with this is that you don't actually know on what set of events the theory will apply, that's why Physics change: they aim at magnifying the application-field of a theory.
"everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers."
Probably right, though. But that might have something to do with our country being a nation of drinkers.
Im curious as to why you think I can't believe in scientific theories when I've already stated that I do. I don't believe in any Christian mythology except for the presence of a divine power.
Religion no longer attempts to explain the world. It is there to guide you through it. You accuse me of having antiquated ideas about science without having the remotest understanding of my knowledge in the field. On the other hand, I know that you have antiquated ideas about religion.
"Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world" - You have grossly missinterpreted the reasons for having religion in the first place. This faux pas is typical of the "piously preaching aethesist" of whom I have encountered many.
Who's to say that in the beginning (the Big Bang) God thought of all the rules that would govern the universe, whipped out a little thunderbolt and blew everything accross the cosmos, then left it to its own devices.
I find it a little disconcerting to think that human beings could be the highest intelligence in our humble little universe (I also believe in life on other planets). Of course, we may be and if you can disprove the existance of God I'll happily eat my words. You dont have to agree in the existance of God but I think that you should perhaps explain your argument instead of repeating such sanctimonious dribble as - "a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality"
I said: "Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge."
If you refer to common people, you are right, religion is a way like others (EG advertisement) to guide you through the choices of your life, I was referring to "men of knowledge" (Notice, I haven't said "Culture")
If you are not a Physicist, you can actually believe in scientific theories.
The problem of christian mithology lies in the fact that you live in an anglo-saxon country, I live in old europe, in poor older catholic Italy, you are more similar to ancient oriental countries, really monotheist, we are still pagan and politheist, ours is a mithology of the past, yours is a mithology of the present, it is modern, changing along with society, so it doesn't seem a real mithology (businessmen, terror, nation, ecc...).
I wonder why it has to be an either/or debate? Not that it's a simple matter to pull evolution and creation together, but is it really so important? The world exists--what does it matter if people differ in how they think it got here? I would argue that the problem is forcing others to choose one or the other... it is your deal what you choose to support, believe or accept for yourself.
Well Karanae at this point it appears to be more of an education v. disagreement sort of "debate" in the world over evolution's place. A lot of folks only disagree with the concept because they don't fully understand it, though there are quite a few that are certainly valid in their disagreements after learning all about it.
Most people I've ever met that don't believe in evolution tend to ask: "Where's the evidence?" More often than not, and that's what I'm basing the thought above on. There's plenty of it and most are more than willing to dispense it when asked in the form of fossil records and gene records. Guess all I'm saying is: Nobody expects to change someone else's mind, really, but sometimes we would like to be the one that pushes someone a little closer to that line of acceptance.
Besides, what else are people to do on message boards if we can't argue? :P
I don't disagree... I enjoy debating the topic myself, as long as it's a back and forth debate. The problem I have with many people who debate the topic is just that they generally refuse to listen.
I'm not sure if anyone has said this already--because I don't want to go through 19 pages of stuff to find out. But are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Could not the universe have been "created" through evolution. In other words could evolution not have been guided by an intelligent force?
That was mentioned Sirius and there are plenty of folks subscribing to that belief, since it lets them have their cake and eat it too. Really nothing wrong with that idea, so long as you're okay with the god being there at the start. If anything I find it a bit more reasonable than just throwing evolution away entirely.
Fantastic.Quote:
it lets them have their cake and eat it too
Should I decide to come to the USA, I think I'd avoid Al and choose WA.
By the way, what do "Al" and "WA" mean????
Alabama and Washington. Alabama is the South, a hazardous place for someone with a loud set of dissent to live. Washington is far Northwest, an eerie little place full of hippies tolerant and pretty nice, so long as you stay on the west side of the state. Not to say Alabama doesn't have nice people, just that it can be a bit ..well, unnerving to live in for some folks compared to others. Seeing as Tennessee and a few other southern states tried to make evolution unable to be taught in schools and Washington hasn't had anyone bicker about the problem as of late.
What??????Quote:
evolution unable to be taught in schools
I think if there is such a thing as a God, as the typical religion perceives it, then I wager he simply planted the seed for the world, with a fair idea of how it was going to turn out, as a gardener does when he plants the apple seed. So he created evolution.
But just as it is beyond the apple's intelligence to realize how it came to be and why, it is also beyond our intelligence too.
That's my explanation anyway, it suits me fine.
Hey Mr. explanation, the point is:
What is God for?
I don't need God to understand the world.
Just read some Google news once in awhile about America around the words "evolution banned in schools" and you'll get the gist. For awhile there were stickers on textbooks in Georgia schools that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" until they were ruled unconstitutional. The issue is still debated in Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri...etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxos
!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek2:!!!!!!!!!!!!