PDA

View Full Version : Evolution


Pages : [1] 2

CAISACO
18-01-08, 01:10
A very random thread, but I was curious. Do YOU believe in evolution?

I don't really know what I believe in now.
This thread was not made to cause arguments so please be nice to others and discuss nicely! :vlol:

Here is a link
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Also, in science we are learning a little about evolution.

If you believe in evolution you have three parts of your brain that all work. :p

Neo-cortex (new mammalian) (Neomammalian)
60 million to present
-concern for others
-Ideas, logic
-ability to probe, test experiment
-listening
-open to considering and using new inputs

Limbic system (old mammilian) (Paleomammalian)
200 to 60 million years
-raw emotions
-limited and narrow thinking

Reptillian brain
250 to 200 million years
-basic fight or flight instincts
-rigid thinking (absolutely yes or no)
-mob or pack mentality
-reactions (often violent)


Very interesting..

Encore
18-01-08, 01:12
I think evolution is not a religious creed that some people believe in and others don't. There's lots of scientific evidence to back it up so obviously yeah, I "believe" in it.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 01:12
No, I believe in creation. :)

Hack
18-01-08, 01:13
Yup. Its the picture that fits the evidence the best. And believe me, there is tonne of evidence for the gradual changes in organisms due to natural selection.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 01:13
Intelligent design. Evolution in the sense of adaptation, I understand. But not inter-species evolution. How does an eye form? How can something as important as an eye form on bacterium?

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 01:14
No, I believe in creation. :)

like, "the Earth is 10,000 years old" creationism or simply intelligent design creationism?

I believe in the latter :)

Encore
18-01-08, 01:16
Intelligent design. Evolution in the sense of adaptation, I understand. But not inter-species evolution. How does an eye form? How can something as important as an eye form on bacterium?

Eyes most definately don't form on bacteria :D A bacteria eventually evolves into an organism that needs a structure like an eye to survive..

Dakaruch
18-01-08, 01:17
Obviously evolution exists... Just look to the past, and see from what we evolved! The first "humans" were almost monkeys, they walked with the four limbs... They even had a very small brain!
Nowadays we have done things that would seem impossible 50 years ago... Evolution is that, our ability to develop new skills... The key to survival is evolution, without it we would be extinct many years ago!

Hack
18-01-08, 01:17
Intelligent design. Evolution in the sense of adaptation, I understand. But not inter-species evolution. How does an eye form? How can something as important as an eye form on bacterium?


All the information to form an eye is stored in our genes. With the right genes switched on, a single cell can form any complex organ.

For Example, Snakes are legless because the hocks genes to form legs are switched off.

A bat's wings look like hands and fingers because they adapted from hands and fingers.

If anyone want to see evolution in action, just look at the hospital superbug.

Bumio
18-01-08, 01:21
yah, i do believe :rolleyes:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd187/velvetolio/evolution-of-programmer.jpg

but seriously, i do believe in both: biological and religious evolutions :wve:

kooky
18-01-08, 01:23
No, I believe in creation. :)

So do I. ;)

Encore
18-01-08, 01:23
is there a religious theory of evolution?

SMSL
18-01-08, 01:24
yah, i do believe :rolleyes:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd187/velvetolio/evolution-of-programmer.jpg

but seriously, i do believe in both: biological and religious evolutions :wve:
That picture makes me desbelief ergonomy design...

rowanlim
18-01-08, 03:16
I totally believe in evolution. One of the most fascinating proof is during the early stages of embryo development. In the first few weeks, the human, fish, chicken, crocodile embryos look the same. Almost identical! Then as the development progresses, distinct characteristics like the beak (for the chicken), elongated tail etc start to form & the embryo will look more like the animal...this proof implies that we were all from the same common ancestor. The best part of evolution is to determine where & when did we break off from that common ancestor to induce evolution & produce the variety of species today. Gotta love science :tmb:

GodOfLight
18-01-08, 03:18
Everything in nature evolves and transforms over time. We humans are a part of nature. So yes, evolution definetly ;)

MiCkiZ88
18-01-08, 03:19
Is it too weird to believe in both evolution and creatonism? Since I kinda do.

Endow
18-01-08, 03:19
I think evolution is not a religious creed that some people believe in and others don't. There's lots of scientific evidence to back it up so obviously yeah, I "believe" in it.

There was a time in which "scientific evidence" backed up the idea that the world was flat.

Scientific evidence is subjective.

Don't mean by this I don't believe in Darwin but everything must be judged accordingly.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 03:23
I'm sorry, but an eye cannot form randomly just by gene manipulation. That doesn't make any sense. Evolution is false science. Learn to question "fact."

CAISACO
18-01-08, 03:24
Is it too weird to believe in both evolution and creatonism? Since I kinda do.

No. I don't think its weird. My mum said that evolution isn't in the bible. But I think I believe in God, and I think I believe in evolution. I don't really know what I believe in:tea::hea:

Encore
18-01-08, 03:29
There was a time in which "scientific evidence" backed up the idea that the world was flat.


When, exactly? Ancient Greek (rudimentary) science already had concluded that the earth was probably round.

You're confusing scientific evidence with common sense. Sometimes common sense, as in, believing only in your eyes, is deceiving- like the notion that earth has to be flat since we can't see any proof of its roundness when you look around in a plain. Or that the earth stands still because we watch the sun move everyday.

This is the only "proof" the majority of the people needed - bear in mind this was before there was even such a thing as the scientific method.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 03:30
Don't think I like the idea of humans coming from monkeys. Not sure. I respect science and I do love it. But they sometimes go way off with their theories.

Hack
18-01-08, 03:31
I'm sorry, but an eye cannot form randomly just by gene manipulation. That doesn't make any sense. Evolution is false science. Learn to question "fact."


Why not?

My mum said that evolution isn't in the bible.

Bacteria, Viruses, Dinosaurs and Neandethals are also not mentioned in the Bible. Infact, most of the life that has ever existed on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 03:32
Why not?

Alright, explain how without citing theories. Then explain why the reasoning is more valid than the concept of an intelligent designer - everything seems too complex to have occurred by "evolution."

rowanlim
18-01-08, 03:32
I believe in evolution, but I believe in Buddhism...I think it can go hand in hand...but cold hard facts are hard to ignore...I find evolution a fascinating process...something that is related to creation of a new species due to forced factors like earthquakes, isolation from the main population, habitat etc. :tmb:

Hack
18-01-08, 03:44
Alright, explain how without citing theories. Then explain why the reasoning is more valid than the concept of an intelligent designer - everything seems too complex to have occurred by "evolution."

All the information to build any part of the human body (or any other species) is encoded in their genes. Once the right genetic information is there, cells naturally divide to form any complex structure. Physically, Its clearly not too complicated. We work because the laws of physics allow us to work.

To make a baby out a single cell with the right information requires no divine intervention.

Evolution is a long and complex process. It was only in the last half a billion years that organism more complex than a single cell came about.

Encore
18-01-08, 03:44
I'm sorry, but an eye cannot form randomly just by gene manipulation. That doesn't make any sense. Evolution is false science. Learn to question "fact."


Genes mutate randomly, in great quantities, and most of these mutations are completely harmless (some are harmful), but only the useful mutations are stabilized into an evolution.

Why don't you look at a more simple example - since you can't obviously grasp this concept - and look at human hands and compare them to a chimpazee's? Why do you think we have such perfectly developed thumbs?

As our species evolved, a minor mutation created a diference in the shape of the hands; this meant that certain humans were more able to hold tools, meaning they were stronger than the others, and those survived more, so this characteristic (the shape of the thumbs) was singled out naturally as a more effective way of survival, and then was perfected into what we have now.

Best approach: back to basics. All creatures on Earth have the same basic genetic language (composed of nucleotides). This alone should be strong evidence that all evolved from the same very very basic organism.

Edit: Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, tells a pretty interesting story that is a major example of evolution at work. There is a crab in the waters around Japan that has some bumps on the shell. It was one of the main animals the fishermen there caught. One of these crabs, one day, probably had some shapes that vaguely resembled a face of a samurai. It was natural that the fishermen were scared of killing it, so they throw it back in the water. This means having the spots arranged in that way is a good way of improving the chances for the crab's survival, and the more they look like a face, the bigger the chances are. This random mutation became more and more frequent and voilá, today we have Heike crabs:
http://shadowzone.com.sapo.pt/373216489_e18a6473af.jpg

CAISACO
18-01-08, 03:47
Don't think I like the idea of humans coming from monkeys. Not sure. I respect science and I do love it. But they sometimes go way off with their theories.

I know, it's weird. Didn't they say like we share 98% of monkeys chromosomes?

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 03:58
OK, what I'm about to say is something very unlady like. I'm sorry.

What a load of croc. Humans being developed by a type of bacteria or a monkey. They use fancy scientific words to give an explanation to all. Science is a great help for man. But I think it lacks some sense and meaning.

Then they think that us, well, me, that we are simple minded. It's not that. I have a great respect for science. But their theories are very exagerating.

Librarian
18-01-08, 03:59
Genes mutate randomly, in great quantities, and most of these mutations are completely harmless (some are harmful), but only the useful mutations are stabilized into an evolution.

Why don't you look at a more simple example - since you can't obviously grasp this concept - and look at human hands and compare them to a chimpazee's? Why do you think we have such perfectly developed thumbs?

As our species evolved, a minor mutation created a diference in the shape of the hands; this meant that certain humans were more able to hold tools, meaning they were stronger than the others, and those survived more, so this characteristic (the shape of the thumbs) was singled out naturally as a more effective way of survival, and then was perfected into what we have now.

Best approach: back to basics. All creatures on Earth have the same basic genetic language (composed of nucleotides). This alone should be strong evidence that all evolved from the same very very basic organism.

That's a really good summary.

The thing is, due to the nature of the past, information gets lost. Trying to dig up our past and piece it together requires a lot of detective work, and with regards to evolution, not every piece of evidence has been uncovered yet. That doesn't mean the evidence isn't there, and the important thing to remember is that enough evidence has been found that scientists right across the board keep looking.

EDIT: OK, what I'm about to say is something very unlady like. I'm sorry.

What a load of croc. Humans being developed by a type of bacteria or a monkey. They use fancy scientific words to give an explanation to all. Science is a great help for man. But I think it lacks some sense and meaning.

Then they think that us, well, me, that we are simple minded. It's not that. I have a great respect for science. But their theories are very exagerating.

Um, they don't just make this stuff up. The nature of science is such that they have to really provide a load of undeniable proof when making a fairly outrageous claim, because if they don't they'll be torn to shreds by fellow scientists. There IS a check and balance system there.

A lot of people far, far more educated than you and I have put a hell of a lot of work into figuring out our genetic makeup. If as many scientists as there are, true proper scientists not sponsored by churches tell me that I share 99% of my DNA with the ape, then back it up with years and years worth of research, I'll believe them. I mean, look at prehistoric man. Then look at the chimpanzee. There are so many similarities there, from behaviour to physiology.

Science does have sense and meaning. Just because we lamens don't understand the Latin they use to name things (that are un-nameable in english) does not mean science is meaningless, nor does it mean they are the big kids on the block trying to make us little people feel dumb. Science's purpose is in fact to give meaning to the universe. It is also a process, one that will never be complete due to humanity's nack for discovery :)

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 04:01
OK, what I'm about to say is something very unlady like. I'm sorry.

What a load of croc. Humans being developed by a type of bacteria or a monkey. They use fancy scientific words to give an explanation to all. Science is a great help for man. But I think it lacks some sense and meaning.

Then they think that us, well, me, that we are simple minded. It's not that. I have a great respect for science. But their theories are very exagerating.

:tmb:

I like the way one of my professors put it: God created the Earth, and after the thousands of millions of years it changed and finally became ready for human life, He put us there on Earth.

Hack
18-01-08, 04:03
:tmb:

I like the way one of my professors put it: God created the Earth, and after the thousands of millions of years it changed and finally became ready for human life, He put us there on Earth.

Does your professor have any evidence for that?

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 04:05
Does your professor have any evidence for that?

He has as much evidence as you have for "evolution."

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 04:06
Does your professor have any evidence for that?

No, but faith doesn't necessarily need evidence. I know I'm not going to 'convert' anyone today, nor will I be 'converted' :p

I've been on both sides of the road. I was raised in a Christian household, an when I was in my early teens and we were studying different religions in school, I began to wonder: "If all these people from all these religions each believe that theirs is the one true religion, then who is right? Who can be right?" I'll admit I didn't have exactly stellar logic at 12.

For a while I was an atheist and felt like I "had it all figured out". Who really believed some old man lived in the sky writing down all our sins in some golden book? Preposterous!

Eventually different things started to sway me back to believing in God again. Basically, it got harder to look around me and think that all life was just a fluke, a product of chance, or to think that love was just electrical pulses firing off in our synapses. At times my faith begins to waiver when I can't always defend God against the arguments of atheism, but also it's more difficult than ever to completely throw out the possibility that there is a Creator/ Higher Being, even with scores of convincing arguments from theists and atheists.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:07
Does your professor have any evidence for that?

Have you ever been outside? Feel the air? Watch the trees and plants? Us humans? There's your evidence.

Encore
18-01-08, 04:10
OK, what I'm about to say is something very unlady like. I'm sorry.

What a load of croc. Humans being developed by a type of bacteria or a monkey. They use fancy scientific words to give an explanation to all. Science is a great help for man. But I think it lacks some sense and meaning.

Then they think that us, well, me, that we are simple minded. It's not that. I have a great respect for science. But their theories are very exagerating.

Look, you have to understand that science is based on the more fundamental laws of the universe, like mathematics and physics. These are the laws that make the Universe function. Any permise that isn't fully compatible with these laws is refuted by Science. Just because YOU don't understand mathematics or physics doesn't mean it's not "right".

Like I said in a previous post, have you ever been to the moon or to mars or have you ever seen with your own two eyes, that the earth moves around the Sun? Nope. Yet you probably think all these other planets and sattelites do exist and the earth does move around the sun. Why is that? Because it seems more "acceptable" to your personal beliefs? You can't single out the science that you think "acceptable" because all science is based on the same principles: scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).

And just so you know, one of the most uncompreensible (for the common people) parts of physics - quantum mechanics - is the basis of modern electronics, including the computer you're working in. ;)


PARANOIA, You didn't even read my post as replied to yours and you go on about evolution not having valid proof.

Hack
18-01-08, 04:12
Have you ever been outside? Feel the air? Watch the trees and plants? Us humans? There's your evidence.

Thats all evidence that stuff exists. Fine, stuff exists. We already know that.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 04:18
PARANOIA, You didn't even read my post as replied to yours and you go on about evolution not having valid proof.

I only said that evolution has as much proof as creationism and intelligent design. Therefore there is no tried and true law.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:20
I know, it's weird. Didn't they say like we share 98% of monkeys chromosomes?

The chromosome count between humans and chimps are different, though slight. I believe there's only a 3 point difference or less, something like that.

However, no matter how much something breeds and no matter how much time passes by, chromosome count never changes. If there is chromosome count changes, for example, people with down syndrome (or some disease like that), they are fertile. Therefore, it's simply impossible for chimps, over time, to develop into a human being. The chromosome count would have had to change through time, and that just does not happen. As stated before, in the only cases that it does, the individual, or creature, is fertile.

I studied evolution in college very thoroughly in multiple classes. It was taught as fact, rather than theory. I don't disprove it because it is unknown to me, I disprove it because it doesn't make sense to me.

One reason in particular being the second law of Thermodynamics. All matter, over time, deteriorates, as opposed to becoming more complex over time with the evolution theory.

Another big reason is probability. It's just impossible, really.

But I won't get into too much details, I just figured I'd scratch the curface. :p

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:20
No, but faith doesn't necessarily need evidence. I know I'm not going to 'convert' anyone today, nor will I be 'converted' :p

And there you have it. Debates regarding evolution always inevitably come down to faith vs science.

I wonder how heated this thread will become?

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:22
Evolution requires faith to believe in... how can it be proven that something came from nothing? It simply can't.

Being a Christian isn't the only thing that requires faith you know. :p

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 04:24
Evolution requires faith to believe in

Exactly. Evolution is inductive reasoning.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:26
Look, you have to understand that science is based on the more fundamental laws of the universe, like mathematics and physics. These are the laws that make the Universe function. Any permise that isn't fully compatible with these laws is refuted by Science. Just because YOU don't understand mathematics or physics doesn't mean it's not "right".

HA, no no no no no no. I understand it prefectly. Been there. Done that.

Precisely is why I say their explanations of evolution is way off. Because I prefectly understand it. That's why I am not totally agreed with it. Their exagerations of the evolution of on how the laws is what makes the Universe function is bull. Their are no laws and no explanations. I believe in creation. Not Evolution.

But I didn't came her to convert anyone. And sure as hell I didn't came here to be insulted. I know more than you think. Math and science is something that I do and love. But I don't let eat my brain with explanations of evolution that there HAS to be an explantion to EVERYTHING.

It's complicating more things. When it's really, very, very simple.

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:30
Evolution requires faith to believe in... how can it be proven that something came from nothing? It simply can't.

Being a Christian isn't the only thing that requires faith you know. :p

Perhaps I should rephrase.

Debates regarding evolution on the internet, rather than between those who have dedicated years worth of study to the subject, inevitably comes down to religious faith versus science and sciencific faith, which are still at opposite ends of the scale.

Closer now? Look how much you made me type out :ton:

How can it be proven that a consciousness, which some call God, made the earth and put us here? It simply can't.

I guess the thing is, you can have faith in a scientific theory, but sooner or later YOU ARE going to require proof to back it up or disprove it. Like I said, it's the nature of science. Religious faith, e.g. creationism, only requires a personal willingness to believe. The beauty they see when they look outside is all the proof they need.

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 04:30
I wonder how heated this thread will become?

It could get a bit toasty here.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 04:32
How can it be proven that a consciousness, which some call God, made the earth and put us here? It simply can't.

The mere fact that the Earth is so perfectly organized goes to show that a random event, i.e. the "Big Bang", couldn't simply have happened.

Encore
18-01-08, 04:33
HA, no no no no no no. I understand it prefectly. Been there. Done that.

Precisely is why I say their explanations of evolution is way off. Because I prefectly understand it. That's why I am not totally agreed with it. Their exagerations of the evolution of on how the laws is what makes the Universe function is bull. Their are no laws and no explanations. I believe in creation. Not Evolution.

But I didn't came her to convert anyone. And sure as hell I didn't came here to be insulted. I know more than you think. Math and science is something that I do and love. But I don't let eat my brain with explanations of evolution that there HAS to be an explantion to EVERYTHING.

It's complicating more things. When it's really, very, very simple.

It's a bit diferent when someone says I don't believe in evolution because I believe in God. God's existance and work can't possibly ever be proved so the discussion ends there because I can't prove anything against someone who takes only the value of faith.
It's completely diferent when someone says I don't believe in evolution because it's makes no sense to me. This is why I have trouble settling with.


I only said that evolution has as much proof as creationism and intelligent design. Therefore there is no tried and true law.

So far, the theory of evolution is the only theory that has come close to explain how life works on earth, and that fits perfectly with what is known about biology, chemistry, etc.

You can't possibly claim it's got as much evidence as creationism, since creationism has NO evidence at all, and in fact, most religious people will never search for evidence to suport their belief because it's just that - a belief. Faith again.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:33
Evolution requires faith to believe in... how can it be proven that something came from nothing? It simply can't.

Being a Christian isn't the only thing that requires faith you know. :p

That's the same kind of question I ask. Let's say that the world started with a bacteria. Who created that bacteria. I mean some one must've created. Maybe it was an alien. OK, who created that alien :p. I think Melonie knows the answer :p.

It's like the egg and the chicken. Which one came first.

Hack
18-01-08, 04:34
The mere fact that the Earth is so perfectly organized goes to show that a random event, i.e. the "Big Bang", couldn't simply have happened.

Emmm no.

The organisation of the Earth can be explained by the known laws of physics.

PARANOIA
18-01-08, 04:34
So far, the theory of evolution is the only theory that has come close to explain how life works on earth, and that fits perfectly with what is known about biology, chemistry, etc.But it's still a theory.

And I didn't endorse creationism. Read my bloody posts again.

The organisation of the Earth can be explained by the known laws of physics.

:vlol:

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:36
Emmm no.

The organisation of the Earth can be explained by the known laws of physics.

Explain how the big band started. Don't tell me what it is - I already know. Just give me proof with the laws of physics that monkeys had a really bad gass and exploded hence the big bang.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 04:37
That's the same kind of question I ask. Let's say that the world started with a bacteria. Who created that bacteria. I mean some one must've created. Maybe it was an alien. OK, who created that alien :p. I think Melonie knows the answer :p.

It's like the egg and the chicken. Which one came first.

I'd like to know an atheist's answer to that question. How do you go from molecules and rocks to sentient beings?

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:41
The mere fact that the Earth is so perfectly organized goes to show that a random event, i.e. the "Big Bang", couldn't simply have happened.

The universe and everything in it is older than we can comprehend. Oh, we can put a number on it, but we can't comprehend it. What we do know is this; nothing, but nothing appeared in the universe 'perfectly organised'. It has taken a lot of years for it to get this way.

The big bang couldn't have been random. There would have been many, many factors involved beforehand, which eventually determined the event itself and it's consequences. There is no such thing as random.

Who created that bacteria.

Okay. Who created God?

Encore
18-01-08, 04:41
That's the same kind of question I ask. Let's say that the world started with a bacteria. Who created that bacteria. I mean some one must've created. Maybe it was an alien. OK, who created that alien :p. I think Melonie knows the answer :p.

It's like the egg and the chicken. Which one came first.

Bacteria are formed from combinations of very basic molecules which are made from atoms. All atoms (In fact all matter) are the same all over the universe and were created during the big bang.

Just so we're clear here, I do believe in God or a divine force. I find it perfectly acceptable that God might be behind this big bang. It's just that I'm not a Christian and I noticed it's mostly christians, jews or muslims who have trouble accepting evolution and science. It's because of this limited notion of God as a human-like being, only omnipotent. If you were more open minded in your beliefs you might accept that a divine force of creation is completely compatible with big bang theory, evolution theory, physics, mathematics and whatever.

[note: about the 3 main religions, I have noticed a branch of judaism, the kabbalah, is much more compatible with basic principles of physics and science than the others]

Hack
18-01-08, 04:42
Explain how the big band started. Don't tell me what it is - I already know. Just give me proof with the laws of physics that monkeys had a really bad gass and exploded hence the big bang.

Nobody knows how the big bang started, but based on what we can see and measure, It looks like all matter in the universe expanded from a single point 13.7 billion years ago. Better instruments will allow us to get a better idea of how it began, but we're stuck with what we can observe atm.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:43
The big bang couldn't have been random. There would have been many, many factors involved beforehand, which eventually determined the event itself and it's consequences. There is no such thing as random.

Where's the evidence that the big bang was not random?

Encore
18-01-08, 04:45
I'd like to know an atheist's answer to that question. How do you go from molecules and rocks to sentient beings?

What do you consider a sentient being? You mean conscience of self? Reason? Evolution might explain that. For our survival we need more information than what is possible to store genetically. The rest we store in our brains - we learn from our parents. The evolution of the brain (briefly mentioned by CAISACO in the original post) was such that eventually conscience arrives, emotions, and reason, etc.

Actually the size of our brains alone is another huge evidence of this.

Ps. I'm not an atheist. ;)

SamReeves
18-01-08, 04:45
OK, what I'm about to say is something very unlady like. I'm sorry.

What a load of croc. Humans being developed by a type of bacteria or a monkey. They use fancy scientific words to give an explanation to all. Science is a great help for man. But I think it lacks some sense and meaning.

Then they think that us, well, me, that we are simple minded. It's not that. I have a great respect for science. But their theories are very exagerating.

My thoughts are similar to this too.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you evolution:

http://i7.************/8azucdf.jpg

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:46
Okay. Who created God?

God is a supernatural being. Bacteria isn't. Or is it? :mis: :p

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:47
Where's the evidence that the big bang was not random?

Where's the evidence that it was?

God is a supernatural being. Bacteria isn't. Or is it? :mis: :p

Lol. Ghost bacteria.

Anyway, I used God there as 'whoever created the bacteria'. If bacteria was created, than so was whoever created it. My point was this: how can someone who simply accepts the existence of one thing (like a certain supernatural being) without questioning its origins demand so harshly an explanation of the origins of something else and then, in the absence of a concrete answer, say 'well then my favourite supernatural being must have created it.'

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:48
Bacteria are formed from combinations of very basic molecules which are made from atoms. All atoms (In fact all matter) are the same all over the universe and were created during the big bang.

Just so we're clear here, I do believe in God or a divine force. I find it perfectly acceptable that God might be behind this big bang. It's just that I'm not a Christian and I noticed it's mostly christians, jews or muslims who have trouble accepting evolution and science. It's because of this limited notion of God as a human-like being, only omnipotent. If you were more open minded in your beliefs you might accept that a divine force of creation is completely compatible with big bang theory, evolution theory, physics, mathematics and whatever.

[note: about the 3 main religions, I have noticed a branch of judaism, the kabbalah, is much more compatible with basic principles of physics and science than the others]

Wrong. My beliefs is one thing. I just don't let science get in the way of my beliefs. I know the Big Bang Theory, I have read it and studied. My question was to where and what created the Big Bang. Someone must've created. Things don't form out of nowhere.

All explanations are good and dandy, but there has to be a source from a source from a source from a source...You get the idea.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:49
Well for something coming from nothing sounds pretty random to me.

Hack
18-01-08, 04:51
Wrong. My beliefs is one thing. I just don't let science get in the way of my beliefs. I know the Big Bang Theory, I have read it and studied. My question was to where and what created the Big Bang. Someone must've created. Things don't form out of nowhere.

All explanations are good and dandy, but there has to be a source from a source from a source from a source...You get the idea.


Apparently God comes out of nowhere, so I don't understand why the Universe can't either!

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 04:52
God didn't came out of nowhere. He came from a bacteria :p.

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:53
Well for something coming from nothing sounds pretty random to me.

What's your favoured theory? :)

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 04:54
Regarding...?

Hack
18-01-08, 04:54
God didn't came out of nowhere. He came from a bacteria :p.

I thought God created the bacteria, If I'm to believe what you're saying.

Encore
18-01-08, 04:54
The thread is suposed to be about evolution and I have presented many plausible explanations for all the doubts posted here, but I got absolutely NO alternative explanations to contradict mine. For example, how does creationism explain the heike crabs I have mentioned, or the sizes and constitution of our brains?

Instead the thread diverted into the favourite area of science-bashers: you can't prove how the Universe started so you are wrong about everything else.

It gets pretty tiresome to be ignored so blatantly.

Librarian
18-01-08, 04:56
Regarding...?

The big bang. Do you believe it was a random happening? That God or a consiousness was behind it?

Edit: Or rather, the creation of the universe.

Carbonek_0051
18-01-08, 04:59
Mod.Edit: http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=116425




Omg Ewwwww!:yik::vlol:

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:00
The thread is suposed to be about evolution and I have presented many plausible explanations for all the doubts posted here, but I got absolutely NO alternative explanations to contradict mine. For example, how does creationism explain the heike crabs I have mentioned, or the sizes and constitution of our brains?

Instead the thread diverted into the favourite area of science-bashers: you can't prove how the Universe started so you are wrong about everything else.

It gets pretty tiresome to be ignored so blatantly.

Dude, first of all, you're not being ignored. Have you read any of my posts? :p

Second, I believe Caisaco asked if you believe in this evolution theory. So this thread isn't exactly of only evolution.

I think you need to be more open minded as well. I very well know your theories, the laws of physics, etc. But don't complicate things! Not all HAS to have an explantion.

We're here. That's all that matters. We are a creation that made us each one unique. Monkeys didn't do it. Bacteria. Aliens. Or ET.

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:00
Evolution explains everything so beautifully for me.

But it's still a theory.

So is gravity ;)

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:01
Of course monkeys didn't do it. Science did it :mis:

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:02
The big bang. Do you believe it was a random happening? That God or a consiousness was behind it?

Edit: Or rather, the creation of the universe.

to me at least it makes more sense that an unmoved mover, or God(eternal, no beginning or end, omniscient, omni benevolent), created the universe, instead of everything being created by a big bang out of nowhere and nothing.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:02
I don't believe in the big bang theory, period.

However, if I were convinced of the theory, I would believe God was behind it all as opposed to randomness.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:03
Here's a challenging question :p.

What was first? The egg or the chicken.

SamReeves
18-01-08, 05:04
The only bang I believe in involves a man and a woman. :D

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:05
What was first? The egg or the chicken.

Chicken. God made it. :p

CAISACO
18-01-08, 05:05
Here's a challenging question :p.

What was first? The egg or the chicken.

:vlol: I hate that question! It makes me wonder for hours. Thanks :pi:

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:07
If everything boils down to atoms anyway, how can you create life in a lab using 'raw materials'?

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:08
Chicken. God made it. :p

Oh, no, Melonie :p. You are sooo simple minded, girl. *snap* *snap* It was created by a bacteria made form an atom made form a monkey's poo made from a monkey made from E.T :p.

DREWY
18-01-08, 05:10
No, I believe in creation. :)

Everything in nature evolves and transforms over time. We humans are a part of nature. So yes, evolution definetly ;)


Whether you belive in creation or not, as GOL says, everything evolves. At least to a certain extent.
Whether all life evolved from pond scum is another thing altogether. I personally find that hard to believe. (then I look around, and hmmm....)

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:12
If everything boils down to atoms anyway, how can you create life in a lab using 'raw materials'?

True. :tmb:

ROFL @ Mina! :vlol:

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:12
to me at least it makes more sense that an unmoved mover, or God(eternal, no beginning or end, omniscient, omni benevolent), created the universe, instead of everything being created by a big bang out of nowhere and nothing.

I don't understand. How can you believe in an eternal God? If you believe that something like the universe was created, than why wasn't God created too?

I don't know. It's like humans are doing what they've always done when they don't know and understand something - pointing and crying "It must be magic!"

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 05:12
I find it amusing how people will argue their viewpoints as the only possible viewpoint when it reality, no one knows the truth. We're still very limited in our ability to comprehend the complexities of life. We strive for this currently unattainable goal, some of us even assume that either what we see is what we get or that a higher power is responsible. Believe what you want but in the end, no one knows. Not yet at any rate. That's just my opinion and in no way assume this as fact. :wve:

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:14
If everything boils down to atoms anyway, how can you create life in a lab using 'raw materials'?

We're not advanced enough to do that at the moment, but scientists have shown that amino acids and DNA bases naturally form under the conditions that we think were on Earth when life started.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

Hack
18-01-08, 05:16
If everything boils down to atoms anyway, how can you create life in a lab using 'raw materials'?

Isn't that self explanatory?

Because everything is made out of atoms that function a certain way, you can create life out of those raw material in a lab.

Polio can be made from "raw materials" for example

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-12-2002-22252.asp

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:18
Can you make a person in a lab? Or a universe? :p

Hack
18-01-08, 05:21
Can you make a person in a lab? Or a universe? :p

Eventually, yes!

All that makes a human being comes from one cell with right genes nurtured in the mother's womb.

Once the technology become advanced enough, I've no doubt that creating a human in lab would be possible.

Its almost possible to grow entire organs in a lab now.

The Universe can't be likely created in a lab because we are part of the Universe, however experiments at CERN with the Large Hadron Colider are going to recreate the conditions that existed during the Big Bang.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:22
LOL.

I'm with Mr. Burns. I know I'm exagerating it's because I tend to be very, very silly. But doesn't make me narrow minded.

I just see it all very simple. Like I said, I'm not here to convert anyone with my beliefs. I'll just say this in more general terms.

We are here. That is all that matters. No one knows for sure. As in my beliefs, I do believe God created all of us in such uniqueness that is perfect. That's very clear to me.

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:22
Can you make a person in a lab? Or a universe? :p

Wait a minute. I thought you didn't want us to create people in labs :whi:

Anyhow, I'm sure it's possible to clone someone. You were probably asking if scientists could take a bucket of atoms and make a person, though, in which case the answer is no because it took millions and millions of years to get from atoms to people the natural way.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:24
Wait a minute. I thought you didn't want us to create people in labs :whi:

Anyhow, I'm sure it's possible to clone someone. You were probably asking if scientists could take a bucket of atoms and make a person, though, in which case the answer is no because it took millions and millions of years to get from atoms to people the natural way.

Clone, possible. Create from nothing? You tell me. :p

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:26
Clone, possible. Create from nothing? You tell me. :p

It's not creating from nothing if we're starting with atoms :p I'm sure it's theoretically possible to build a person out of atoms. People just aren't smart enough to do it yet (assuming they'd even want to do it for ethical reasons).

Hack
18-01-08, 05:27
Clone, possible. Create from nothing? You tell me. :p

They created the polio virus from its basic bulding block chemicals. Creating a human would be pretty much the same, just more complex.

As technology and scientific understanding become more advanced, creating a human from atoms shouldn't be a problem.

Its not from nothing, its from the atoms.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:29
They created the polio virus from its basic bulding block chemicals. Creating a human would be pretty much the same, just more complex.

As technology and scientific understanding become more advanced, creating a human from atoms shouldn't be a problem.

Its not from nothing, its from the atoms.

Interesting...does a virus count as a living thing, though?

SamReeves
18-01-08, 05:29
OMG…you create human beings from human copulation. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that. :rolleyes:

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:29
Who are they to play God? :eek:

*rolls out*

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:29
It's not creating from nothing if we're starting with atoms :p I'm sure it's theoretically possible to build a person out of atoms. People just aren't smart enough to do it yet (assuming they'd even want to do it for ethical reasons).

Yeah, we probably have a lot more "evolving" to do before that ever happens, right? ;) :p

BTW, this is all in good fun, I'm not picking on anyone. :p :vlol:

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:31
I did a quick search about evolution of the eye and I found a description of one possible way the human eye could have evolved :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Interesting...does a virus count as a living thing, though?

Technically no since it doesn't take in nutrients.

OMG…you create human beings from human copulation. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that. :rolleyes:

And yet so many people make an exception to that rule for Jesus :whi: (Sorry, it just seemed like a perfect set-up for that comment :o)

Who are they to play God? :eek:

*rolls out*

Which is why I said we shouldn't for ethical reasons (sorry I didn't say that more clearly :o)

Yeah, we probably have a lot more "evolving" to do before that ever happens, right? ;) :p

I suppose :p

BTW, this is all in good fun, I'm not picking on anyone. :p :vlol:

Yeah, this is fun :D

Hack
18-01-08, 05:32
Interesting...does a virus count as a living thing, though?

Its made of the same building block as us, and like all other living things it has a mechanism to replicate itself. It has a genetic code etc.

Whether its a life form is still beside the point. Its made from the same building block as us, therefore you can apply the same principle to create any lifeform from its basic constituents. Its merely a matter of technological know how.

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:33
Who are they to play God? :eek:

*rolls out*

Who, the humans copulating? :p

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:33
Also...while a scientist can make 'life' in a lab from amino acids and whatnot, God created all things from nothing.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:33
This kind of explanation reminds me of Jurassic Park. BTW, I'm just having fun as well :p.

Hack
18-01-08, 05:34
Also...while a scientist can make 'life' in a lab from amino acids and whatnot, God created all things from nothing.

How did he manage that? Where did God come from?

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:36
How did he manage that? Where did God come from?

He didn't come from anything because He is eternal.

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:38
Also...while a scientist can make 'life' in a lab from amino acids and whatnot, God created all things from nothing.

Scientists are trying to understand how the universe works. They're not in a competition with God to see who could do the most creating :vlol:

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:38
He didn't come from anything because He is eternal.

Amen.

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:38
He didn't come from anything because He is eternal.

That's the kind of logic I don't get. How can you say God is eternal, yet disbelieve the universe could have been created in a set of circumstances not yet known to us, thereby explaining it away as 'God did it'?

I hope I don't sound insulting; I'm just trying to get into the head of 'believers'. I've never been able to comprehend where you people are coming from :o

DREWY
18-01-08, 05:38
How did he manage that? Where did God come from?


Until you can truely say you understand infinity, you will never be able to answer that question. The fact that you asked it, shows you don't.
(I don't either if thats any consolation.)

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:39
That's the kind of logic I don't get. How can you say God is eternal, yet disbelieve the universe could have been created in a set of circumstances not yet known to us, thereby explaining it away as 'God did it'?

I hope I don't sound insulting; I'm just trying to get into the head of 'believers'. I've never been able to comprehend where you people are coming from :o

Simply put, the universe has a beginning and an end. God doesn't.

Hack
18-01-08, 05:39
He didn't come from anything because He is eternal.

Yet the universe coming from nothing is unimaginable?

I'm just going to say that the Universe is eternal, therefore it doesn't come from anything. I've alot of evidence the Universe exists, but I've never seen any that a God exists.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:41
I've alot of evidence the Universe exists, but I've never seen any that a God exists.

Simply put. He is like the air. You can't see it, but you feel it.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:42
Quasimodo, you're very intelligent. :tmb:

Hack, the Universe should be proof enough that God exist.

We see paintings and know that someone painted it. We see buildings and know that someone built it. We see creation and know that it appeared from nothing? Not quite. :p It's a very intriquet creation. Sounds logical to me.

Not to mention, if the universe was created from nothing, why don't we see other random happenings being created from nothing? Was that a fluke of nature that only happened once?

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:43
Yet the universe coming from nothing is unimaginable?

I'm just going to say that the Universe is eternal, therefore it doesn't come from anything. I've alot of evidence the Universe exists, but I've never seen any that a God exists.

What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang?

Quasimodo, you're very intelligent. :tmb:


Thanks :hug:

Hack
18-01-08, 05:43
Simply put. He is like the air. You can't see it, but you feel it.

How do you know that God is a he?

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:44
Until you can truely say you understand infinity, you will never be able to answer that question. The fact that you asked it, shows you don't.
(I don't either if thats any consolation.)

I hate infinity ever since one of my professors showed how it could be used to "prove" 1=2 :hea: Not to mention anything to do with infinity is counter-intuitive :(

Simply put, the universe has a beginning and an end. God doesn't.

How do you know that the universe has a beginning and an end? We only have information going back to a certain point, but there's no guarantee that point is the beginning of everything. Space and time could be a cyclic loop in which there is no beginning or end.



In any case, there is a lot of supporting evidence for evolution via natural selection. For those who believe in God, what makes you so sure that God didn't establish these wonderfully consistent rules for the universe in order to let things run their natural course without constant divine intervention?

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:45
People who have been raised to believe they feel god, feel it. Those of us who were raised on science will continue to search for answers that are more concrete than faithful.

I wish I was alive in a million years; think we will have resolved all this by then? Course, by then we'll all most definitely have evolved to be much smarter than we are now :p

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:46
In any case, there is a lot of supporting evidence for evolution via natural selection. For those who believe in God, what makes you so sure that God didn't establish these wonderfully consistent rules for the universe in order to let things run their natural course without constant divine intervention?

Some Christians do believe in this, actually. I don't, personally, but everyone has their own opinion.

danitiwa
18-01-08, 05:47
I really don't know what to beleive, but I'm glad most of us exist. :p

Hack
18-01-08, 05:47
What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang?




No one knows.

It doesn't need to have a cause using your argument. I can say that its Eternal, and thats sufficient.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:47
God is our father and creater. It's so clear that he exists. We are proof of his existence. The plants, the trees. All living things.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:47
How do you know that the universe has a beginning and an end?


If(as some might say) the big bang was the beginning of the universe, and all things which have a beginning must have an end, then the universe must have an ending because it had a beginning.

Bowie
18-01-08, 05:47
Why can't the Universe be eternal rather than God?

Scientists can more or less explain the evolution of life from nothing, to single-celled organisms, to more complex beings -- which required no less than BILLIONS AND BILLIONS!!! of years of mutation and protein-based DNA accumulation -- but they are derided for not being able to explain how the Big Bang came into being, yet we are meant to believe that AN ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX SUPERNATURAL BEING likewise came from nothing?

I'll hedge my bets and go for a tiny superdense ball of energy coming from nothing rather than some bipolar deity who wouldn't even pass a Supernatural Science test with all his supposed abominations of nature.

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:48
Say the big bang theory is wrong. Just because that one theory isn't right doesn't mean the Big Guy upstairs is responsible.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:48
If(as some might say) the big bang was the beginning of the universe, and all things which have a beginning must have an end, then the universe must have an ending because it had a beginning.

The same thing as we as human. Life and death. Same thing.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:48
People who have been raised to believe they feel god, feel it. Those of us who were raised on science will continue to search for answers that are more concrete than intuitive.


Not quite.

What about people like Kirk Cameron? He grew up an Atheist, was completely against Christianity in all forms, yet he's a Christian now and says he can feel God's presence.

I know a great deal of Christians who weren't raised Christians. The way you were raised has nothing to do with it.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 05:48
Why can't the Universe be eternal rather than God?


Scientists suggest the universe is expanding, right? Why would something with no beginning or end expand?

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:49
If(as some might say) the big bang was the beginning of the universe, and all things which have a beginning must have an end, then the universe must have an ending because it had a beginning.

Scientists suggest the universe is expanding, right? Why would something with no beginning or end expand?

Excellent points. :tmb:

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:49
Not quite.

What about people like Kirk Cameron? He grew up an Atheist, was completely against Christianity in all forms, yet he's a Christian now and says he can feel God's presence.

I know a great deal of Christians who weren't raised Christians. The way you were raised has nothing to do with it.

Fine. Take the 'raised' part out. Sentence still makes sense.

Hack
18-01-08, 05:49
God is our father and creater. It's so clear that he exists. We are proof of his existence. The plants, the trees. All living things.

How do you know that God is a man, or a singular entity?

The plants, the trees and all living things are merely proof of their own existence.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 05:51
Bleh, I need some sleep for work tomorrow.

I'll try to carry on tomorrow, I like this. :D

Librarian
18-01-08, 05:53
Bleh, I need some sleep for work tomorrow.

I'll try to carry on tomorrow, I like this. :D

Goodnight :wve:

Ward Dragon
18-01-08, 05:54
Some Christians do believe in this, actually. I don't, personally, but everyone has their own opinion.

Yes, I remembered you saying that you didn't believe in it so I was hoping to hear why you don't, if you can explain it for me. It was the explanation that made the most sense to me in reconciling God with science, so I was wondering if there's a theological reason against it that I'm not aware of. There's certainly not a scientific reason against it because there is no empirical way to test whether God created the rules of nature so it can neither be proven nor disproven.

God is our father and creater. It's so clear that he exists. We are proof of his existence. The plants, the trees. All living things.

I can just as easily look at all of the wars, the violence, the pain, the natural disasters, and the innocent suffering and come to the conclusion that God does not exist (at least not as an all-powerful and all-good being) :(

If(as some might say) the big bang was the beginning of the universe, and all things which have a beginning must have an end, then the universe must have an ending because it had a beginning.

The Big Bang wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. It just marks the point after which we have information about the universe.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:55
I feel like I'm spamming because I'm repeating the same thing over and over again. God is a he from the proof of my bible. It is my guide in life to know who God is, how is he like, what is he about. No explantions can be done. Not all has to have physical proof. My proof in the bible. My guide, my life.

Hack
18-01-08, 05:55
I can just as easily look at all of the wars, the violence, the pain, the natural disasters, and the innocent suffering and come to the conclusion that God does not exist (at least not as an all-powerful and all-good being) :(



There is a good article about that very point. :D

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20051006.htm



I feel like I'm spamming because I'm repeating the same thing over and over again. God is a he from the proof of my bible. It is my guide in life to know who God is, how is he like, what is he about. No explantions can be done. Not all has to have physical proof. My proof in the bible. My guide, my life.

The Bible says God is a he, but that's not proof.

I could say tomorrow that I'm re-incarnation of Jesus but it doesn't make it true. No-one would believe me either, and for a very good reason.

God being man does make sense when you consider that the Bible was written in a society that was dominated by men.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 05:58
I can just as easily look at all of the wars, the violence, the pain, the natural disasters, and the innocent suffering and come to the conclusion that God does not exist (at least not as an all-powerful and all-good being) :(

Erm, God didn't do that. We do - as humans. God created us to have a brain and use our common sense. The results of wars and suffereing are from men. Because we, as humans, make mistakes. Uh, that's what makes us as human.

It's silly to have an idea like that. I have people telling me if I cross the road with my eyes closed, will God come and save me from death? There, he doesn't exists. Man...

Why do you think we have a brain for?

danitiwa
18-01-08, 05:58
God is our father and creater. It's so clear that he exists. We are proof of his existence. The plants, the trees. All living things.

Mina, no offence or anything but, cool it girl. We understand you feel strongly about your religion, but you're pretty much going on about the same thing over and over again.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 06:00
Mina, no offence or anything but, cool it girl. We understand you feel strongly about your religion, but you're pretty much going on about the same thing over and over again.

Where's the indication there that I'm being hasty? lol. Every one is saying the same thing as well :). They are asking, so I'm answering.

Librarian
18-01-08, 06:01
I feel like I'm spamming because I'm repeating the same thing over and over again. God is a he from the proof of my bible. It is my guide in life to know who God is, how is he like, what is he about. No explantions can be done. Not all has to have physical proof. My proof in the bible. My guide, my life.

Yeah... the bible was written by a Roman Emperor seeking to immortalise his empire in the church. He picked and chose which ancient writings should be included. Countless kings have messed with it over the centuries to justify their own sins. It has been translated and re-interpreted a whooole lotta times.

I like that the bible is your guide, I really do. I just think that's all it should ever, ever be. The last thing people should do is take their religious texts literally, as a historical document composed of hard fact. It's a collection of stories that is meant to guide you on your spiritual path and help you when you feel lost. Literalism should never, ever come into it. <--- My personal take on religious texts.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 06:01
There is a good article about that very point. :D

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20051006.htm

God gave us free will so that we could choose to love Him. If we didn't have free will, then love wouldn't exist. The consequence of free will is that we can also choose to be wicked. What about nature, you might ask, why do people get killed in natural disasters? That's just us in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 06:04
Just to repeat my last post's point a bit less eloquently:

You all have your opinions, none of us are right, you'll never convince the other that your view is correct.

Perhaps a bit pessimistic but it's a possible truth.

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 06:04
Yeah... the bible was written by a Roman Emperor seeking to immortalise his empire in the church. He picked and chose which ancient writings should be included. Countless kings have messed with it over the centuries to justify their own sins. It has been translated and re-interpreted a whooole lotta times.

I like that the bible is your guide, I really do. I just think that's all it should ever, ever be. The last thing people should do is take their religious texts literally, as a historical document composed of hard fact. It's a collection of stories that is meant to guide you on your spiritual path and help you when you feel lost. Literalism should never, ever come into it.

That's why I have the power of free will. I don't think people are taking me seriously lol. Heather is fine, Melonie is fine. But I'm the ****ed up one. My beliefs is the same as Heather's and Melonie's.

Hack
18-01-08, 06:05
God gave us free will so that we could choose to love Him. If we didn't have free will, then love wouldn't exist. The consequence of free will is that we can also choose to be wicked. What about nature, you might ask, why do people get killed in natural disasters? That's just us in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What about cancer, genetic disorders, mentally retarded people, killer viruses. None of these have anything to do with personal morality and If god created the Universe and Life, then all of these horrible things are part of its design.

Why can't the almighty create the world free of natural disasters, or move people out of the way before they kill everyone?

rowanlim
18-01-08, 06:05
This topic is a pretty strong one...you've got the believers & the non-believers...pretty hard to keep track of the topic...I think we just have to say what we think about evolution...this is turning into a subtle bashing thread :(

Bowie
18-01-08, 06:06
God gave us free will so that we could choose to love Him. If we didn't have free will, then love wouldn't exist. The consequence of free will is that we can also choose to be wicked. What about nature, you might ask, why do people get killed in natural disasters? That's just us in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But surely God knew at least some humans would turn wicked? I mean, if it's truly "free will" then probability suggests evil deeds will be done.

So God knowingly created "evil" as you call it. But why?

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 06:07
Just to repeat my last post's point a bit less eloquently:

You all have your opinions, none of us are right, you'll never convince the other that your view is correct.

Perhaps a bit pessimistic but it's a possible truth.

a little bit of philosophical banter never hurt anyone :p

as long as we stay away from ad hominem arguments, where's the harm?

But surely God knew at least some humans would turn wicked? I mean, if it's truly "free will" then probability suggests evil deeds will be done.

So God knowingly created "evil" as you call it. But why?

That's definitely a valid question. Again I point to free will being necessary for the existence of love. The ability to love is what brings us closer to God, it is part of what makes us more than the sum of our parts.

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 06:08
This topic is a pretty strong one...you've got the believers & the non-believers...pretty hard to keep track of the topic...I think we just have to say what we think about evolution...this is turning into a subtle bashing thread :(

It's people who passionately believe in an idea or faith. In this case, no one can argue their point and win. So yea, lovely bashing thread this could be come. Let's hope it doesn't reach that point.

@Heather: No problem there. Just thought I'd put in my view point on this. :)

Librarian
18-01-08, 06:08
That's why I have the power of free will. I don't think people are taking me seriously lol. Heather is fine, Melonie is fine. But I'm the ****ed up one. My beliefs is the same as Heather's and Melonie's.

I'm taking you seriously, I absolutely do not believe you're messed up in anyway. In fact, I encourage you to hold onto your faith because I think faith is necessary to human beings. I have faith in science and hold onto my facts and figures with everything I've got. You have your God. Neither of us are in the wrong.

I simply disagree with much of what you've said, and am stating my personal opinion. That's the nature of debate :)

Hack
18-01-08, 06:10
Just to repeat my last post's point a bit less eloquently:

You all have your opinions, none of us are right, you'll never convince the other that your view is correct.

Perhaps a bit pessimistic but it's a possible truth.

I'm not sure I'm going to convince anybody of anything, but Ill give it my hardest shot.


The purpose of discussion and debate is to weed out poor arguments that are fallicious and bad. Its almost like philosophy evolves. Thats how we came from Socrates to Foucault!

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 06:12
I'm not sure I'm going to convince anybody of anything, but Ill give it my hardest shot.


The purpose of discussion and debate is to weed out poor arguments that are fallicious and bad. Its almost like philosophy evolves. Thats how we came from Socrates to Foucault!

True. This discussion has been very enjoyable and enlightening so far :tmb:

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 06:13
I'm tired of this ****. I'm just spamming here and it's not fair to the mods, to any members in here, and to myself.

I don't think God is the only one eternal, this discussion is eternal as well. Well, I decided to end it.

Good night, good bye. May God be with you.

Note: I will leave this thread NOT hating all the people contradicting my beliefs. We are all people here with different opinions. It would be sooooo boring if all of us thinks the same. I won't hate Hack because of his/hers opinions or Ward's. I hope you people feel the same.

Seriously it was interesting while it lasted. I got entertained with all of Hack's, Ward Dragon's, and Librarian's posts. As well as Melonie's and Heather's. And Dannitiwa telling me to cool it :p. Thanks for your support, BTW.

Every one, rest well :wve:.

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 06:13
The purpose of discussion and debate is to weed out poor arguments that are fallicious and bad. Its almost like philosophy evolves. Thats how we came from Socrates to Foucault!

As long as this thread stays at the current tone, I'll be happy. I've found this to be a very informative and pleasant thread to read through. :)

danitiwa
18-01-08, 06:28
Where's the indication there that I'm being hasty? lol. Every one is saying the same thing as well :). They are asking, so I'm answering.

Ok, all I'm saying is, not everyone is religious, or beleives in your god. So best not to push it on them. They have their own views. ;)

rowanlim
18-01-08, 06:52
As long as we just share our opinions & not try to convince others to accept ours, then this thread is one hell of an interesting one :tmb:

On topic, I studied Evolution as a chapter in my Pre-U Biology subject. The best example of evolution is in the Galapagos island, particularly the study on the beaks of different finches. The common ancestor was a finch from the mainland, then they started to eat different kinds of food like nectar/fruits etc, so their beaks evolve to adapt to the kind of food they ate. Other examples would be in plants like mangrove trees; they adapted to living in salty swamp water by having peculiar breeding methods, & their roots are extremely hardy to water loss.

I really love biology :)

Chiki Mina
18-01-08, 06:53
Ok, all I'm saying is, not everyone is religious, or beleives in your god. So best not to push it on them. They have their own views. ;)

That's the least thing I will do, dani. Thank you for trusting me.

Mad Tony
18-01-08, 07:16
No, I believe in creation. :)Ditto :)

Elysia
18-01-08, 07:27
Nope, I don't 'believe' in evolution - I studied it at university (Bsc Palaeobiology and Evolution).

After spending 3 years studying the subject, let us say that I cannot see any proof for creationism whatsoever, but I see evolution happening all around us. Just because it's complicated and slow doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and for man to have to assign an anthropomorphised deity (basically another version of Man) is just pure arrogance on our part. We like to think we've tamed nature - that we control it - whereas actually it is the other way around, and a lot of people can't handle that realisation. We are not the 'top of the food chain, the pinnacle, the be all and end all'; we will speciate and cease to be as a species at some point. It's happened to every species on earth throughout geological history and there's nothing to indicate that we're any different.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 07:35
Nope, I don't 'believe' in evolution - I studied it at university (Bsc Palaeobiology and Evolution).

After spending 3 years studying the subject, let us say that I cannot see any proof for creationism whatsoever, but I see evolution happening all around us. Just because it's complicated and slow doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and for man to have to assign an anthropomorphised deity (basically another version of Man) is just pure arrogance on our part. We like to think we've tamed nature - that we control it - whereas actually it is the other way around, and a lot of people can't handle that realisation. We are not the 'top of the food chain, the pinnacle, the be all and end all'; we will speciate and cease to be as a species at some point. It's happened to every species on earth throughout geological history and there's nothing to indicate that we're any different.

What would be the evolutionist's response to claims like these (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1)?

george_croft
18-01-08, 07:36
I've always been annoyed with the fact that people seem to want you to pick sides, but I believe there is something in the middle of the "evolution" and "creation" theories.

I mean, It's kinda obvious that humans and nature do evolve through time. But I get really annoyed when I hear Christians talk about how evil the evolution theory is and how god created everything. If you do believe in god, and if god really exists, I find it hard to believe he'd just take out a magic wand and create everything. He's almighty, right ? And if he can control nature, then I believe he'd do it in the most natural way possible - evolution. :wve:

Elysia
18-01-08, 07:50
What would be the evolutionist's response to claims like these (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1)?
That it's a load of sensationalist balls, obviously written to appeal to a certain audience who have only a basic grasp of the different theories? You don't see many scientists bothering with this sensationalist form of promotion, mainly because they are quite happy to beaver away and publish their papers quietly in respected scientific journals.

Darwinism isn't the be all and end all when it comes to the theory of evolution. Ironically, the theory itself changes and evolves as more is discovered - it's quite an open minded thing, really. No scientist I know has ever preached from a pulpit that Creationists must stop their good-freaing weays and embrace the 'truth' of evolution - quite honestly, most scientists have decided that if you want to believe an anthropomorphised ancient set of rules pertaining to controlling large populations of people created everything, uh, then go ahead. We'll just carry on going out into the field and digging up evidence to the contrary... :tmb:.

Like I said - man doesn't like to believe that we were created by something abstract. We have a sense of self importance that is staggering - we created a being (who is basically like ourselves) to create us for us, because we are obviously important and different, rather than face the possibility that nope, we're just the product of an abstract force, comprising of need, competition and environment.

Cochrane
18-01-08, 08:07
Evolution isn't something you believe in. It's a scientific theory you either accept or reject. There's no faith involved, you just say "Yes, this theory is a reasonable interpretation of observed data and manages to predict future behavior correctly", or you say "It has the following flaws". That's the difference between science and religion, after all.

I, personally, accept that evolution is the theory that best explains how life came to be in the state it is today.

Now, Quasimodo:
About the wingless bird: This statement is wrong, as it is well possible to have "stub wings" or something similar that provides an evolutionary advantage. See the flying squirrel for examples.

Species without a link prove evolution wrong: First of all, the particular evolution of mankind is not equivalent to evolution as a general theory. There are known gaps and the assumed evolution of mankind has been changed many times as new evidence showed the old version was wrong. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Scientific theories get altered or completely when new data proves them wrong, and that's the strength of science. As for the particular issue, many attributes in the bone structure show a lot of similarity that makes the current explanation plausible.

Single-Cell complexity: This is not relevant. Scientists haven't been able to reproduce hydrogen fission in the scale it happens in the sun either, but that does not invalidate the theory.

Human egg and sperm cell prove theory wrong: Again, this is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. Environmental changes do not get passed to the female egg. That is correct. What evolution refers to is that when the environment changes, some women will be better adapted through genetic luck. Their better genes have been with them right from their birth. When they are better adapted, that means they'll have more children, again with their genes.

DNA Error checking: The DNA has a certain amount of error-checking, but not enough to make the complete DNA stagnant. Genetic birth defects, research on genetically manipulated plants and so on all show this rather clearly.

Second law of thermodynamics: Earth is not a closed system, because it recieves energy from the sun. That means applying the second law of thermodynamics to earth is wrong.

Chromosome count: I am not an expert here, but I'd like to see the evidence that a species cannot change it's chromosome count.

Origin of matter and stars: This is not a problem the theory of evolution deals with. People who assume that evolution should deal with it only show that they do not understand evolution. Continental drift does not deal with weather, either, and is still considered correct.

Radio silence from space: That is a rather odd argument to make, because radio silence hasn't been proven. We've just not been able to pick up anything yet, which is not all that surprising, given the huge distances of space. At best, it proves that evolution to a species that uses EM fields for communications (like radio) is something that doesn't happen extremely often.

Evolution cannot explain granite: Yes, that's true, it can't. In fact, it does not even attempt to. Again, this argument only shows that whoever made it does not understand what he/she/it is talking about.

Geck-o-Lizard
18-01-08, 08:58
As far as I'm concerned, the "theory" of Creation merely attempts to explain where we came from in a way that's simple enough for simple minds to grasp and be satisfied with, with no regard to what actually happened. No offense to anyone here who does take it literally, that's just how I see it. When it was written, not many people were able to read and write, and the physical world was greatly misunderstood through simple lack of scientific development - at that same point in time, people generally believed that the Earth was flat, and the Egyptians were busy worshipping a god for pushing the sun across the sky.

So someone - whether you believe Genesis was written by Moses or various collaborative authors - saw the need to explain our origins and did so in a way that would be easy for the uneducated masses to understand, reasonable enough for them to accept, and useful to develop their awe of their God and strengthen their loyalty to their religion. The literal story of the 7-day Creation makes no sense ny more with our knowledge now of how things work. Evolution isn't just an airy-fairy idea with nothing to back it up; it's becoming as concrete as gravity. The best thing Religion could do would be to adapt, and it wouldn't be the first time it's done so to avoid losing credibility.

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 10:11
We see paintings and know that someone painted it. We see buildings and know that someone built it. We see creation and know that it appeared from nothing? Not quite. :p It's a very intriquet creation. Sounds logical to me.

Not to mention, if the universe was created from nothing, why don't we see other random happenings being created from nothing? Was that a fluke of nature that only happened once?
Whoever said we came from nothing? We just don't know where we came from. That's why I'm baffled that so many people, including members here, insist on knowing the truth. Did any of you see god create the universe? Did anybody have a front row seat when the big bang happened? No?

Personally, I think science has more reasonable answers than any religion, and above all, science doesn't pretend to know things that can't be proven. Admitting that there are questions we can't answer yet isn't a flaw or anything (that's why the 'you can't explain where the universe came from' argument is weak - it's much better to recognize a lack of knowledge than to jump to unfounded conclusions), it's in fact a strength. Evolution is a theory that all the evidence we have fits right in. We know humans didn't always look the way they do now (just go back a few thousand years - your average Roman had a totally different physique than your average Italian of today), we know birds and fishes have radically changed (with some species even leaving the water and adapting to a new, dry environment), we know cheetahs and gazelles are constantly trying to evolve in order to be able to outrun each other. Heck, ordinary dog breeding is based on evolution. Dogs with certain aesthetic or physical attributes are allowed to procreate whereas unwanted characteristics get eliminated. We simply take nature's part as selector, with our wishes replacing natural needs.

I'm a rational person. Therefore, I prefer explanations that aren't based on magic, or aliens (although I believe it's very likely that there are other planets with conditions that could've allowed life to emerge), or anything else of that kind, but simply on the evidence we have. I'm sorry, but trees and animals are no proof for any kind of supernatural forces.

McGloomy
18-01-08, 10:28
Wow, thank you for that post, Mona. Sums up my own opinion perfectly. I actually believe in fate and some higher power, but rationalism and science come first. If someone believes in Creationism, that's OK with me and I wouldn't dare to question someone's believes as long as they have no problem with mine. =)

What would be the evolutionist's response to claims like these (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1)?
This one is also interesting:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Things like that make some Creationists look arrogant and laughable... But nothing against the Creationists over here. ;)

Zac Medley
18-01-08, 10:40
I do not believe in Evilution (intentional mispelling) even though I have a Masters Degree in Paleobotany. I do believe in the creation of the world 6,000 years ago by a God who later lived among the people here as a man, Jesus Christ. Pretty amazing stuff.

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 10:49
Nothing against your beliefs, but do you feel so threatened in them that you need to mock/demonize other theories? I'd rather we could continue the discussion on rational grounds.

Reggie
18-01-08, 10:58
I think evolution shows only one part of the story. Something seems like its missing but heck, its a much better explanation than creationism could ever give and this is coming from someone open to the idea of God in some form. Just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean that I necessarily am against the idea of there being something spiritual about our world. In fact, I feel good knowing that I once came from nothing but some bacteria in some primordial pool. It makes sense to me and makes me feel like I have more of a connection with nature. So I accept the scientific explanation but I view it with in a positive spritual slant (as opposed to the usual negative slant religious people put on evolution.).

Zac Medley
18-01-08, 11:25
Nothing against your beliefs, but do you feel so threatened in them that you need to mock/demonize other theories? I'd rather we could continue the discussion on rational grounds.

I think you are projecting.

Lighten up will ya.

Archetype
18-01-08, 11:26
I believe in the 7 day creation :)

Cochrane
18-01-08, 11:33
I think you are projecting.

Lighten up will ya.

Well what is your reason for calling evolution "evilution"? I consider this a low-level (and horribly ineffective) attack, and I wonder why you see the need for this instead of a more useful discussion. Mona's guess (that you fear evolution) is as valid as any.

Reggie
18-01-08, 11:37
I think you are projecting.

Lighten up will ya.

Well what is your reason for calling evolution "evilution"? I consider this a low-level (and horribly ineffective) attack, and I wonder why you see the need for this instead of a more useful discussion. Mona's guess (that you fear evolution) is as valid as any.

I really don't feel this is an argument worth having. Zac obviously won't change his opinions and it was obviously an inflamatory remark designed to provoke a reaction. React if you must but at the cost of rational discussion in this thread like Mona has pointed out.

I'd let it go personally.

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 14:19
Each theory; Evolution or Intelligent Design both are based on Faith. At the base of ID is Creation - in which God made _______. And at Evolutions base is Abiogenesis. Given the probability of just the right chemicals coming together and spontaneously or miraculously having "Life" sparked into them... then continuing to diversify throughout many millenia... even +15 billions years (the estimated age of the Universe from the "Big Bang") is... well, that takes faith to believe that.

Why? That theory can NOT be reproduced in a Lab.

"Which theory you talking 'bout Murphy?"

Either. You can't take random things (chemicals) and throw them together and expect life to spontaneously emerge. That's what intelligent people in a Lab have tried to do before without success. And if you believe they did, why did they go through the trouble to prove that NO Intelligent being (or beings) created life.... When that's just exactly.... What. They. *Did? :mis:

Edit: Er.... *=Tried to do. :p

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-01-08, 14:21
But surely God knew at least some humans would turn wicked? I mean, if it's truly "free will" then probability suggests evil deeds will be done.

So God knowingly created "evil" as you call it. But why?


I only have a second, I have to get ready for work, but I wanted to answer this queston.

Genesis clearly states that God actually regretted ever creating people. Had it not been for the righteousness of Moses and his family, all of humanity would have been wiped out. Period.

Like Heather said, God made us with free will. We're all selfish in nature, and it doesn't help when there are outside influences (satan) that try to direct you to do wrong.

If we were made sinsless we'd be angels. Bad things happen, and in many cases, "good" people die. Though technically speaking, no one is completely good, but I'm sure you know what I mean. When you look at it from the grand scheme of things, death isn't always bad. What about people who go to heaven afterward? Is it so bad to leave a world of sin a little earlier than you normally would have and go to heaven early? Is God malicious because He lets that happen? I think not.

Not to mention, there are various theories that sometimes death is a blessing. In some cases, people die, and we don't understand why; however, lateri n life we figure out that if they had lived, their existance would have been miserable due to future circumstances. This is something to take into account as well.

Though I'm kind of veering from the evolution topic, I wanted to explain this. Carry on. :D I'll try to get back here after work.

Cochrane
18-01-08, 14:45
Each theory; Evolution or Intelligent Design both are based on Faith. At the base of ID is Creation - in which God made _______. And at Evolutions base is Abiogenesis. Given the probability of just the right chemicals coming together and spontaneously or miraculously having "Life" sparked into them... then continuing to diversify throughout many millenia... even +15 billions years (the estimated age of the Universe from the "Big Bang") is... well, that takes faith to believe that.

Why? That theory can NOT be reproduced in a Lab.

"Which theory you talking 'bout Murphy?"

Either. You can't take random things (chemicals) and throw them together and expect life to spontaneously emerge. That's what intelligent people in a Lab have tried to do before without success. And if you believe they did, why did they go through the trouble to prove that NO Intelligent being (or beings) created life.... When that's just exactly.... What. They. *Did? :mis:

Edit: Er.... *=Tried to do. :p

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Evolution, or for that matter, science in general, does not require faith. On the other hand, it also does not claim to be perfect or have all the answers. Evolution can, according to the generally accepted view of scientists about any theory, not be "true". The best evolution can hope to be is to be the theory that best explains all observed properties of what it tries to describe (which is, for example, not the Big Bang. Really.) while at the same time not contradicting factual evidence. So to accept or reject evolution, you have to see whether it fullfills these points for you or it doesn't. Faith is not needed.

Reproducing anything in experiments is not needed for any theory. Humanity hasn't reproduced continental drift either, and still it's a valid theory. The scientific value of experiments is that a theory can predict how an experiment will turn out, so this experiment can be used to verify if the theory is correct or not. Evolution does not state life happened in circumstances that can be reproduced in a laboratory. People try it anyway because it would further validate the theory if they managed to, but the theory does not give any particular instructions how to do so.

Edit: Something just occured to me: Abiogenesis isn't at the heart of evolution. It's related, but not the same. While I personally think it's the best theory, it is also possible to assume evolution happened, but the original "spark of live" came from Other Sources™ such as one or multiple gods.

Benguitar
18-01-08, 14:46
no.

Endow
18-01-08, 14:56
When, exactly? Ancient Greek (rudimentary) science already had concluded that the earth was probably round.

You're confusing scientific evidence with common sense. Sometimes common sense, as in, believing only in your eyes, is deceiving- like the notion that earth has to be flat since we can't see any proof of its roundness when you look around in a plain. Or that the earth stands still because we watch the sun move everyday.

This is the only "proof" the majority of the people needed - bear in mind this was before there was even such a thing as the scientific method.

Actually if I were to use my common sense in order to evaluate the situation I would come to the conclusion that since I don't see New York when I look across the Atlantic then something was wrong. (what I mean by this is that if the world was flat you were bound to see other cities and edifices on the horizon).

As for who believed in a flat Earth, even after Aristotle and other people first "proved" it, most people still thought of it as flat until much later on.

I could argue that until Newton said "F = ma" people like Aristotle had no real explanation for why people living in the south didn't "fall" and that that alone was "proof" enough for any scientist that believe in the flat Earth concept.

The scientific method is not bullet-proof and proofs are subjective and relative to the time and knowledge of a certain era. People weren't stupid for believing in a flat Earth; at the time all "scientific proof" backed it up.

If I look in all the wrong places for an answer despite using the scientific method my conclusions could end up being wrong. If I have not discovered "gravity" yet than all my previous assumptions and testes concerning kinematics might prove all wrong. Yet that doesn't mean I wasn't a qualified scientist using sound principles at the time of my observations ... it just means I'm missing important data.

What I have proved today might be disproved tomorrow in the light of new information.


Semi-related : Take for example "Man landing on the Moon" back in 1969. Some people still don't want to believe in it. Should they be laughed at for that? The fact is, all the "proof" we have thus far is a recording that could well be an hoax. Who knows for sure? I know I don't.


Then there's another important aspect. Investigating the past can be a lot more difficult than explaining stuff that you can see happening in the present.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 15:42
I'm a rational person. Therefore, I prefer explanations that aren't based on magic, or aliens (although I believe it's very likely that there are other planets with conditions that could've allowed life to emerge), or anything else of that kind, but simply on the evidence we have. I'm sorry, but trees and animals are no proof for any kind of supernatural forces.

Rationally, where does matter come from?

(BTW: thanks to those who replied to the bird mutation theory)

Hack
18-01-08, 15:43
I'm tired of this ****. I'm just spamming here and it's not fair to the mods, to any members in here, and to myself.

I don't think God is the only one eternal, this discussion is eternal as well. Well, I decided to end it.

Good night, good bye. May God be with you.

Note: I will leave this thread NOT hating all the people contradicting my beliefs. We are all people here with different opinions. It would be sooooo boring if all of us thinks the same. I won't hate Hack because of his/hers opinions or Ward's. I hope you people feel the same.

Seriously it was interesting while it lasted. I got entertained with all of Hack's, Ward Dragon's, and Librarian's posts. As well as Melonie's and Heather's. And Dannitiwa telling me to cool it :p. Thanks for your support, BTW.

Every one, rest well :wve:.


I wouldn't like you think I hate yah, This has been a great discussion so far.

Mods, I think we need a poll. :D

Do you believe in :

A) Evolution
B) Creationism
C) Intelligent Design
D) Malignant Design
E) A Mix of these

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 15:44
It is known to be an "Inhouse debate" on whether or not all living things were created during the time of creation... or a few living things were created, then evolved in to a variety of different... species(?).

Like, Birds were created. Then, through evolution, you get different species like Owls, Hawks, Ostriches.... Or maybe not that wide of a range. Maybe more like Robins, Blue-jays, Cardinals, Finches, Sparrows... They'd all have a common ancestor. This is a rough example.

I'm more prone to believe ^this. Not... Something like from (tadpole like) creatures would be the ancestors of Elephants or Hippos. Because of so called "mutations". Like whenever the first "bud" of a limb came to be through a Mutation. If it wasn't beneficial it would have been phased out through generatoins of breeding and/or the very very few animals that had that or similar "mutations" would have died out anyway (wouldn't have had a chance to breed because of their 'typically' negative defect).

Hack
18-01-08, 15:51
Vestigial body parts aren't neccesarily a huge disadvantage.

We all have an Appendix which is the useless remnant of an Organ that we used to have.

Humans have the remnants of a tail aswell at the base of the spine.

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 15:57
I'm a rational person. Therefore, I prefer explanations that aren't based on magic, or aliens (although I believe it's very likely that there are other planets with conditions that could've allowed life to emerge), or anything else of that kind, but simply on the evidence we have. I'm sorry, but trees and animals are no proof for any kind of supernatural forces.
Submitted for your approval. (http://evolutionoftruth.com/) :pi:

In nature there are patterns. Seeing a consistant pattern in any object would infer that an intelligent being or process was responsible for it's design.

I'd like for anyone to see what that site has to say. It has some very interesting information. :)

ThomasCroft
18-01-08, 15:57
I believe in evolution, yes.

What I think is really interesting is the reaction of fundamentalists to the idea of evolution. You only have to look at the Monkey Trial with Sacco and Vanzetti to see the extreme friction it has caused throughout history.

Angel_14
18-01-08, 16:11
The 'Humans came from monkeys' stuff people believe is not true. Darwin didn't say that humans came from monkeys. He said that the monkeys and the humans have a collective forbear which evolved into not one, but two beings. One of them are the monkeys you see in the Zoo, the other one is the human. So, today's humans are not the exact descendant of the chimpanzees or any kind of monkey, just like you're not an exact relative of your cousin. You both came from the same grandparent, but you're still very, very different.

But, anyway... I believe in evolution. I've been reading a lot about it lately.

Hack
18-01-08, 16:11
I'm really suprised by the amount of people here who believe in ID/Creationism.

Kerrigan
18-01-08, 16:15
Yes, there is serious evidence that evolution takes place.I was educated to believe in it rather than in creationism, and I find it far more easy to believe anything based on scientific facts.Though I still don't think it is in complete contradiction with creationism, which also suggests a gradual process of creation.I like to think it hints evolution.

hera7days
18-01-08, 16:19
Do I believe in evolution? Well, not long ago, I was trying to convince my mom I should get a Darwin fish tattoo, does that answer your question? :D

Anywho, there's not much I have to say on the subject that either hasn't already been said, so I'll just head on out. I did find on various sites the basic idea of how an eye could be formed through evolution. I thought it was interesting. It started with light sensitive cells, allowing a creature to distinguish between light and shadow, and then... okay after that, I forget the rest. Science never was my forte. :o

ThomasCroft
18-01-08, 16:22
The 'Humans came from monkeys' stuff people believe is not true. Darwin didn't say that humans came from monkeys. He said that the monkeys and the humans have a collective forbear which evolved into not one, but two beings. One of them are the monkeys you see in the Zoo, the other one is the human. So, today's humans are not the exact descendant of the chimpanzees or any kind of monkey, just like you're not an exact relative of your cousin. You both came from the same grandparent, but you're still very, very different.

:tmb:

tampi
18-01-08, 16:22
I have many doubts on evolution and simple Darwin theories :confused:
It is a ladder to which lacks many rungs and essential steps to full explanation are just "sketches" of reality.

silver_wolf
18-01-08, 16:27
nope, don't believe in it. There are many flaws in the theory, and there's a lot of things that it can't explain.

ThomasCroft
18-01-08, 16:35
nope, don't believe in it. There are many flaws in the theory, and there's a lot of things that it can't explain.

Would you care to provide an example? :)

Do remember, though, that no theory is completely flawless, and that a theory can only ever be applied to relevant subjects.

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 16:59
Rationally, where does matter come from?
Energy? Nothing? Has it always been around? Nobody knows. Like somebody else pointed out, we simply cannot understand the meaning of infinity, and as long as we can't, we'll never find the ultimate answer to 'what came before?'. All we can do is try to get closer to the 'source', but honestly, I think mankind will be long gone before we could actually understand the universe's origin.

silver_wolf
18-01-08, 17:01
Would you care to provide an example? :)

Do remember, though, that no theory is completely flawless, and that a theory can ever be applied to relevant subjects.For example, there are no "transitional fossils", ones that would show something between a fish and frog or something. There are also no transitional species, and you would think that if stuff was mutating into different species we'd see some sort of hybrid-thing walking around. Or am I to believe that it's all just suddenly stopped for some reason? Also, the odds of all the right mutations taking place at exactly the right time in a monkey for it to evolve into a human, for example, are sooo high you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket. Not to mention the fact that there has never been any recorded mutation with positive results in man, animal or plant, even in lab tests. They all result in sickness and/or death. The original theory of evolution, as presented by Darwin, is I admit a good theory, but that's what it is: a theory. He himself said that if there was one creature that could not be explained by evolution or natural selection, the entire theory would fall apart (see flagellum motor). These days evolution had become a religion based on blind faith. Even when there is significant proof against evolution, the scientists will just make up an explanation that allows evolution to work, which is not good science. Good science looks at all the evidence and if there's any that goes against the theory, they start over instead of inventing new processes and mutations that, if they existed, would allow evolution to work. I know that no theory is flawless, and that's why evolution should not be presented as fact because it's so full of holes. What I've said is just a small part of numerous problems with the theory. But I know I can't win this argument, because like I said, evolutionists have the freedom to invent new things whenever something comes along that goes against the theory of evolution. Trying to convince any evolutionist that the theory is just a theory, and a flawed one at that, will always end up as an argument going around in circles.

Geck-o-Lizard
18-01-08, 17:05
For example, there are no "transitional fossils"

What are you talking about? Of course there are.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

Even when there is significant proof against evolution, the scientists will just make up an explanation that allows evolution to work, which is not good science.

Care to illustrate?

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 17:06
Submitted for your approval. (http://evolutionoftruth.com/) :pi:
Some good points there - only the site fails to apply its logic to not only science, but also religion. Of course scientific knowledge can change. We constantly develop new tools and methods, new ways of analyzing the evidence and our theories. That's exactly what makes science more credible IMO, the ability to adapt to new discoveries, and the never-ending search for better theories. That's something most religions don't do. They're still based on the same, outdated knowledge and methods - a fundamentalist will never even consider he could be wrong, and that's what disqualifies that site in my eyes. Don't tell me science could be wrong, I know that. Ask yourself if religion could be wrong!
For example, there are no "transitional fossils", ones that would show something between a fish and frog or something. There are also no transitional species, and you would think that if stuff was mutating into different species we'd see some sort of hybrid-thing walking around. Or am I to believe that it's all just suddenly stopped for some reason?
Well, it hasn't, and unless the universe stops being a dynamic system, it never will. As long as environments change, so will the various species in order to survive.

What do you mean by 'transitional fossils'? Every fossil is like a photograph of the past, it's not like a movie. You have to piece it together, and blanks are almost inevitable. Besides, why should a fish mutate into a frog all of a sudden? Maybe they have totally different progenitors. Heck, you could be a 'transitional being'. Who knows what humans will look like in 500,000 years, if we're still around by then.

Hack
18-01-08, 17:17
For example, there are no "transitional fossils", ones that would show something between a fish and frog or something. There are also no transitional species, and you would think that if stuff was mutating into different species we'd see some sort of hybrid-thing walking around. Or am I to believe that it's all just suddenly stopped for some reason? Also, the odds of all the right mutations taking place at exactly the right time in a monkey for it to evolve into a human, for example, are sooo high you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket. Not to mention the fact that there has never been any recorded mutation with positive results in man, animal or plant, even in lab tests. They all result in sickness and/or death. The original theory of evolution, as presented by Darwin, is I admit a good theory, but that's what it is: a theory. He himself said that if there was one creature that could not be explained by evolution or natural selection, the entire theory would fall apart (see flagellum motor). These days evolution had become a religion based on blind faith. Even when there is significant proof against evolution, the scientists will just make up an explanation that allows evolution to work, which is not good science. Good science looks at all the evidence and if there's any that goes against the theory, they start over instead of inventing new processes and mutations that, if they existed, would allow evolution to work. I know that no theory is flawless, and that's why evolution should not be presented as fact because it's so full of holes. What I've said is just a small part of numerous problems with the theory. But I know I can't win this argument, because like I said, evolutionists have the freedom to invent new things whenever something comes along that goes against the theory of evolution. Trying to convince any evolutionist that the theory is just a theory, and a flawed one at that, will always end up as an argument going around in circles.


There are a supicious amount of human-like species that look like a gradual progression from Ape like creatures to Homo Sapiens.

Evolutionary theory is not complete, we don't have the full understanding of how the world works yet. That doesn't make it an invalid theory. We don't know everything about plate tectonics, but we have a good enough theory explain how they basically work. It just a matter of time before research fills in the gaps in the undestanding.

At the moment, nobody has a better theory than Evolution that can account for the history of life on this planet.

Cochrane
18-01-08, 17:26
Submitted for your approval. (http://evolutionoftruth.com/) :pi:
The site is correct. Evolution is just a theory, and in the future, newer versions or completely different theories will explain the origin of the species better than the current theory of evolution. The same goes for all scientific theories, by the way. Only that does not make creationism superior to evolution in any way, I'm afraid.

In nature there are patterns. Seeing a consistant pattern in any object would infer that an intelligent being or process was responsible for it's design.

I'd like for anyone to see what that site has to say. It has some very interesting information. :)

Patterns are not necessarily indicative of outside intelligence. A clear example of this are useless patterns of human behavior that are generally considered silly but do not manage to die. These Anti-patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipattern) are certainly not propagated by intelligen design, but are (since they often seem obvious) probably re-invented very often. If this is true of anti-patterns, then true, useful patterns can be rediscovered, re-invented or regained through evolution as well.

silver_wolf: There are transitionary fossils, and in fact, even transitional species that are still around. Good examples are the Coelacanths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) and lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).

Evolutionists have the freedom to invent new aspects for their theory, just like every scientist. This is called altering the theory, and it's one of two options you have when faced with new evidence that contradicts parts of the older theory. I don't see anything wrong with that. Good scientists do not have to start over if only a small piece is wrong and never had to.

silver_wolf
18-01-08, 17:31
What are you talking about? Of course there are.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html



Care to illustrate?
Why exactly do we jump to the conclusion that just because this extinct shark has fins or bones like this modern one, it must have evolved into it? The simplest answer is usually the correct one: It's just a different type of shark. Those are viewed as transitional fossils because that's how you choose to see them, instead of the obvious.

For example, the flagellum motor. It's basically a tiny motor, much like an outboard motor, found in some small bacteria that simply could not have evolved due to it's complexity and the fact that there's nothing that it could have evolved from. So the scientists say, "Well it borrowed parts from other bacteria!" Whoa, wait, we can do that now? How does that work, exactly? But that still doesn't explain it, because in order for the motor to work, all the parts would have to evolve at exactly the same time. Otherwise you'd just have a useless tail, and according to natural selection it would just be thrown away and not passed down to other generations.

Edit: Like I said, I know I can't win this argument because scientists have spent many years making all these theories and explanations, so I'm going to stop trying.

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 17:35
My thought on patterns is that they work. They're viable solutions to certain problems, and evolution is all about favoring good solutions, that's the whole point of it. If something works, it will stick around. For example, I expect other ape species to develop opposable thumbs as well. They've proven to be a huge advantage for homo sapiens, so it's not unlikely other species will get there sooner or later.
found in some small bacteria that simply could not have evolved due to it's complexity and the fact that there's nothing that it could have evolved from.
That's nonsense. The first part is just wrong and the second is an unfounded assumption. I think we're back to the 'the world is so complex, it had to be created' argument. Well, no, it didn't have to be. There are countless possibilities.

Hack
18-01-08, 17:37
Why exactly do we jump to the conclusion that just because this extinct shark has fins or bones like this modern one, it must have evolved into it? The simplest answer is usually the correct one: It's just a different type of shark. Those are viewed as transitional fossils because that's how you choose to see them, instead of the obvious.

For example, the flagellum motor. It's basically a tiny motor, much like an outboard motor, found in some small bacteria that simply could not have evolved due to it's complexity and the fact that there's nothing that it could have evolved from. So the scientists say, "Well it borrowed parts from other bacteria!" Whoa, wait, we can do that now? How does that work, exactly? But that still doesn't explain it, because in order for the motor to work, all the parts would have to evolve at exactly the same time. Otherwise you'd just have a useless tail, and according to natural selection it would just be thrown away and not passed down to other generations.

You've an Appendix (unless it was removed) and a tailbone. Both are totally useless remnants of older body parts and have not been thrown away by natural selction yet. Being useless doesn't mean that they impede the species enough that they need to be discarded quite yet.

Drone
18-01-08, 18:00
Evelution is an empty lie. darwin refused of his words b4 to die but it won't make him better anyway

Hack
18-01-08, 18:02
Evelution is an empty lie. darwin refused of his words b4 to die but it won't make him better anyway

Why would they lie about it?

tampi
18-01-08, 18:05
For me, first error of the theory, is that they(he) speak of one "tree" from where it appears the other "branches".
For me, there are a lot of trees with not many branches.
But obviously all the trees have the same raw material. The Earth.

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:06
Evolution is also racists. :ohn:

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 18:06
For me, first error of the theory, is that they(he) speak of one "tree" from where it appears the other "branches".
For me, there are a lot of trees with not many branches.
But obviously all the trees have the same raw material. The Earth.

Exactly :tmb:

xcrushterx
18-01-08, 18:07
Evolution is also racists. :ohn:
How?:confused:

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:08
Evolution is also racists. :ohn:
And Hitler was an alien? :confused:

Geck-o-Lizard
18-01-08, 18:09
This topic's getting more bizarre every minute. :vlol:

Hack
18-01-08, 18:09
Evolution is also racists. :ohn:

Whilst I can't point out many examples of Evolutionary theorists being racists, I can point ot a whole history of religious folks being racist :)

Drone
18-01-08, 18:10
Why would they lie about it?

Just because there are only artificial selection and mutations. There are no natural selection and no evolution. If some breed is changing it's ony because of mutations. It has nothing to do with evolution

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:12
Just because there are only artificial selection and mutations. There are no natural selection and no evolution. If some breed is changing it's ony because of mutations. It has nothing to do with evolution
Evolution = positive mutation. Good changes have a higher chance of surviving and being passed on. It's no magic, really.

Hack
18-01-08, 18:12
Just because there are only artificial selection and mutations. There are no natural selection and no evolution. If some breed is changing it's ony because of mutations. It has nothing to do with evolution

Mutations causes evolution.

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:15
When the foundations of the theory of evolution were being formed it was common to associate certain races as being less developed/evolved than... other races. That's all I'm saying.

But if that actually is "science" then I guess I'd look foolish to disagree. :whi: I mean, that's what everyone tells me. If I don't believe the "scientific evidence" - I'm a fool. -Right?:(

Drone
18-01-08, 18:17
Evolution = positive mutation.
If it's mutation anyway then what crap for to use two words to describe the same thing? It looks like a word game then

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:18
Whilst I can't point out many examples of Evolutionary theorists being racists, I can point ot a whole history of religious folks being racist :)
I agree. because some people do consider atheism a religion.

tampi
18-01-08, 18:18
Evolution = positive mutation. Good changes have a higher chance of surviving and being passed on. It's no magic, really.

:yik::whi:
We must forget a little the evolution theory(natural selection), because it only indicates one thing.
That we destroy the rest of the species. :(
And if not, they are destroying us. :confused:

Drone
18-01-08, 18:20
But if that actually is "science" then I guess I'd look foolish to disagree. :whi: I mean, that's what everyone tells me. If I don't believe the "scientific evidence" - I'm a fool. -Right?:(

False. As Einstein said science is relative. Its always changing. Many things which are true today can be false tomorrow. And visa versa of course

Gabi
18-01-08, 18:21
But if that actually is "science" then I guess I'd look foolish to disagree. :whi: I mean, that's what everyone tells me. If I don't believe the "scientific evidence" - I'm a fool. -Right?:(


And I keep being told that, because I don't believe in the bible and that Jesus is the son of god, I'll end up in hell and won't be let in through the pearly gates. - I'm a sinner - Right?:(

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:21
False. As Einstein said science is relative. Its always changing. Many things which are true today can be false tomorrow. And visa versa of course
I was using those quotation marks to make a point. ;)

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:24
And I keep being told that, because I don't believe in the bible and that Jesus is the son of god, I'll end up in hell and won't be let in through the pearly gates. - I'm a sinner - Right?:(
If that's the standard you're measuring yourself by...

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:24
When the foundations of the theory of evolution were being formed it was common to associate certain races as being less developed/evolved than... other races. That's all I'm saying.
That's not what Darwin was saying. His theory (and the Darwinism of today) never applied the rules of evolution to human societies. While he tried to explain why an European doesn't look like an African, he didn't claim one to be superior to the other. What you're referring to are the Social Darwinist (Haeckel, Malthus) and the racist theories of the 19th and early 20th century, neither of which had anything to do with Darwin's theory.

Gabi
18-01-08, 18:25
If it's mutation anyway then what crap for to use two words to describe the same thing? It looks like a word game then


Definition of mutation (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471) :wve:

Drone
18-01-08, 18:27
That's not what Darwin was saying. His theory (and the Darwinism of today) never applied the rules of evolution to human societies. While he tried to explain why an European doesn't look like an African, he didn't claim one to be superior to the other. What you're referring to are the Social Darwinist (Haeckel, Malthus) and the racist theories of the 19th and early 20th century, neither of which had anything to do with Darwin's theory.


Whatever. It's darwin who opened eyes to all sinners and racists

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:28
If it's mutation anyway then what crap for to use two words to describe the same thing? It looks like a word game then
Evolution is the whole process, the entire sequence of mutations. Don't forget that most mutations don't lead to a permanent and positive change, either.
I agree. because some people do consider atheism a religion.
Right. Only atheists are racist (and all of them, I might assume).

Reggie
18-01-08, 18:29
Whatever. It's darwin who opened eyes to all sinners and racists
^WTH?

This is ridiculous. Human beings are by nature, rational beings many of whom make it part of their life to gain certainty in things. You guys have your way of being certain and understanding the world why is that others who think different have to be looked down upon in such a way?

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 18:30
Evolution isn't racist per se, a mutation could occur in any one person, the chances are roughly the same among the human populace, according to the theory?

Gabi
18-01-08, 18:30
If that's the standard you're measuring yourself by...


It's not me who is doing the measuring...........

Drone
18-01-08, 18:31
Evolution is the whole process, the entire sequence of mutations. Don't forget that most mutations don't lead to a permanent and positive change, either.

But everyday every human and every other living creature experiences some changes (in dna or rna) You want to say that we evolute every second?

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:31
Whatever. It's darwin who opened eyes to all sinners and racists
Seriously? Some people abused his work to justify their hatred and it's his fault? Well, there are plenty of intolerant and hateful people who claim to be Christian. Let's blame Jesus!

Reggie
18-01-08, 18:32
I actually find evolution beautiful in my own spiritual/religious way.
There's gaps but that only makes me appreciate the magic and mystery of our world.

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:32
One might call that an example of 'survival of the fittest'. But in this case, 'Survival of the Rightest' -meaning those that think they're right will try to destroy those they see as being wrong.

It's not a battle of strength or abilities, but of ideals. And I'm not saying I agree with that.

Edit: This was a reply to Reggie, post #223. :-/

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:34
But everyday every human and every other living experiences some changes (in dna or rna) You want to say that we evolute every second?
No. We mutate every second, but I would only consider it a part of evolution if the change is permanent, passed on to our children and ultimately guarantees an advantage to the species (or at least a significant part of it).

Drone
18-01-08, 18:35
Seriously? Some people abused his work to justify their hatred and it's his fault? Well, there are plenty of intolerant and hateful people who claim to be Christian. Let's blame Jesus!

Nope why? All things Jesus ever said is true. Nobody has a right to blame him.

Reggie
18-01-08, 18:36
One might call that an example of 'survival of the fittest'. But in this case, 'Survival of the Rightest' -meaning those that think they're right will try to destroy those they see as being wrong.

It's not a battle of strength or abilities, but of ideals. And I'm not saying I agree with that.

Edit: This was a reply to Reggie, post #223. :-/
^But why? that's so sad. There are actually hardly any (if at all) any truths when it comes to ideals. So why bother? I think that finding certainty and peace of mind with yourself is the most important thing. If religion helps you to fill in those gaps and gives what you think is a true purpose to life, the world and universe then that's fine. Same for atheists if they feel that there's really no need for purpose in the same way others may want it...

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:39
Nope why? All things Jesus ever said is true. Nobody has a right to blame him.
*sigh*

Nobody does. That's the point. Not because 'everything Jesus said is true', but because you cannot blame a person when other people twist their ideas to fit in with their agenda.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 18:40
*sigh*

Nobody does. That's the point. Not because 'everything Jesus said is true', but because you cannot blame a person when other people twist their ideas to fit in their agenda.

Examples?

Reggie
18-01-08, 18:40
Nope why? All things Jesus ever said is true. Nobody has a right to blame him.

What ideological truths are there?
How can you prove rights actually exist?

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:43
Examples?Islamistic terrorists claiming to follow their religion. Hateful Christians attacking other people.

Drone
18-01-08, 18:45
What ideological truths are there?
How can you prove rights actually exist?

All Jesus propagations can't be interpreted in a bad way. They've been built philosophicly perfect. But darwins theory could be a good base for atheism or racism

Angel_14
18-01-08, 18:45
Examples?

Albert Einstein and Atom Bomb. He didn't create it to use it as a weapon, yet people did use it.

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:47
All Jesus propagations can't be interpreted in a bad way. They've been built philosophicly perfect. But darwins theory could be a good base for atheism or racism
Then so could corn flakes and red roses.

By the way, I'd prefer if you didn't put atheism in a line with racism.

Drone
18-01-08, 18:48
Then so could corn flakes and red roses.

By the way, I'd prefer if you didn't put atheism in a line with racism.

who said I do?

Capt. Murphy
18-01-08, 18:49
Islamistic terrorists claiming to follow their religion. Hateful Christians attacking other people.
Then I wouldn't call "Hateful Christians" Christians at all. Christ said any man that hates his brother has commited murder in his heart. But to stay on topic...

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

Elysia
18-01-08, 18:49
Albert Einstein and Atom Bomb. He didn't create it to use it as a weapon, yet people did use it.
Haber Process, too. Haber's wife killed herself when she realised what research she had participated in was being used for (development of chemical weapons) - I remember learning that Haber himself was none too chuffed, either. He wanted it to be used for agricultural purposes...

Mr.Burns
18-01-08, 18:51
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/eatdrink033.gif

Getting a bit warm in here...:whi:

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 18:52
who said I do?
You did.
Then I wouldn't call "Hateful Christians" Christians at all. Christ said any man that hates his brother has commited murder in his heart. But to stay on topic...
That's my point, kind of. If I understand it correctly, Jesus propagated love and respect. Blaming him for some people's atrocities would be as wrong as blaming Darwin for racism.

Reggie
18-01-08, 18:53
All Jesus propagations can't be interpreted in a bad way. They've been built philosophicly perfect. But darwins theory could be a good base for atheism or racism

There's already problems when you imply something perfect actually exists but I'll leave that point out and I'll say simply this. If Christianitywas 'built' philosophically perfect, then why do we still have the unanswered euthyphro problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#Attempts_to_resolve_the_dilemma) . Answer me this and you'll have answered an age old dillemma in philosophy - that's if there even is an answer.

Punaxe
18-01-08, 18:55
Guys, may I recommend you some good reading? :D

http://www.damianflanagan.com/uploaded_images/God-Delusion-700195.jpg

http://bp2.blogger.com/_c6wsrQ9xmjg/RtOEcswrHsI/AAAAAAAAAOg/7n0rg7Vdlnw/s400/darwin-no.thumbnail.jpg

Drone
18-01-08, 18:58
You did.

I won't argue with you. Just know that nothing in this world can change my mind except myself

There's already problems when you imply something perfect actually exists but I'll leave that point out and I'll say simply this. If Christianitywas 'built' philosophically perfect, then why do we still have the unanswered euthyphro problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#Attempts_to_resolve_the_dilemma) . Answer me this and you'll have answered an age old dillemma in philosophy - that's if there even is an answer.

1st I talked about Jesus and not Christianity.
2nd all those sophisms don't need to be answered

Mona Sax
18-01-08, 19:02
I won't argue with you. Just know that nothing in this world can change my mind except myself
I'm not trying to change your mind, I'd just prefer to discuss Darwin with people who are familiar with his work - and not be insulted in the process.

Quasimodo
18-01-08, 19:03
There's already problems when you imply something perfect actually exists but I'll leave that point out and I'll say simply this. If Christianitywas 'built' philosophically perfect, then why do we still have the unanswered euthyphro problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#Attempts_to_resolve_the_dilemma) . Answer me this and you'll have answered an age old dillemma in philosophy - that's if there even is an answer.

Gregory Koukl's (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236) solution to the Euthyphro dilemma is interesting:
The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? "No," the Christian answers, "God would never do that." It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character.

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God--logically prior to Him--as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands."[9] In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

Hack
18-01-08, 19:03
I agree. because some people do consider atheism a religion.

Would those people be religious folks?

I don't know many athiests who conider it a religion. Most people I know that don't believe in a God, just don't believe in one and they get on with their merry lives.

I wouldn't like the thread to spiral into accusing religion or evolution as being the cause of racism. Human beings are the cause of racism.