Love, just like trust and sadness, are all chemical reactions in your brain. Love is just another tool used for the survival of our species.
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
I find these Internet-"debates" funny. For a few years have I followed these and I've never seen any evidence for creationism or ID. It's always the same; "Evolution is wrong", "The Bible says...", "Something came out of nowhere", "Organisms are too complex", "Random mutations can't have led to this..." etc. Attacking evolution doesn't make creationism or ID any more credible.
Where is that bloody creator or designer? Can we see him? Somehow know he/it exists?
It's hard to believe that so many believe this creationism or ID. 40 per cent here believe that there is a god and 25 per cent don't accept the theory of evolution. What are these people thinking?
:heart:
But there is evidence of creationism or ID. Its called human life. I see it in myself, others around me, and even on the TV (but its rare).
Not that most people care, but there is nothing in the bible to to confirm or deny creationism or evolution. The only thing it says is Adam and Eve were created in God's image. They had 2 sons, Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel and went to hang out with some barbarians over the hills.
That indicates: People existed on this planet before Adam and Eve. God created the universe. He eventually created Adam and Eve in his image. FYI, God's image is not human form, its referred to many times in the bible and his form is Love. The love that is in us all has been given to us by God. Its something unique to humans, according to the Bible.
Now, evidence you say? Can you prove animals love each other? What is love, giving yourself completely to another being. Love and selfishness are opposites of one another. Survival of the fittest? Isn't that selfishness? Did things evolve and survive by loving one another or being selfishness and being the most ruthless? Do lions share their food with other animals because they love them? Humans will share their food with others, even if they might go hungry themselves.
So my question being is, why do humans love? Where did love come into play during evolution? When did it turn from survival of the fittest turn to lets love one another? Do single cell lifeforms love?
Its my opinion God created the universe (or big bang) and created our laws of science, and created love in Adam and Eve which have been passed down through the generations in humans. Thats the only two things I believe God created. I also believe in Evolution, Big Bang, and other scientific wonders, because there is evidence there to support it, and there is no evidence to disprove anything on either side of it. ID(God) and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by: Duwelon
If at least some of the universe wasn't already alive, rocks became non-rocks and over millions of years we evolved into the planet and universe we are today.
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.
I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.
If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.
Because you attempt to refute evolution by attacking elements of science that are not evolution. You also seem to be confusing the definition of ad hominem. That would be when you attack the person instead of the idea; I'm attacking you and the idea as one, because my problem with your ideas is your ignorance of basic facts.
I do believe that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the origin of life. It's certainly orders of magnitude more likely then a sky fairy suddenly poofing into existence. That's neither here nor there though, because my acceptance of the overwhelming evidence supporting one theory (evolution) is in no way reliant upon the validity of another theory (abiogenesis).
Now I don't understand ad hominem... you're just great. Your inability to look outside the box isn't my problem. This was a thread about evolution vs creationism, my whole point of not believing evolution is the premise that it's impossible without a creator or abiogenesis.
We've never witnessed a rock producing a non-rock, nor even know how it would be possible, so you have to admit that a creator is a viable theory as well. We've never witnessed a fish producing a non-fish, or a dog a non-dog. Evolution is unprovable, has a rich history of liars publishing lies in textbooks and having unanswered questions such as transition fossils, bones, whatever.
I believe: an intelligent creator created the world we know, and it's our privilege to learn about it and use real knowledge, science for our good.
You seem to believe: a big bang, or some other origin of matter theory gave birth to time, space and matter. If at least some of the universe wasn't already alive, rocks became non-rocks and over millions of years we evolved into the planet and universe we are today.
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Love, just like trust and sadness, are all chemical reactions in your brain. Love is just another tool used for the survival of our species.
Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..
I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?
I'm not aware of a good argument that does not create conflict between true Christianity (i.e. the literal interpretation of the bible--not to say that one shouldn't [as they should] consider the meaning of words as they were intended, not necessarily as they read now, because they should) and evolution.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..
I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?
You don't really need an objective website to substitute for common sense. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are some christians who seem determined to undermine evolution, and I don't know why.
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Depends on who you ask. While I will admit that there are people who accept the evolutionary theory of the development of life while still being open to the idea of a spiritual ORIGIN of life, Creationism as portrayed by most modern supporters tends to be of the variety that directly conflicts with evolutionary theory...that life as we know it today was either created this way by a creator or was "guided" to develop this way by the same supreme being. Now maybe those people simply make the most noise, but the origin question seems far less of an issue...if only because the science behind it is far less certain.
It's a false dichotomy from a modern holistic point of view. Creationism as advocated by the religious fundamentalists is pretty much a defense of biblical literalism which doesn't stand up to much beyond its exemplary entrenchment.
Evolution as a fact of life is in another perspective as much of a spiritual mystery as a material one, and there is plenty of religious and spiritual material which deals with it as such -- but you have to give up some dogmatism and notions of antagonism between spirituality and science to proceed in this direction.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not aware of a good argument that does not create conflict between true Christianity (i.e. the literal interpretation of the bible--not to say that one shouldn't [as they should] consider the meaning of words as they were intended, not necessarily as they read now, because they should) and evolution.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..
I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?
You don't really need an objective website to substitute for common sense. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are some christians who seem determined to undermine evolution, and I don't know why.
A non-literal interpretation makes sense over a non-literal; a person might as well believe in a book about fairies or hobbits otherwise and the floodgates are opened to an infinite amount of "interpretation" otherwise. The problem with a non literal is that it will be undeniably influenced by contemporary culture such that the religion becomes a bastardized and pointless pursuit, worthy of no more respect than wicken or speghetti monster following.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not aware of a good argument that does not create conflict between true Christianity (i.e. the literal interpretation of the bible--not to say that one shouldn't [as they should] consider the meaning of words as they were intended, not necessarily as they read now, because they should) and evolution.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..
I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?
You don't really need an objective website to substitute for common sense. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are some christians who seem determined to undermine evolution, and I don't know why.
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
A non-literal interpretation makes sense over a non-literal; a person might as well believe in a book about fairies or hobbits otherwise and the floodgates are opened to an infinite amount of "interpretation" otherwise. The problem with a non literal is that it will be undeniably influenced by contemporary culture such that the religion becomes a bastardized and pointless pursuit, worthy of no more respect than wicken or speghetti monster following.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not aware of a good argument that does not create conflict between true Christianity (i.e. the literal interpretation of the bible--not to say that one shouldn't [as they should] consider the meaning of words as they were intended, not necessarily as they read now, because they should) and evolution.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..
I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?
You don't really need an objective website to substitute for common sense. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are some christians who seem determined to undermine evolution, and I don't know why.
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God.
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Love, just like trust and sadness, are all chemical reactions in your brain. Love is just another tool used for the survival of our species.
Right, but what purpose did it serve in evolution? I mean, loving your wife would be against what instincts we got from the animal kingdom, isn't it natural instinct to spread your seed? Some species mate for life in the animal kingdom, a few birds, a few mammals, but typicall speaking most animals did not mate for life... You'd think with 4 billion years of evolution, something like Love would be the weakest link and would have gone extinct. But why do we have it? It must have been a great strength for humans, but it doesn't seem like it would be. You see kids these days spreading their seed with whoever and get abortions or move on and never take responsibility. Thats animal like, so obviously we still have some inherited actions, but to truely love someone unconditionaly seems rare and you'd think it would be long gone, and in to love something unconditionally in the wild before we evolved into better beings it would be considered a weakness for a species.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe love is dominant in animals and humans, but its just hard to see or observe.
I have heard of a Gorilla Kojo, that had a pet cat on Animal Planet, but humans are the ones who gave her the cat. And also trained the Gorilla, so did humans teach this Gorilla to "love" the pet (if the gorilla pets the cat, the trainer gave the gorilla a banana), or did it really care for the cat?
If it did really love the cat, why? What did that cat have to do with the gorillas survival? Why would it care unless the cats presence meant bananas somehow for the gorilla?
Might I offer that their literal interpretations are merely shallowly literal; there are many obvious contradictions in the bible that lose their obviousness when one applies a deeper view to the statements. For example, we know today that if I say I'm gay I'm a homosexual, but if I wrote 100 years ago and said the same thing you'd think I was joyous.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Certainly. That's the risk we take with a non-literal approach. But the bible is fraught with contradictions. People have used it to prove nearly any political idea imaginable. Literal interpretation is a far greater risk than the possibility of culture infringement.
And for what it's worth, the vatican has proven to be a stalwart reminder of how little-affected it is by what is popular or transitory.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Might I offer that their literal interpretations are merely shallowly literal; there are many obvious contradictions in the bible that lose their obviousness when one applies a deeper view to the statements. For example, we know today that if I say I'm gay I'm a homosexual, but if I wrote 100 years ago and said the same thing you'd think I was joyous.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Certainly. That's the risk we take with a non-literal approach. But the bible is fraught with contradictions. People have used it to prove nearly any political idea imaginable. Literal interpretation is a far greater risk than the possibility of culture infringement.
And for what it's worth, the vatican has proven to be a stalwart reminder of how little-affected it is by what is popular or transitory.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just as a note to everyone in this thread: Duwelon has made a habit of showing up in threads about evolution for quite some time now. It's become painfully obvious from them that he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, and that many of the 'facts' that he has about it are flatly wrong. I believe that his idea of what evolution is all about comes from these very same young earth creationists such as Hovind that he references.
It's not just that he doesn't understand evolution, but he's shown that he has no desire to. If you search back for other evolution threads you will see pages and pages of people painstakingly attempting to educate him, and you will see him happily ignore it all. I'm okay with trashing him some more, but everyone should be aware that actually reasoning with him is futile.
Watching 2 atheists discuss the origin of life is like watching 2 computers try to figure out where they came from, with the premise that they couldn't possibly have been designed by a higher force.
Watching 2 theists discuss the origin of life is like watching 2 computers try to figure out where they came from, with the premise that they couldn't possibly have been designed by a god other than their own.
True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.
Disagree. True christians look to God as their 'central authority'. The Catholic church has a tainted history that doesn't reflect divine providence IMO. Religion is one thing, relationship is another.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.
Perhaps not, but Catholicism is widely regarded as a central authority when christians look for one.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Disagree. True christians look to God as their 'central authority'. The Catholic church has a tainted history that doesn't reflect divine providence IMO. Religion is one thing, relationship is another.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.
Perhaps not, but Catholicism is widely regarded as a central authority when christians look for one.