mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Evolutionism? Options
twain
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:46:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/25/2009
Posts: 75
Neurons: 225
Location: Italy
do you believe in evolutionism or creationism?



[image not available]


s3callyx
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:02:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/27/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 138
Location: Greece
Creationism!
Evolutionism would be too much of a coincidence of everything (EVERYTHING!?!!?!) to be exact the proper environment for humans to live. From the most tiny thing to the biggest one, and even space and galaxies. Besides, since evolutionism can fit inside creationism, I don't see the reason why I shouldn't believe creationism.
vr091073
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:34:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
For me, Evolution, with a majuscule E, wins hands-down any day, Twain; on another level, though, I equally happen to find Stephen Jay Gould's extremely interesting theories on rapid, pronounced modifications to life forms occurring in spasmodic fashion, interspersed by lengthy spans of virtual standstill, in contrast with the more conventional idea of natural selection characterised by uniformitarianism, highly compelling indeed.

Gould, together with Niles Eldredge, termed this novel, insightful interpretation of the available palaeontological evidence 'punctuated equilibrium,' and I have yet to take cognizance of a reading that is consonant with the fossil record to a comparable extent.
McWilliams
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:08:49 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 15
Neurons: 45
Location: United States
I definitely believe in Creationism because I believe in the inerrancy of scripture! God created, owns, and manages every atom in the world!

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Genesis 1:1
'The earth is the Lord's and all its fullness,
the world and those who dwell therein.' Psalm 24:1
'Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him?
Everything under heaven is Mine.' Job 41:11
vee1534
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 5:54:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 83
Neurons: 249
Location: United Kingdom
What one believes does not make it true.
Joseph Glantz
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:10:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/18/2009
Posts: 2,036
Neurons: 6,040
Location: United States
Evolution - hands up and feet down. Having said that I'm not convinced we're evolving for the better.
vr091073
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:51:54 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.


Well put, buddy. I couldn't concur more.
vr091073
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:57:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
Joseph Glantz wrote:
Evolution - hands up and feet down. Having said that I'm not convinced we're evolving for the better.


I can also not except to this. Few could argue to the contrary, in reality. However, I would add that whilst evolution is a hard fact, notions such as good or bad are human constructs rather than actual constituents of Mother Nature. The inherent subjectivity involved in evaluating aspects of these qualities means that it would be plainly futile to include them, in no matter how peripheral a capacity, in the physical sciences.
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:59:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
Joseph Glantz wrote:
Evolution - hands up and feet down. Having said that I'm not convinced we're evolving for the better.


I would go further than that Joe, by stating emphatically that we are definitely not. Evolutionary processes were fine up until the advent of first order consciousness, once we gained the ability to introspect and come up with ever more complex solutions to being "the fittest", we entirely corrupted the process.

With the advent of religions that are based on a continuously involved, creator god, that controls and "owns" everything, all responsibility for just how badly our actions may screw things up was removed, and the corruption was multiplied.

Eventually (if not already) this corruption of natural processes will cross a threshold level dooming human kind to extinction. Only a reason based, natural science, interpretation of reality, and grasp of the processes that led to our existence, and current state offers any hope, in my opinion, for the future survival of human kind.

Anyone seriously interested in the potential dangers of religion, ought to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.
s3callyx
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:50:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/27/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 138
Location: Greece
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.

Ahem... Twain asked us our beliefs, not if these beliefs are true...



vr091073 wrote:
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.

Well put, buddy. I couldn't concur more.


Actually, sorry, I'm little bit dissatisfied with this comment. Sounds like one sided belief. If "what one believes does not make it true" was a factual consideration then you should consider also the opposite. You do believe in evolutionism right? Well, I also can say: what one believes does not make it true.
s3callyx
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:58:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/27/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 138
Location: Greece
Epiphileon wrote:
Anyone seriously interested in the potential dangers of religion, ought to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.


I'm studding religion (as a hobby) so I know this book. And I can assure you for one thing. Dawkins speaks based only in his conclusions of one specific religion: Catholicism. He knows nothing about the other religions. You can realize it for yourself after a proper study of Alister McGrath's book: The Dawkins Delusion
arthbard
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:00:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2009
Posts: 63
Neurons: 189
Location: South Carolina
Chalk up another vote for evolution for me.

Joseph Glantz wrote:
Evolution - hands up and feet down. Having said that I'm not convinced we're evolving for the better.


Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy? It's a comedy, but the concept seems disturbingly plausible.

s3callyx wrote:
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.

Ahem... Twain asked us our beliefs, not if these beliefs are true...



vr091073 wrote:
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.

Well put, buddy. I couldn't concur more.


Actually, sorry, I'm little bit dissatisfied with this comment. Sounds like one sided belief. If "what one believes does not make it true" was a factual consideration then you should consider also the opposite. You do believe in evolutionism right? Well, I also can say: what one believes does not make it true.


In defense of vee and vr, there is, at least, some amount of physical evidence to suggest the existence of the evolutionary process--not to mention the fact that the concept seems much more logical on a basic level--while the only apparent evidence of the contrary school of thought are some 2000-year-old writings from a time when scientific thought was considerably less advanced than it is today.

And, of course, I always have to ask: even if one is to accept the assumption that the whole of the universe was created by God, then ... Which God? There are so many of them, posited by so many different religions. What makes any particular one any more convincing than another?

Not to impugn your personal beliefs, but I'm considerably less spiritually-inclined than I once was. The more thought I put into religion, the less sense it all seemed to make.

That said, if you have any answers to these questions, I wouldn't mind hearing them. I don't really expect them to change my opinion on the matter, but it is nice to get a sense of where the other side is coming from.
xsmith
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:49:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/26/2009
Posts: 433
Neurons: 4,497
Evolution! Science has observed evidence of evolution in most, if not all, species of the plant and animal world.
TB
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:54:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Evolution with the belief that something or someone greater than the human mind can comprehend created the materials and set in motion the forces necessary for the universe and all its wonders to exist and evolve.

I'm reading about modern Deism and I find it fascinating, logical and compelling (but the jury is still out Think

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation".


Here is a quick hit on Deism as compared to different Christian beliefs: (Which one are you?)
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2008-12/stenger.html
Desiree
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:06:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/16/2009
Posts: 1,410
Neurons: 207,221
Location: Viña del Mar, Valparaiso, Chile
From Ancient world and now, of course , EVOLUTION!!!

Arthbord : " ......I always have to ask; even if one is to accept the assumption that the whole of the uniuverse was created by God, then.... Which God ? There are so many different religions, What makes any particular one more convincing than another ?

I think that NO MATTER WHICH GOD-- God is only a name, that all religions give to the creator of the whole universe, the incomprehensible and impenetrable mind or intelligence ,that we weak creatures will never understand , because it posseses the eternal energy. I have seen many people of different religions praying with a faith so powerful, in the same way than I pray to my God , the Catholic religion, because I was taught in that faith following all its rites , studying all the miracles and saints ´lives. And I have felt happy, with confort in my heart and grateful for all I have perhaps in the same way that people with other religions feel. The perfect equilibrium of nature , beauty and men is not by chance.
vr091073
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:13:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
Epiphileon wrote:
Joseph Glantz wrote:
Evolution - hands up and feet down. Having said that I'm not convinced we're evolving for the better.


I would go further than that Joe, by stating emphatically that we are definitely not. Evolutionary processes were fine up until the advent of first order consciousness, once we gained the ability to introspect and come up with ever more complex solutions to being "the fittest", we entirely corrupted the process.

With the advent of religions that are based on a continuously involved, creator god, that controls and "owns" everything, all responsibility for just how badly our actions may screw things up was removed, and the corruption was multiplied.

Eventually (if not already) this corruption of natural processes will cross a threshold level dooming human kind to extinction. Only a reason based, natural science, interpretation of reality, and grasp of the processes that led to our existence, and current state offers any hope, in my opinion, for the future survival of human kind.

Anyone seriously interested in the potential dangers of religion, ought to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.


I'm in total agreement. In addition to Richard Dawkins's work, I'd also recommend the works of Christopher Hitchens, which also address in irrepressible and irrefutable style the great fraud that is organised religion. By the way, I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, because I do acknowledge that whilst few rational-minded folks can bring themselves to ever regard religiously-based truth claims as intellectually reputable, it is nevertheless empirically impossible to factually disprove the existence of a hypothetical metaphysical entity.

Of course, through solid logic and rigorous reasoning, any reasonably intelligent person can potentially arrive at the cognitively sound conclusion that the probability of there being a supreme entity is a very remote one indeed. But, in the ultimate sense, the fact remains that it is not quite possible to demonstrate that there is no God, or whatever one wishes to call the theoretical 'proprietor of all atoms.'
vr091073
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:04:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
s3callyx wrote:
Actually, sorry, I'm little bit dissatisfied with this comment. Sounds like one sided belief. If "what one believes does not make it true" was a factual consideration then you should consider also the opposite. You do believe in evolutionism right? Well, I also can say: what one believes does not make it true.


Nice try, s3callyx, but try again. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being sarcastic, however, evolution is a fact upheld by the scientific evidence, so there is no question of blind belief, in its particular case. One cannot say the same in respect of religion, with the exception of Buddhism perhaps, as it has no conception of a creator deity, unlike the Abrahamic traditions and Hinduism.

I could refer you to scores of websites and books laying out the incontrovertible empirical evidence in support of the evolutionary process, but I imagine that it wouldn't help much, because from personal experience, I know the indoctrination of faith-derived schools of thought to be so crusted as to be unbreakable by even the strongest evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I guess that you've got a lot of homework to do, and only if you are truly fortunate shall you successfully disentangle yourself from the all-destructive vortex of religious fundamentalism. Because this is what we're dealing with here, i.e. fanaticism which would have a seemingly sane individual jettison the fruits of scholarly research and labour, and embrace an outmoded ideology that is founded on next to nothing in the form of corroborative proof. After all, as empiricists, we are expected to follow the path illumined by the existing evidence, right?
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:18:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
vr091073 wrote:
By the way, I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, because I do acknowledge that whilst few rational-minded folks can bring themselves to ever regard religiously-based truth claims as intellectually reputable, it is nevertheless empirically impossible to factually disprove the existence of a hypothetical metaphysical entity.

Of course, through solid logic and rigorous reasoning, any reasonably intelligent person can potentially arrive at the cognitively sound conclusion that the probability of there being a supreme entity is a very remote one indeed. But, in the ultimate sense, the fact remains that it is not quite possible to demonstrate that there is no God, or whatever one wishes to call the theoretical 'proprietor of all atoms.'

I'm not sure of the actual hierarchical structure of deities that would be necessary. A 'proprietor of all atoms', while still a major deity would be less than the god of quarks. It seems that perhaps the graviton god would have to be supreme due to the infinite reach of its' effect. Come to think of it, natural deifiers could argue eternally about the ranking of the four fundamental gods. I'm sure all would have to agree that the creator god though, i.e. the "superforce" is manifestly dead, until at least the time of the big crunch and a possible momentary ressurection until it blows its' self up again, and this whole argument comes up again some trillion years hence.
(That is of course if time is an aspect of the next universe) d'oh! Whistle

By the way a query before I get to seriously responding to your reply, concerning your screen name. Is it a reference to your birth date, as the begining of your personal "virtual reality?"

Well then, seriously, your position on the existence of a prime entity is much the same as mine, and therefore I would welcome you to the term I came up with, as I don't believe agnostic is really accurate.
Empirical Nontheist: At no time in the origin of the universe or life on Earth was any god like entity necessary, nor evidenced.
At no time in the development of humankind has any god like entity contacted man with a plan for right living or eternal salvation. (It still mystifies me that people can consider eternal life some sort of blessing. I can only think they have not seriously considered the implications)

vr091073
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:57:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
Epiphileon, my screen name is a reference to my initials (you can call me Vik, if you want to) as well as, you correctly guessed, my birth date. Virtual reality as a concept is true fodder for the mind, I grant, but it isn't what I was thinking of at the time of registering.

There is hardly anything in your response I object to, as our respective thoughts are pretty much aligned, at least on the theme under scrutiny, at any rate. By referring to the putative deity of theists as an owner of atoms or particles, I was in effect replying to s3callyx's earlier characterisation of the Christian God as such, in which he employed this very same phrase, or a close variant of it.

And yes, do welcome me heartily to the virtual club of 'empirical non-theists,' a clever and original appellation, and I do agree, markedly more accurate than the term 'agnostic.'
Richard
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:21:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 381
Neurons: 1,043
Location: United States
vee1534 wrote:
What one believes does not make it true.





Nor does it make it false.
s3callyx
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:03:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/27/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 138
Location: Greece
Hello vr091073.
1) I'll post my answer to arthbard which includes some info for you too. Please read it carefully.
2) Please reconsider the idea that you are talking to someone who only believes blindly and without a research. I was, I'm and I still consider my self as a scientist. But that, I believe, sounds as an irony, since science was the key to unlock the door of religion. I was a scientist from the day I was born. And not only that, but I had no idea of religion. Any kind of religions. Therefore when I realized that science lacks of evidence of the reason -the reason of existence- I turned my self into religion to find an answer. And I found it.

Please keep in mind that when I'm saying "existence" I don't mean physically. NOT something which evolution can prove. But mostly mentally and even more the theories about the salvation of the soul. Science can't confirm the salvation. Only religion does. My curiosity -my endless curiosity which led me to science- wants a confirmation. Confirmation about the next stage. After science. What exist there? I can learn about a scientific issue any time I want. But God? Who can understand God? As far as I remember God is at a higher level than science. Dancing Why should I must choose science after all?

Anyway, read and the other post for a better explanation.
s3callyx
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:12:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/27/2009
Posts: 45
Neurons: 138
Location: Greece
arthbard wrote:
That said, if you have any answers to these questions, I wouldn't mind hearing them. I don't really expect them to change my opinion on the matter, but it is nice to get a sense of where the other side is coming from.


I have the answers, and I would like to tell them, but before that, you should know that my native language is greek so I can't speak english correctly. Therefore ask me for any misunderstanding.

Also I would like to thank you for your post. I appreciate when someone speaks with proofs, or even theories, instead of "This is correct because I say so" like most of us do. Hope to satisfy you with my post.


Quote:
In defense of vee and vr, there is, at least, some amount of physical evidence to suggest the existence of the evolutionary process--not to mention the fact that the concept seems much more logical on a basic level--while the only apparent evidence of the contrary school of thought are some 2000-year-old writings from a time when scientific thought was considerably less advanced than it is today.


1) There is, at least, some amount of God's presence to suggest His existence also. Not only general to everyone, not only from the ancient times, but here, today. (I speak from my personal experience so you can't defy me.)

2) I never said the opposite about evolutionism. Dancing Besides, as a scientist (as also I believe I'm) I also believe in evolutionism. BUT... I believe it only as long as:

a) Science can prove whatever it says
b) As long as can fit inside creationism.

Of course a) sounds logical. But b)? Allow me to give you an example about b).
The Greek Orthodox church (I'm from Greece) describes in Genesis that God created everything in 7 days. No one expects that these 7 days are exactly the same days as human life. Maybe one day of God's life would be thousands, or even millions of years in human's calendar. A time which, we humans call it "evolution". If evolution needs for example 300.000.000 years (as I saw in History channel for turtles) to change from the one form to another, (maybe a second, a minute, a year?... of God's life) then we can fit evolutionism inside creationism. Right? (So, as you realize -and as I already said- I don't see the reason why I shouldn't believe creationism. At least no without any evidence.)

Of course the above example was only an idea. We still need some proof. Do we have one? Well, yes and no. I realized a long time ago (from MY personal experience dear vr091073) exactly what vr091073 said on one of his posts: "from personal experience, I know the indoctrination of faith-derived schools of thought to be so crusted as to be unbreakable by even the strongest evidence to the contrary". So even if I had the most extraordinary and unbelievable proof still there is a change to doubt me. So, what kind of proof do you expect?

The best example of this is vr091073 itself. I strongly disagree with "indoctrination of faith-derived schools". I'd say exactly the same thing for EVERYTHING. For the most important thing to the less important. For your favorite football team, for your favorite T-shirt, your favorite place, for everything. See, "religion's" etymology as TFD says is probably from "rely". Ideas rely in our heart. With other words "religion" is only our belief and nothing more. Now, if this kind of belief is about Christ, Buddha, or our favorite food, or drink it's another issue. Which means that his experience is appropriate only to suit his moral ideas. Which also means that he can make mistakes. (Or not, of course). And as he believes, I also believe, that if someone believes something, then you can't change his mind. For example he is so sure about my brain-washing so he acted accordingly. Something which is wrong, since I never went to such a school. (I have PERSONAL experience as I already said.) As he said he has personal experience. I also have. In which way my "rely" is different than his? (Or yours, or someone else?)

So the conclusion is that NONE of us knows, the truth about something which is... unknown to us!! Dancing God is one of them.



Quote:
And, of course, I always have to ask: even if one is to accept the assumption that the whole of the universe was created by God, then ... Which God? There are so many of them, posited by so many different religions. What makes any particular one any more convincing than another?


If the supreme being which we call it "God" has so great powers to give even life, then this beign can also take it back without any human help. So why some god ask for sacrifices? Because if evil truly exist and his plan is to destroy humanity physically or mentally this is the best way. If a "god" says kill then this "god" is fake. If you check the deities of any kind of nation you'll see that ALL deities are selfish enough to ask and even demand bad things like to kill something or someone. The only God which instead of demanding a sacrifice, sacrificed himself for us, then this is the only true God which respects human life so much, enough to die for us. So the only true God is Jesus since He is the only one who sacrificed himself. Which means that all other gods are fakes. You can easily choose from a whole bunch of... one Dancing

Quote:
Not to impugn your personal beliefs, but I'm considerably less spiritually-inclined than I once was. The more thought I put into religion, the less sense it all seemed to make.


That happens because you didn't find the answers you were looking for. It's not a surpise since in this world exist a chaos about ideas and theories. Therefore I realize why you disagree. But I always thought that science is exactly for one thing: searching. More and more. Untill you find the truth. Or if not the truth, at least something which agrees with your life beliefs as long as you don't hurt other people. (That's why I dislike people like Dawkins which only say things which hurt peoples feelings. Mostly now which is clear that knows nothing about Orthodoxy)

May I ask what religions did you check?

Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:36:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
vr091073 wrote:

And yes, do welcome me heartily to the virtual club of 'empirical non-theists,' a clever and original appellation, and I do agree, markedly more accurate than the term 'agnostic.'

You are definitely well come, I ought warn you that some will say that "empirical" is mis-used but, I consider disciplined, critical, reason as much a sense as the others.
McWilliams
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:30:54 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 15
Neurons: 45
Location: United States
Job 34 says:

14 If He should set His heart on it,
If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,

15 All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust.

Another scripture states: The fool says in his heart there is no God!

Fools that say there is no God are free to say so because He has given them this freedom to do so. He also will deal with them in judgment in His own time and in His own way!
All men will bow before Him either in reverence on in judgment!
betford2
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:41:07 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/27/2009
Posts: 19
Neurons: 57
Location: United States
Is there a reason that evolution can not be seen as the tool that God is using for ongoing acts of creation? Creation and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
dawgteacher
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:09:31 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/31/2009
Posts: 8
Neurons: 24
Location: United States
Creationism can be the only way one could believe if he/she is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I am not talking about having religion, religion can only take you so far, meaning there is no change. But if one has had a change in nature, being born again or from above, one can truly understand, because his/her eyes have been open to the truth. That is why there is such a great debate about Creation vs. Evolution. Evolutionist are coming from just the natural man's thinking, there is no Spirit of God involved. The book of Romans chapter one states that God has given them up to do whatever they want. That is why we have all the problems that we have with homosexuality, perversions and what have you. It is not up to me to change a person that is God's job. But we also know that the truth will set you free--if you want it. If not...we are all free moral agents. We can choose to believe or think this is just a bunch of nonsense. Have a great day.....Boo hoo!
johnw
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:39:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/10/2009
Posts: 56
Neurons: 177
Location: United States
The most fascinating writings on Evolution I read can be found here:

http://quantavolution.org/

Darwinism has certain flaws which Quantavolution "solves", namely the overtouted "mutations", which Darwin depended on to maintain his premise, gradual changes in morphology lead to new creations (species). THis puts tremendous pressure on finding "missing links"--and what do that imply? That the Missing LInk can breed with both the, can I say, more primitive creature, and also the more advanced. (Some women I knew are convinced they are sleeping with just such a creature). Most mutations are, if not lethal, then not transmitted by the germ (sperm/egg). QV, and it's adjunct Catastrophe Theory, answers these issues ...
26letters
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:35:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 679
Neurons: 2,050
Location: Your keyboard. (USA)
Intelligent and loving design. It takes too much faith to believe that we evolved.

Everything about the universe works so beautifully, until man gets his hands on it - using and abusing it and then claiming ultimate authority to do so because, "after all, since we evolved, we are the most superior intelligence in the universe." OR "Hey, this stuff wasn't supposed to be here in the first place. What difference does it make if I mess it up?"
arthbard
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:22:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2009
Posts: 63
Neurons: 189
Location: South Carolina
s3callyx wrote:
I have the answers, and I would like to tell them, but before that, you should know that my native language is greek so I can't speak english correctly. Therefore ask me for any misunderstanding.


Thanks for the response, s3callyx. Your writing isn't bad. I've seen considerably worse from native English speakers who should probably know better. Most of us have a hard enough time making ourselves understood in one language, so I tend to respect when anyone is fluent enough to get their ideas across in a language other than their own.

I also think that incorporating evolution into your religious beliefs is a much more reasonable position than blindly denying it and attempting to refute by thoughtlessly quoting Genesis, as people in my part of the world are wont to do. Even when I did consider myself religious (Christianity, by the way, though I never associated myself very closely with any particular denomination), I always thought it was a bit silly to discredit a theory that has considerable evidence to back it up in favor of an unnecessarily literal interpretation of a specific Biblical story. In fact, those kinds of irrational arguments (about evolution, among other things) didn't exactly help to endear me to their position.

But, of course, the fact that there are some religious people out there who are a bit, well, bonkers, ;) if I can use that term, doesn't necessarily discredit religion, itself. Which is why I tended to favor forming my own opinions on the subject rather than following anyone else's specific teachings.

My gradual leaning towards atheism, though, was mainly a product of forming a more rational view of the world.

It's often argued that God can't be disproved, which is true. I can't disprove the existence of God. Then again, I also can't disprove the existence of, say, Santa Claus. (The comparison may seem a bit glib, but don't take it the wrong way. I'm not trying to insult, but just to give an example of my line of reasoning.) When I was a kid, I had absolute faith in Santa. Even if someone had flown me to the North Pole and shown me a complete lack of toy workshops, that faith probably wouldn't have been shaken. After all, Santa Claus was magical. No reason he couldn't make his toy shop invisible or some such. Heck, I was with my mom when she bought a lot of my presents. But, of course, I was able to justify that to myself: she was just helping the old guy out. He probably reimbursed her when he came by to pick up those presents and take them back up to the North Pole.

Even now, if you asked me to disprove Santa Claus, I wouldn't be able to do it. But, I can say that there's very little evidence to suggest that he exists. If some flying reindeer landed in my yard carrying an overweight bearded man in a red suit, then I'd probably have to acknowledge that there was a good chance he might be Santa Claus, but in the meantime, it seems more likely that there isn't a man at the North Pole and that I have only my parents to thank for all those toys I got as a kid.

Religion, as I see it, starts off with a certain set of assumptions and processes everything else on the basis of those assumptions. Science, at least ideally, doesn't work that way. The scientist observes the natural world and uses empirical data to demonstrate why things are the way they are.

There are gaps in our knowledge of science, of course, and lingering holes that have yet to be fully explained. Evolution can trace the course of life back only so far. The predominant theory is that the first traces of life began in the sea. What caused that initial spark of life? We don't really know. We also don't really understand that initial singularity at the center of the Big Bang, where it came from, or why it started rapidly expanding when it did. The popular argument is to ask where all that matter came from if God didn't put it there, and the popular rebuttal is to ask where God came from if he did. Either way, we're left with unanswered questions, but the line of thought that puts a divine creator at the start of the universe requires us to make an additional leap of logic that isn't supported by evidence ... At least, not hard, empirical evidence that holds up well to scientific scrutiny.

s3callyx wrote:
There is, at least, some amount of God's presence to suggest His existence also. Not only general to everyone, not only from the ancient times, but here, today. (I speak from my personal experience so you can't defy me.)


Of course, there's your own, personal experience, which I can't really argue with. And, it would probably be pretty pointless to argue, since this more or less comes down to subjective experience. I'm reminded of a scene in Pulp Fiction, where John Travolta and Samuel Jackson argue about whether their inexplicable survival of several bullets shot at point-blank range was a logically explainable freak occurrence or evidence of divine intervention.

So, I guess this is the point where we more or less have to respectfully agree to disagree.



Anyway, thanks for bearing with me. And, thanks again for taking the time to share your perspective, s3callyx. It was interesting reading.
arthbard
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:43:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2009
Posts: 63
Neurons: 189
Location: South Carolina
26letters wrote:
Intelligent and loving design. It takes too much faith to believe that we evolved.

Everything about the universe works so beautifully ...


Actually, I would argue that everything works so beautifully together precisely because of concurrent evolution.

26letters wrote:
... until man gets his hands on it - using and abusing it and then claiming ultimate authority to do so because, "after all, since we evolved, we are the most superior intelligence in the universe." OR "Hey, this stuff wasn't supposed to be here in the first place. What difference does it make if I mess it up?"


I've more often heard the Biblical "dominion over beasts" bit used as justification of that type of mindset.

On the contrary, according to evolution we're merely animals. Nothing special. We're simply a part of nature like any other creature, but there are serious potential ill effects that may result in our upsetting the delicate, natural balance.
McWilliams
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:58:50 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 15
Neurons: 45
Location: United States
Why do men prefer the wisdom of men, created by God, than the wisdom of God the Creator?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
McWilliams
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:59:32 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 15
Neurons: 45
Location: United States
Why do men prefer the wisdom of men, created by God, than the wisdom of God the Creator?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
vr091073
Posted: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:04:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
johnw wrote:
The most fascinating writings on Evolution I read can be found here:

http://quantavolution.org/

Darwinism has certain flaws which Quantavolution "solves", namely the overtouted "mutations", which Darwin depended on to maintain his premise, gradual changes in morphology lead to new creations (species). THis puts tremendous pressure on finding "missing links"--and what do that imply? That the Missing LInk can breed with both the, can I say, more primitive creature, and also the more advanced. (Some women I knew are convinced they are sleeping with just such a creature). Most mutations are, if not lethal, then not transmitted by the germ (sperm/egg). QV, and it's adjunct Catastrophe Theory, answers these issues ...


This is where the punctuated equilibrium of Gould and Eldredge comes into the equation, although 'Quantavolution' also brings in certain thought-provoking elements, no doubt. But I shall have to delve into it a little more deeply prior to being in a position to really comment.
vr091073
Posted: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:18:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
dawgteacher wrote:
Creationism can be the only way one could believe if he/she is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I am not talking about having religion, religion can only take you so far, meaning there is no change. But if one has had a change in nature, being born again or from above, one can truly understand, because his/her eyes have been open to the truth. That is why there is such a great debate about Creation vs. Evolution. Evolutionist are coming from just the natural man's thinking, there is no Spirit of God involved. The book of Romans chapter one states that God has given them up to do whatever they want. That is why we have all the problems that we have with homosexuality, perversions and what have you. It is not up to me to change a person that is God's job. But we also know that the truth will set you free--if you want it. If not...we are all free moral agents. We can choose to believe or think this is just a bunch of nonsense. Have a great day.....Boo hoo!


Do I sense a faint tinge of homophobia here? If yes, if I were you, I'd personally be rather sheepish about spouting forth such closed-minded, venom-laden bigotry on a public forum. Then again, you're not me.

Let me guess, you also believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, don't you? And that despite the overwhelming raft of geological and physical evidence stating otherwise - goodness me!

vr091073
Posted: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:21:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
s3callyx, your write-up sure is interesting and I shall get back to you on it a little later. In fact, it's a little too elaborate to be addressed in just 2 or 3 lines. So, just bear with me, my friend. But respond I definitely shall, have no doubts about that. Cheers
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.