Evolution

Which one applies to you?


  • Total voters
    17
IMO, to believe in God is to believe in perfection. How can an imperfect being such as a human know what perfect is? How can we know perfection (God) if we haven't clue what it is? To know what prefect is we would have to be perfect ourselves first, no?

...to claim we know God is to claim we are equal to him. The bible says otherwise - it says he is our maker, our savior etc.

God and Perfect are loose words. The very fact that they exist is almost stupid to me.

Why would God give us a gift like free will and then impose a set of rules? It's like giving your teenager a Ferrari and then telling him not to use it on weekends.

There are so many why's and if's in religion. Why didn't these Gods make it this way? Do they actually really want us to believe, blindly, in them?

If so, then they gave us the gift of independence and free will without any intention of allowing us to use it.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

:pain7:

PB,

I agree with you completely - I follow the concept of good and evil based on the bible and have to agree that what it teaches is pure and good. But I still don't understand it. And I have difficulty allowing myself to follow something ever so blindly. Is excessive Pride a sin? :p
 
Have anyone actually read Darwin's theory of evolution? You can pick up a copy for like 5 bucks. If I remember right, a lot of Darwin's theory are based primarily on religious foundation. It wasn't until modern times where people say evolution disproves the existence of god, but offer no other reason behind it. I mean we follow natural laws and orders of this universe, so science can explain that easily. That doesn't mean there isn't a god.

Let's make an example. Let's say you play a video game, and something happen in it that the developers didn't intend. Like in Super Mario where you can find that one infinite coin box. Does that automatically mean that the developers are disproved because of the fact that someone discovered a truth in it that is bounded by the laws of the created world? And that the software was written by a natural selection?

Also, from what I gather about natural selection, it's not that you select what features to keep, it's as a species what is better to survive in the wild. It has nothing to do with being dumb or smart, and in some cases being smart is worst. For example, let's say someone is naturally a better looker than others, but have the smarts of a 3rd grader and works at Mc D. He has 20 children. That by extension is natural selection because he has features that in our species separate as good or bad, and he has continued our species by 20.

In the wild, natural selection just means being lucky. A recent example of natural selection are these butterflies in England when they started burning fossil fuel. These butterflies would be born with black features or white features. Slowly the white ones died because birds can spot them easily. However, the black ones lived because they can hide. The white ones were no smart or dumber than the black ones, they were just white in colour and stood out which caused them to be naturally selected for extinction.

Finding a flaw in a video game is possible because the creators aren't almighty. God is almighty so he wouldn't make mistakes (note that you can't make a mistake on purpose, as then it is no longer a mistake)

And yeah, natural selection will favor those who can produce offspring that will live on to produce offspring and so on.

Natural selection is not always random. You can have "random" incidences like earthquakes, flooding, lightning strikes, etc that aren't about how fit you are for survival, but about being at the wrong place at the wrong time (unless you're genetically predisposed to living on the edge of a volcano or something :p)

Your butterfly example isn't about luck.. sure, the black ones were the lucky winners when the industry came, but they were better fit for survival in that environment, so they prevailed.

If a new animal was introduced in our world that was stronger and smarter than us and preferred to feed on people with black hair, then the human race would eventually "adapt" because there would be less people with black hair.

But what I really think of when I think evolution isn't really the change in phenotype "composition" but rather introduction of new genes and to see which ones prevail. So say all people on earth were black haired (and we were being fed on by the animals) then suddenly someone mutated and got red hair, then that would be advantageous and eventually there would be a lot of people with red hair.

I think I got that right.
 
If I remember right, a lot of Darwin's theory are based primarily on religious foundation. It wasn't until modern times where people say evolution disproves the existence of god, but offer no other reason behind it. I mean we follow natural laws and orders of this universe, so science can explain that easily. That doesn't mean there isn't a god.


Not that I believe in a God, but know one is saying evolution disproves God; What it does do, is give a perfect and rational explanation about how things came to be, without needing to assume God did it. If creationism were true, which it isn't, it would prove that there is a God. I'd be puzzled to harzard a guess about which God, there are so many to choose from.

Darwin had 6 editions of his famous book. You will see that he doesn't use God or religious theme in the first. Bu suprisingly? Religion pressured him into using words like God in editions 2-6.
 
Kark, natural selection is totally not random. Just the mutations are. The thing you described, an earthquake for example, is exactly the thing that may seperate a species and over time, both adapt to their different environments.
 
Kark, natural selection is totally not random. Just the mutations are. The thing you described, an earthquake for example, is exactly the thing that may seperate a species and over time, both adapt to their different environments.

You don't think there is any random factor at all in natural selection? (without arguing that nothing is random because everything hangs together blablabla quoting Aristotle blabla).
You can maybe argue that lightning strikes aren't random.. taller people might get hit more often, since lightning usually seeks the highest place, but I think lightning strike is more about being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Say a bunch of animal X (an animal that can't swim) are walking along a shore on a line, suddenly a very large wave comes and drags half of them into the water, they drown, the rest prevail. I'd say that's pretty random, unless being at the right place at the right time is something that is not luck, but a skill coded by genetics :D
And unless there were some of animal X who feared water, stayed away from it, and thus didn't get hit by the wave.
 
I'm interested in people who voted creationism, why do they think that? It's a bit like saying the moon is bigger than the sun, even that's probably better.

Just look at all the dogs. Every single one of them are related, having evolved from a wolf. Just look how much change is possible then, instead of a few hundred years, to millions and millions of years.

Some animals are known only to live and reproduce in live animals's eyes, including humans. What kind of design is this? Is God some sadistic higher being, enjoying watching pain and suffering? :) What about the larangyl nerve? It's famously known for doing a massive detour and then going back up to the larnyx where it already had passed before, this isn't a sign of an intelligent creator!
 
That's not selection, that's termination ;) Evo doesn't happen quickly so all of them would have died.

The genetic stuff is random right, the things in the environment I guess is random, which is what I think you're saying, but selection and propagation of genes isn't random, the ones that work better a selectively "chosen".
 
Not that I believe in a God, but know one is saying evolution disproves God; What it does do, is give a perfect and rational explanation about how things came to be, without needing to assume God did it. If creationism were true, which it isn't, it would prove that there is a God. I'd be puzzled to harzard a guess about which God, there are so many to choose from.

Darwin had 6 editions of his famous book. You will see that he doesn't use God or religious theme in the first. Bu suprisingly? Religion pressured him into using words like God in editions 2-6.


Don't you see you just said that evolution disproves god. You say that because evolution is such a rational explanation of creation that it disproves god because it explains how things come.
 
matt, how about we look at this from the most basic standpoint there is:

you believe there is no God.
i believe there is a God.

your beliefs may or may not provide you and your family/friends with hapiness throughout your life(i simply dont know if believing in evolution makes life more enjoyable or not)

my beliefs have made me happy and continue to make me, my family, and my friends happy and hopeful for the future.

but, let's say you are right, and there is no God.
perhaps you lived a more "thrilling" and "fun" life, knowing there is no creator to be held accountable to. good! you were right after all!!!

however, i have also lived a happy life living in the loving philosophy of my God. (another good!) but i died believing in someone who does not exist. (doesnt really help or hurt me either way) i wasted those sundays at church that i could have been sleeping in, or watching football(i dont really mind that honestly haha)

ont he other hand...now, lets say i am right, and there IS a God.
you have lived a life of rejection of the creator, and you rejected his gift of salvation. sadly, the road you have chosen leads to hell. (bad : [ )

however, i lived a life of faith believing in my creator=love and heaven. (good)

now, am i saying i believe in God only because its the safe route? no! i believe in God for so many more reasons than that, more than i can list here.

i am simply showing how we should both be happy and accepting with our beliefs and not try to be harsh or pushy in our faiths because either way, i am happy believing what i believe and (im guessing) you are happy believing what you believe.

truly, i love the life i am living. i dont see us as cross-armed opposites, i actually think ur a nice guy.

but our views are not the same, and i do not think a simple online conversation will truly change your beliefs.

why would it? i am not going to change my beliefs simply because of an online conversation.

i guess its a great time to agree to disagree then.

however, either an eternity of abyss or an eternity of accountability awaits us.
 
Faith and science don't mix. Anyone who says otherwise, I'm looking at you, Matt, is fooling themselves.

Keep them separate. If the religious people can't do that, they need to stay out of the lab/classroom. If the scientists can't do that, they need to stay out of the lab.


That being said, evolution is the most proven theory in all of science. Evolution=change over time. Those who feel threatened by it's legitimacy in terms of whether it verifies the existence of a creator or not, do not understand what evolution entails.
 
hmmm, I don't know, I think both God and Evolution are wrong on their own, it seems to me that both need each other to exist, but hey, call me out, bash me it's cool :p
 
I was told once that I was weak for believing in god. Is it that I'm weak for believing or he was ignorant for not? I don't know one way or another if god exists for sure, no one does, no one can prove or disprove it one way or another, but I believe what I believe. I was never raised in a religious house, I wasn't introduced to religion until I was about 14 years old, but I always felt like there was something, something helping me get through, pick myself up after I fell down, well, to say the least, if it is all a sad gimmic it's the best story anyone has ever created, think on it, angels, demons, the ultimate evil the ultimate good etc etc, pretty intense stuff if you read into it, even if you are just doing it for entertainment :D....I was ranting, I hope some of this makes sense :)
 
Don't you see you just said that evolution disproves god. You say that because evolution is such a rational explanation of creation that it disproves god because it explains how things come.

No I didn't! All I said is that it gives a very, satisfactory, explanation without needing to evoke a God. That is, it gives an alternative explanation which is Godless. That doesn't imply it disproves God. Surely you understand now? :)
 
Hey Don, don't worry, no bashing! :)

It's good at least that you say you don't know. Unlike other believers who just know 100% that their God is the right one. (I often wonder if they think how lucky they are then, to be born into the right geography and time in this world).

I'd highly recommend you read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's rationally convincing to th bone, no nonsense!
 
Protein boy

I'm happy that you and your family are happy.

Your argument sounds like Pascal's Wager. And is covered well in the God Delusion. For example wouldn't it be safer to believe in all Gods in case your one is the wrong one? What if another God was equally punishing as the judeo-christian type who punishes you for not believing in him even if that persons does good all his life. You can't force someone to truly believe in God is they don't. Would God allow feigning belief to go to heaven? Would he not value someone who is honest and caring? And so on..

The problem is, people who believe in creationism (who happen to believe in God), are popping up creatonist museums, deluding children into thinking evolution is wrong and a sin, forcing teachers to teach the "alternative theory", etc etc.
 
If you agree, why did you make this thread? Your initial post and quiz blatantly mix faith and science, which confuses many people.

People don't understand that faith and science cannot be applied to each other. That's why there is controversy. That's why there are people getting their panties in a bunch.

Obviously people believe 100% in their god because of faith. Speaking of which, you seem to have a lot of faith in science. And that's wrong. Science is a tool. It's like carrying a monkey wrench everywhere because you believe it will solve any obstacle you come across.
 
I know what faith means and I used it properly. Because you think it doesn't apply to you is not my concern.

As far as I Creationism goes, is a bane on education. Truly it is god of the gaps. It's all based on rationalization in attempts to "prove" that the bible is right. It sounds really great to say, "let's have the kids hear all sides!" What other side? The side that draws hasty conclusions that are extremely far-reaching in order to prove that what the bible says is true?

Anyways, you're fighting on the right side, Matt, but you're fighting the wrong ways. Stop being such a Dawkins nuthugger. Dawkins would probably have a lot more success with his mission of getting these ridiculous ideas exposed, out in the open, were he less of a douchebag about it. Yes, be aware, yes, be logical, yes, promote discussion, yes, do what you can to limit the strength of those ideas such as creationism in classrooms. But in order to do that, especially the last one, you need to be smart about it. And certainly you should not seek to first confuse the people before you berate them.
 
Back
Top