I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic principle, the limits of rationality, not all truths can be proven, Einstein concurred. I have always found it extremely absurd to see great intellects like the late Jacques Monod attempting to validate their atheism by dismantling religious fairytales, as though deconstructing the Biblical account of creation and pointing out that if God is responsible for evolution, it must be a cruel God, provided in itself proof that there is no 'higher intelligence' and man must be the be all and end all of the Universe. Human ignorance is only surpassed by human arrogance. Nature has far more complexity than we have powers of observation. In the end we must all be wrong, otherwise there can be no advancement.
I could have told you that had I wanted to be negative.
More importantly, is it really all that important for us to determine the truth behind why we are here and what the purpose of the world really is? Not to me. I made my choices through my beliefs and that's where they'll stay. If I'm wrong, I'll be wrong.
After 75 posts I'm sure this thread is already off track, but I really don't feel like reading 75 posts so I'm just going to respond to the OP's original thoughts.
I agree completely with your basic premise. To insist one has with certainty metaphysical answers is quite naive, I dot not agree however that it is delusional to try and prove one is right. That is just simply human nature.
Regarding creationism and evolution - the probability that they are either wrong or right is ambiguous since we speculate barely a dot on the infinite plane of possibilities.
why can't god and evolution theory co exist..problem occurs when religion is brought in.religion , god are two different things...life existed much before bible or vedas and would exist even when people forget about books...
i dont nullify god but i dont think religions are divine..religion is one of way of understanding things but this way is man made ...if religions were divine , they would have had many records which are missing and science have discovered...now either god had bad memory that it forgot to mention important species like dinosaur which ruled the world for so many years or those who wrote books were not aware that dinosaur existed...
evolution theory and god can go together..why can't god devise system called nature which facilitated evolution?...
If ignorance is bliss how come so many people are unhappy?
I personally don't consider calling myself an atheist pigeon holing myself. I have been on both sides of the fence and after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the biblical god or any gods for that matter is irrational. I am of the opinion that gods are the creation of man due to his ignorance about the world around him in earlier more primitive times. Mankind has worshiped everything from imaginary gods to nature, animals, ancestors, etc.
When it comes to objective evidence I feel that there is more evidence against the existence of god than there is for it. Although I do agree that there are things that are outright mysteries to us and may remain unknown to us. I just don't think that god is one of those mysteries.
The 'evidence' you refer to is based on subjective, philosophical interpretations and is by no means 'Empirical'. What you are basically saying is that your conviction in atheism is based on blind faith, same as the Creationists.
Evolution by the process of natural selection is a scientific fact. Of course there are holes that have not yet been filled but the fossil record alone speaks volumes. All of the worlds so called sacred texts are nothing more than the musings of man claiming divine inspiration. It's funny how they all claim to be divinely inspired and yet differ so much.
Science unlike creationism does not base itself on faith but on a process of investigation that leaves theories open to later discoveries that may either prove even further the theory or disprove it, in which case it is discarded and we go back to the drawing board.
Creationists claim absolute truth basing themselves on some unknown persons revelations not on known facts. Also a revelation is only a revelation to the one claiming to have experienced it. To the rest of us it is just hearsay.
Kurt Godel in your quote is saying there is no objective view, only subjective. It makes perfect sense because if there was one objective truth, everyone would come together and agree, much like agreeing that the earth exists. But even the earth existing can be subjective. The subjective is why everyone wants one unified theory of purpose to bring everyone to one objective reality of unity.
There are to many holes in Evolution for it to be considered anything more than the, THEORY, it is.
It cannot explain all the seeming adaptations and inventions of nature in the Animal world.... never mind explaining were We came from.
yes a good story... but not much proof to support the wild assertions of Evolutionary Biologists. They should go back to teaching thier 7th grade science classes.
I think it is the subjective thoughts that create the physical changes and inventions. I think the error of evolution is leaning that life doesn't have purpose or design. Survival of the fittest is not a unifying theory.
but same applies to all religious books too..too man holes , miracles as such things..good stories but not rational..
Truth... you do know the theory of the "Survival of the Fittest, and the, "Theory Of Natural Selection Through Evolution", are two different theories.
Just wanted to make sure that is clear. Alot of people mistake them for the same theory. They are not.
read them..., they are two very different mechanisms of selection. Though many may combine them... and many lines of thought may have streamed from that combination... they are not the same.
And I don't see science as at odds with the Bible or creationism. That is not the intent, nor has it ever been, of science.
That didn't answer my question. Darwin mentions survival of the fittest as those that adapt traits most beneficial to their survival making them the fittest. What does survival of the fittest theory suggest?
I am not going to play school with you truth. Your chumming the waters.. go find another fish.
If you do not know they are two different theories... then I cannot help you. lol lolllllll
Chummin for chumps... it was a simple, truthfull, statement... "Two different theoiries".
Nothing more, nothing less.
You said... "Survival of the fittest is also mentioned in Darwins origin of species"
So your well I aware I am correct.
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
I think you are speaking on things you haven't read of, this is why you won't answer the question.
I don't know what more proof you want. I just pasted where the saying came from and you still won't admit fault in your assumption.
Perhaps now he will actually read something before trying to discuss it! You are correct in your statement concerning "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." Otherwise he would have answered your query,
The bible was never meant to be a treatise on science, what passes as in the bible for science has been in general systematically dismantled by modern science. If you analyze the scriptures and science you will find alot of disparity between the two.
Objective unity is impossible without sacrificing our individuality, which makes us human, in exchange for the innate,pure automatism of insect societies. The point is that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but claiming to know such truth is tantamount to claiming to be God oneself.
Evolution has been proved. Even creationists admit that, their arguments having been reduced to whether or not humans are a special case (God's creation) evolving separately from other creatures. No serious person, given the evidence, disputes evolution. Yes, it's called a theory, but so is gravity. Neither process has been completely described because important evidence is either missing or beyond our abilities to discover. Nevertheless, evolution has been shown again and again to successfully predict future events. Countless examples are on the record. Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" is a good source book for covering the arguments. I wrote a hub reviewing it.
That said, there is no reason why evolution can't be seen as the mechanics of creation. Even creationists have to concede that there are mechanics involved. Maybe some all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful being set it all in motion. We don't know that, but if it helps so many people who seem desperate for Gods, let them have that.
There is much more to evolution than "survival of the fittest," which by the way is a phrase Darwin didn't come up with or use. Survival of the most attractive to the female of the species is more likely to be the larger tale. And by attractive, it means able to provide the healthiest, most vibrant offspring that will survive the many dangers nature uses to cull weakness.
Finally, quoting Kurt Vonnegut: "If there is a God, He's got some explaining to do."
God cannot be an object of knowledge, because in the act of knowing man cannot rise above God.
Perhaps Vonnegut could rise above God.
"Even creationists admit that, their arguments having been reduced to whether or not humans are a special case (God's creation) evolving separately from other creatures."
That is not exactly accurate... Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution thought from the start that though evolution may indeed apply to the animal kingdom, it may not apply to us.
He, Alfred Russel Wallace, created a list of attributes that to this day have not been explained by evolution. To state creationists arguments have been reduced to such is not right. That opinon has been front and center for as long as evolution itself. None of his questions have been answered thus far... matter of fact the scientific community has made a concerted effort to erase his name from the journals.
lol... we are not talking about a fact... accepted by a greater majority of scientists and pronounced from the mount. We are talking about a THEORY which has not been proven to be anything more.... and which is full of holes and racked with suppossed evidence which is full of holes.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … history_14
It was not some great new break-through of thought.
Wallace likely had more religious support than Darwin, but didn't get as much publicity? Why? Because Darwin had the most explanatory theory. With all of our biological similarities with other animal life, only a religious defender will deny evolution.
I don't deny Evolution exists... those are your words. I do deny that it has been proven in the way most Athiests and Godless people want it to be. I can watch evolution occur... I can see it's results... but I do not see that as excluding God and supporting the atheistic view of Evolution.
Evolution in no way challenges God... Atheist Scientists do.
So where exactly you see hands of gods behind evolution ? I mean seriously what keeps god on such-lengthy process of evolution ?
I see Evolution as another tool of God's.
It is not God that is taking so long... it is man.
And I do not think it applies to Man. There are way too many attributes and traits to man that cannot be assigned to Evolution.
Yes... I have heard the old... "Look at the great apes", and the... "Look at pre-modern man"... etc, etc. but I will say this. There are far, far more difference between apes and man, then there are similarities.
Many, many, many more.
Also... how many times have we heard of evidence of Evolution, only to find out it has been faked or lied into existence. Shall I post them all?...
Evolution is not all that it is taught to be.
What separates us from ape besides our brains, language, and writing?
Many animals that evolve from one another look completely different from one another, looks are purely subjective. Do you think humans evolved first and all animals came from us? There is gradual improvement in evolution, the smartest and most intelligent doesn't come first.
for example ? please elaborate.
Lol,why not post it ? we can give you many more evidences that are free from creationism propaganda. There are many evidences of evolution and i never heard of any which is faked unless any creationism preacher popped that up on his own.
The pilt-down man was faked... Glued together... the black peppered moth experiment was faked... The embryology drawings were faked... many, many things done to prove evolution were faked and fudged.
I bet you still believe Miller Urey proved they could create life. lol
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_ … peculation
Perhaps the gods are also subject to evolutionary forces. They change as well from one generation to the next. Is not Zeus superior to Chronos, or Athena a cut above Zeus?
Yes, I think so. That is a mind opening idea.
In any case, extra-ordinary powers don't take time if used for species development then why creator selected evolution(as per escapist creationism assumption) ? it looks like creator is bored to death and want to take his time with evolution.
I don't think they was talking about actual powers, I think they are talking about the powers people evolved or suggested them as having as time went on.
Not every god claims to have created the universe. Most gods don't have any such pretensions. A majority of the gods are the sons of gods who are also the sons of other gods. Even in the Christian pantheon, the son cannot have been the creator. As for the father, well, he also had a father.
Well, not precisely ad infinitum, but the same problem exists with natural history. It's a chicken and egg sort of conundrum: what was the first life form from which all others sprang by evolutionary process? And how did it come to be? You might as well ask who was the first god.
To keep mocking that evolution is only "THEORY" implies that you deny it as being part fact. Evolution does challenge the religious definings of God while not challenging creation or design from an unknown.
It is a "Theory", truth... that is just a fact.
If only theory, why not deny that it exists?
We can watch micro-evolution occur... you know that already... and I am sure you can see the results of evolution, also.
But to jump to that implying that there is no god and all are animals... is a very far leap.
And it has not been shown yet to have happened.
Where are the transitional fossils showing us the way of the emergence of new species. What exaclty happened to create the cambrian explosion, and why isn't it recorded in the fossil records. Along with the obvious, where did all that life come from?...
There is alot missing...
And also too many lies have been told trying to persuade the public evolution is true, for us to just believe anything said about it. from the pilt-down man to black peppered moths, life created,... shall I go on.
Tooo many falsities that are still taught as fact in school as fact, in the attempt to convince.
If it was soo true it was undeniable... then why all the lies about evidence.
And as too a list of differences between us and the apes, google it.
I am not about to try to list them all here... and they seem to delete links I post. So...
But if the human mid alone is not enough both physically and in it's ephemeral aspects (intellectual reflection, Art, Poetry and the need to create such things.) then I don't know what is. But there are many... too many to list.
To say there is not alot of questions yet to be answered to determine whether or not evolution is a fact, is just plain wrong.
That is why it is still just a theory.
So if you believe evolution exists, what parts of it do you think are true? There has to be some true parts for you to believe it exists right? I haven't seen you list them. Evolution isn't about the beginning of life, but you probably already know that. Fossils really aren't even needed when you observe the behaviour similarities between humans and animals. We are just higher evolved animals although some make this hard to tell.
You know, snip away.. if that is what you think this is all about.
My point throughout has been, not whether evolution exists. But the leftist Atheist interpretation of what it's existence, means.
Just because animals evolved, does not mean there is no God.
They are not mutually exclusive ideas you know. You do not seem to get that. I believe evolution exists, but is not applicable to man in the way the atheists want it to be.
That bothers you. Why?...
I'm not bothered, but thank you for checking on me. What way is evolution applicable to man? What is the atheist interpretation that they are forcing, that there is no designer or creator? They are saying the religious teachings of God contradict evolution, not the possibility of a creator overall.
Lets not argue over whether its a theory or fact. Because even if the scientists prove that its a fact, Im sure the believers will still walk their way & might even ask the scientists to turn a monkey into human as a demonstration
Even if we assume that Theory of Evolution is just a theory, it should be noted that this theory has much much more evidence than the Theory of God!
It has been proven but as for the exact way we evolve, that's still in dispute.
Who implied it would, blind faith is leaving our fate to chance, not taking responsibility for ourselves. As Homer said:How foolish men are, how unjustly they blame the gods. They bring suffering upon themselves over and above what is fated for them, then they blame the gods.Or as fallenangel would put it: God helps those who help themselves.
Just quietly watching the proceedings. And wondering how come Mark Knowles has not turned up yet.
Oh...my tuppence worth...still a lot we don't know on both sides. Sabbath day of rest reminds us every week that there is a Creator.
Like most thinking Christians I must confess that the arguments and evidence for evolution and creation require faith.
This thread promises to be informative and balanced, from the look of things.
Boy! Did I ever assume balanced?
Wished the creationists would develop arguments without replying to the barbs.
But still along for the ride.
Predict we will hear from creation science.
But will arrive at reasonable faith as the possible outcome.
I suppose one can look at the theory of evolution and see if their is anything provable in the process. Just as you can for the theory of there being a god. There should be no difference in the way you obtain facts about either theory.
And you know randy, I don't see a conflict or even a compition between the two. I don't know why that bothers people, but appearently it does. I also don't know why it bothers people that some people see it for what it is, a theory.
If evolution is simply a theory then creationism is simply a myth.
This is one thing we may agree on, TM! I never understood why some believers have trouble reconciling the two. Couldn't their god use evolution to advance mankind? He supposedly created a rainbow to promise no more great floods. We understand what causes a rainbow now just as we do lightning and thunder.
We understand these things because of science, not blind faith. Those who do not believe any part of the evolutionary theory are just saying they know how god does or does not accomplish things. It seems pretty bold of them to claim knowledge of their god's intent and purpose.
These people are usually the same ones who say "we cannot know God's reasons for letting children die" or some such statement.
Yeah we may, randy.
As I said I don't know why it bothers some that I believe evolution to a point. Not the process... but the meaning some try to impart to it's existence. Evolution niether proves nor disproves God... or were man came from.
So many seem to think Evoluition says man came from ape... it does not... it says we are on the same familial limb of the tree... but we are in fact a different spruot or sprig which has come forth.
Science... I do not believe... even cares to speak to the things of God... or to the existence of God. That is not the intent of science, nor any of the fields of science. Though some would seem to want to make all believe it is.
Science never lies...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_ … peculation
There is a huge difference, God is supposedly unknowable. There is no way to put god in a test tube or get a blood sample from him etc. Everything in relation to god must be taken completely on faith. Through the various scientific methods of study we can test different theories and ideas and either accept them or disprove them based on the evidence or lack thereof.
Evolution was never meant to be a theory on origins of life, that still remains a mystery to this day. It is rather a theory on the progression of living species on this planet. From the smallest one celled organism up to what we are now.
Humans whether you like it or not you are all part of the animal kingdom. We are mammals and share alot in common with our earlier descendants. The chimpanzee has been shown to be the closest match to us genetically, and scientist have revealed that a chimp fetus develops exactly as a human fetus up until the 4th month. It is then that our differences begin to become apparent as separate species.
To say that evolution does not apply to us is to display complete ignorance regarding evolution. People like to have that special place above the rest of creation but nothing could be further from the truth.
I am of the opinion that all forms of religion that worship a supernatural being or transcendent being should be relegated to the shelf in the library or bookstore of mythology. Nothing can ever prove the existence of God or gods of any kind.
Again... none of that changes the fact.. it is a "theory", still.
As usual it's like talking to the wall, no surprise here.
Yes it is, but I will continue to try to enlighten you.
You're all fanatics, as with all forms of extremism the reality is most likely to exist somewhere in the middle, this can be ascertained from a principle known as fallenangel's razor. I give up and bow out gracefully, please try to be more gracious to each other despite the differences in belief. Farewell and ado.
What I find a bit sad in this and similar threads is the pervasive notion that to describe a postulated explanation as a "theory" somehow demeans it. This is a misunderstanding of what a theory is. Our knowledge advances not by proven facts but by un-disproven theories of ever greater explanatory power. It is to successful theories such as gravitation, electromagnetism. special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics that we owe our emergence from ignorance and superstition and our increasing power to influence events. (I'm not saying we always make correct decisions of course!) Evolutionary theory has itself evolved from Darwin's time and now goes a long way to explain much of the observable biosphere.
The difference between a theory and 'revealed knowledge' is that the former has a place in the evolution of objective knowledge. The latter has not.
Let's hear it for THEORIES !!
Well put - and it is notable that creationism is not a theory but a media backed strange idea that has been concocted from the bible - not science or philosophy, both of which find it a laughable idea.
What are the objectives that creationists and evolutionists agree on?
Science and God, in my opinion, are one in the same. Evolution can still exist with creation... it had to start somewhere. Once someone can tell me how something can come from nothing then I'll certainly be listening. Until then, I highly recommend those in favor of evolution, as well as those in favor of creation to read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. He explains how these scientific "theories", including evolution, are actually further proven by the bible.
That is all.
Thanks, but what script of creation doesn't contradict evolution? Evolution is the changes in life, not the origin, that is abiogenesis. What does Schroeder say about which came first, man or other life?
Have you not heard of abiogenesis? Did you listen? Abiogenesis is not evolution.
A review of that book:
"Schroeder trots out all the old, tiresome arguments about why "life could not have stared by chance" and how the simplest forms, even viruses, are "far too complex to have originated without there being an inherent chemical property of molecular self-organization and/or reaction enhancing catalysts at every step of their development". He applies the usual creationist deception of calculating chance probabilities as if chance is the only operative mechanism, and then saying this "proves" that God intervenes along the way when they come out very low. And, of course, the "staccato aspect of the fossil record" refutes classical evolution. "These rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the molecular-genetic level."
In the opening shot of this forum fallenangel666 stated;
“ I have always found it extremely absurd to see great intellects like the late Jacques Monod attempting to validate their atheism by dismantling religious fairytales, as though deconstructing the Biblical account of creation....”
I am not exactly sure that that interpretation of Jacques Monod is fair or correct, I accept his assertion of ‘Biblical Fairy tales’ was perhaps a little cruel and hard but a point well made none the less.
For the true Creationist the words of the Bible are the literal words of God, and if you read the exact order of creation as laid out in Genesis then God himself would have failed his basic science exams. It simply makes no sense whatsoever other than as a nice story told around a campfire.
Can you explain why God would have "failed his basic science exams"? Also, what "makes no sense whatsoever"? You've tried to make an argument, but seem to have eluded the details of the points you're arguing.
Are you reading the same Genesis that I am ? Let me see.....
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In other words God create the planet Earth first.With me so far?
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Which means he either invented Electricity, or he created the Sun. Could that be the same Sun whose immense gravity the Earth and the other planets needed to coalesce into being ?
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”
Opps ! Haven’t we covered this one already or did we have two Suns and a moon ?
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind.”
So that means that all living things were bouncing around at the same time.... No mention of dinosaurs I notice.... or pterodactyls flying around... Can help thinking somebody might of noticed and given them a mention in the Bible don’t you ? All that Egyptian and Greek writings and drawings.... Not a mention.
“And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.”
Every one that findeth me ? Where did Ever one come from ?
Let me see ? First there was Adam...then Eve who had two sons Cain and Abel. Cain beaned his brother so now we should be back to a world population of three... right ?
“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch”
And she came from ....?
Needless to say I have only taken a few extracts, I could go on and literally take the whole thing apart, but what would be the point ?
Why would God have failed all his Science exams ?
You do the Math for yourself. If he is God, and the Bible is the Literal word of God how come he didn’t explain the Universe, the Galaxy, the Solar system and our part in it in the right order ?
The point I was trying to make is the TRUE Creationist belief the Bible, especially the first five books of it are the Literal word of God.
No exceptions, no wild interpretations, no arguments one way or the other.... it is the LITERAL word of God !
My argument is simple, if you accept anything discovered by man in the last five hundred years or so from Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein or Steven Hawking how can you still say the creation of the Earth as depicted in the Bible is correct ?
I accept modern science whole-heartedly. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking are all brilliant. So brilliant that their once called theories are now accepted as facts, and I concur with their discoveries and agree that they are facts.
I do not know your religious background nor how well you've studied the bible, from which your argument against creationist belief stems. However, I'm willing to guess you have at least a high school understanding of scientific concepts; physics, chemistry, biology, etc.. You may even have higher education in some or all of these areas, and that's great. Again, I don't know your background in biblical knowledge so I will generalize here. It's reasonable to say the general population has studied the bible or had some sort of religious education for probably 3-6 years of their life (kindergarten - 6th grade), or less. Again I'm generalizing, it's also reasonable to say the majority of the general population has studied science (physics, biology, chemistry) at least through high school, so 12 years. Opinions are based on experiences and knowledge. Based on this I can see why the general population would most likely argue for evolution and against creationism. They are simply more knowledgeable of evolution than they are of creationism. I realize I've made some large generalizations, but I feel that most people would agree with them. Luckily, I feel that I'm in a position to have a fair debate with myself over evolution vs. creationism because I have a deep understanding of the bible and continue to study it as well as a great post secondary education in science.
With my background, experiences, and knowledge I believe that evolution and creationism are both correct.
I'm assuming you accept the discoveries of science and therefore you surely accept Einstein's theory of relativity. By accepting this than you must accept that the perception of time is relative to the mass and therefore gravity of the object from which you are perceiving. A day on earth is 24 hours, but a day elsewhere in the universe is based on the aforementioned scientific principles.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," a quote from your above post and the bible. But you left out the rest of the sentence "the earth was without form and void." It's actually not until the third day that the bible says the Earth was formed, "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas." So first he created heaven and Earth, but later the bible refers to it as "The Earth." Your conclusions on this topic show your lack of knowledge of the old testament, and because of this I don't blame you for not believing in creation.
You also mention how Cain refers to "everyone" despite there only being 3 humans. Again, your lack of biblical understanding is holding you back here. There was man before human. It explicitly says in the bible that God breathed into Adam's nostrils the neshama (Hebrew for soul) and Adam became a living soul. Adam was the first human because he had a soul, but man existed before him as well as during his time. This allows evolution to have taken place and man to have evolved, but it wasn't until adam was given a soul that human beings came about.
It is amazing how easy it is to understand Evolution and many other pieces of scientific information when you leave God out of the equation.
Creationalism isn't a theory, scientific or otherwise, it's a simple explanation made up thousands of years ago to try and explain an extremely complex issue to iliterate people trying hard to make sense of things around them.
What I can't understand is that the world has moved on from there so why are there people so whose mind is stuck in a 6000 year old time loop ?
Both theories Atheism and Theism are irrational when all of the facts and/or possibilities are not considered.
Science shows us that is fossil evidence that civilization existed on the earth before the ice age that ended approx. 10,000 years ago. Creationist must consider this fact and readjust their beliefs that Adam was the first man ever to live upon the face of the earth.
But who is to say that their God could not have reseeded the earth so to speak,
Re creating mankind presence upon the earth ?
With proper consideration I believe that evolution and creationist can come together into a state of agreement. I believe that if this is possible.
Nonsense. Making up new fairy tales to suit the facts does not constitute "proper consideration." The creation story in the bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.
And you a big fan of not interpreting God's perfect word - now you want to interpret it? Tut tut.
LOL at the irrational atheist not accepting something just coz a religionists sed god sed it into his head. That is the funniest thing you have said.
Mark Knowles said ..
LOL at the irrational atheist not accepting something just coz a religionists sed god sed it into his head. That is the funniest thing you have said.
I wish that I could take the credit for saying something funny ...BUT ..... as usual you are saying somebody said something that they didn't say. LOL
It is a shame that so many people can not comprehend what they are reading.
I understand exactly Jerami. I'm sorry - did you have some evidence of your invisible super Daddy that does not involve god speaking into your head that I missed somewhere?
And what exactly is it that makes discarding the idea of a god irrational?
It seems that you still can't read what have I have written.
Do your replies have anything to do with my coment?
What facts are these exactly? You are saying there are some facts that back up theism? Possibilities? Should we not include an infinite number of possible gods? In which case - your is pretty unlikely.
Utter nonsense and the only reason you say this is to defend your religion.
Please explain why deciding there is no god because of the absolute total utter lack of evidence in favor is an irrational decision.
All there is is people like you saying there is one. But god speaks to you or whoever wrote the book you get your information out of. Does it not? Directly into your head - or the head of the person telling you what to say.
And it is irrational of me not to take your word for it?
Which is meaningless gibberish with no basis in rational thinking. Merely defending your religious beliefs which are based on nothing.
Proper consideration? You mean suspending rational thought?
Who is to say the universe was not vomited by The Star Goat?
What am I not addressing?
I'm sorry if I sound arrogant but you are all stark raving mad, you haven't even the slightest apprehansion of what an objective debate means, off the the top of my head Blake said something like:' Man views the Universe through the narrow chinks in his cavern.' Heidegger said through the trivia of everydayness we stay earthed and sane by blinkering ourselves, every one of you is akin to a race horse, blinkered in order that it can concentrate on the narrow course ahead. It's like there are numerous paths we could take but everyone only gives credence to either of the extreme paths, there's no middle ground, this is irrational, wake up and broaden your minds.
How to win friends and influence people...
With your obvious credentials, how can we fail not to see your superior reasoning? Whooo! LOL! You are joking I hope? If not, Whoooooo! HA!
If you want to butt heads say something intelligent
I bow to your superior wisdom and hope that we can still be friends.
I don't know about being friends. I'm leery of religious folk who do not use their real names. Plus, unless this is your sock puppet, you have written nothing here. I'll pass for now! But peace anyway!
What does theism vs atheism have to do with creationism vs evolution?
At last a reasonable question, the answer is nothing, theism v atheism is an argument between two groups of fanatics whose conviction is based on blind faith, but then again the same could be said about evolution, no one is so gifted with perceptive genius that they can claim to know the truth, the Universe is Infinite, mans perception if finite. How come evryone thinks they're God?
Plausible deniability? Me thinks, yes.
Lol, well I don't know about "fanatics"--that's a term I usually reserve for violent people or extremists of a belief system. But I agree there is no relation.
So you don't accept evolution because the human capacity for knowledge is limited?
I never implied that I do not accept evolution, of course I do, this has nothing to do with the debate about theism and atheism, if you have proof that no higher intelligence than man exists publish it, you will be more famous than Newton, Darwin and Einstein put together, if not stop pretending you know evrything and admit you don't know.
My, such hostility! Not sure where that comes from.
You yourself said just above that evolution is based on blind faith.
The topic of this page--which you started--is creation v evolution. I was discussing evolution, which you indicated was based on blind faith.
Where on earth did I pretend I "know everything"? And where did I indicate that I know or have proof that god does not exist?
When a human, defined by other humans as a creationist, views and agrees with the written text of genesis it does not actually conflict with the universe nor agree with it. The human knos they had no part in that event, though they fully enjoy and interact with that creation -for good or bad.
It is however a sad idea -less then 1% of the global population- that deems non-existence of Creator. And should group of humans reach a totality of intellect, not pretend intellect (meaning information gathered from other equal humans) or book knowledge, then perhaps they have achieved their goal of proving creation incorrect. Though I don't see how it is possible for the aforementioned to conclude an argument against creation -unless of course they were there and can re-create it precisely as it was. So, that leaves them to reject/deflect from their own lack of actual intelligence. For intelligence precedes creation. Knowledge interacts with creation. They are certainly not the same.
You must be very angry that 1% of the population does not agree there is a Creator.
How very sad that the facts support them.
Perhaps if you burned them at the stake? IDK - it worked for a while.
But - Yay! How very objective you are! Yay! LOLOLOL
Mark Knowles lets follow your argument through to its natural conclusion, the implementation of eugenics and the sreilization of everyone whose right hand hemisphere overides the left. Heil Hitler.
What argument was that exactly? Fallen Angel 666 objective?
You must be very angry that some of us don't buy the invisible super Daddy in the sky.
We must be on the wrong page or a different cognitive level, I don't subscribe to religion or anthropomorphic representations of God. I simply believe that we possess intuitive knowledge beyond the rational, just like Godel and Einstein. We do not not know that there is no 'higher intelligence' than us, this has nothing to do with some gadger with a beard sitting on a cloud.
Yes - you are at a different cognitive level it seems.
Too bad. Hitler?
Sorry science scares you so much. I can see why you are so angry.
I don't care what you believe - or that you are prepared to lie and make believe it is what Einstein believed. LOL
Objective? Sure. LOL
no such thing as facts, lest "The Assumption of Mary, err, Marcus."
Let's try to use coherent arguments please
What has all that got to do with objectivity, have you any idea what the word means?
Objectivity kinda implies god or a god-like position - there is no god and no such thing as objective - everything is subjective.
You must have your wires completely crossed, science is the product of the objective mind, spirtualism is a product of the subjective or subconscious mind. Forget the poetry and try reading a book about psychology. Seen.
That will be you with crossed wires I think - this is about philosophy not psychology. This is about how we understand the world around us - and we can only understand from our own view point, subjective (to our own view). Objectivity is seeing from the viewpoint of some higher authority who sees only truth and reality, which by definition must be some kind of god.
Colloquially we refer to the objective view as meaning standing back from the object to be able to see ourselves with the object and the relationships between us - but this is just a different (but useful) subjective view.
Objectivity is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, allowing us to conceptualize and concieve of abstract ideas, this has very little to do with religion which is highly subjective as is philosophy itself. The subjective mind could never have worked out that the earth is round or that it rotates around the sun.
I think earlier you suggested that I forget poetry and try reading a book. I would suggest that you go back to school and start again - you have a really strange idea of it all that is all your own. The ability to reason is what separates us from most other animals. I don't agree with twenty One days here but at least he has a grasp of the subject (and the object)
i apologize if I was rude, but difine the difference between objectivity and reason, the big difference between us and an advanced alien civilization would be in our capability to be objective.
apology accepted - good luck with this thread - I am out of here for the time being.
ohh, look, the sock puppet is feisty.
to be objective is to critically view a singular or multiple perspective of a thing. When used correctly allows insights to the thing -also defined as parameters, angles, shadows, etc. As the perspective changes by self or other forces, the perspective of the insight and the object being viewed is altered, requiring the individual to either move with the changes (pro or ref) or remain still.
The object never changes, only the parameters of the thing being viewed exemplified as: projection, absorption or reflection of the viewer, not the object.
In the case of opine, all three qualities exist as the object, in multiple parameters of themselves by relevant or irrelevant influences -of either the object or the viewer.
Hence a true objective view has nothing to do with human capability above, equal to or beneath any creation. In the case of creation v evolution -both are identical, having the same root sequence -consciousness. So, it is one object being viewed from two perspectives/parameters, appearing to be individual items.
This is correct in the sense that our individuality is an illusion, having been seperated from the 'wholeness' we are unable to realize where we came from, why we exist or what our fate is, true objectivity probably comes to us following death.
Sorry Zach old son, but you've lost me, you are now saying there were people on the Earth before Adam....
and Cain the son of Adam had a soul but he wandered off and was copulating with lesser beings on the Planet... and you think that might lead to Evolutionary changes ?
I bow to your superior knowledge of te Bible... I must have been off sick the day they read that bit out in class.
Why do so many people think that laughing out loud has anything to do with a rational debate, shouldn't they be watching sit coms instead?
Why all the word, whatever you believe in you believe in thats it. It does not mater what you believe in once you have a strong belief in it. The fact of the mater is when you take your belief and evolve it to a knowing. thats the strong point there, a belief can be shaken and changed based on new evidence or the thoughts of someone else, but if you know the truth nothing else will matter.
Open your eyes and ye shall be as God knowing good from evil
Welcome to sin -the human indulgence of their own agenda -consciousness. Now, let's escape that slavery mentality, that need to know factory, and live as we are supposed to -in free will, yes?!
Problem is former-angel, you were defeated. LOL.
Sorry chum, no 1,000 year get out of jail free card left.
Red Card, Game over. It was over 2k years ago -are you just figuring that out?
That which has been hidden to you will eventually be brought into the light.
the devil is knee deep in religion my friend, only he desires to corrupt it.
We shouldn't take mythology quite so literally. Besides if Lucifer hadn't gifted us with culture we'd still be walking round naked and living in the moment, there'd be no one to worship God and no need for the church.
Oh didums has everyone spat the dummy out and no longer wants to play?
i suggest we all re-read desmond morris's "the naked ape". we will be reminded how close we are to our primate ancestors.
by Baileybear5 years ago
The bible says not to lie. Why aren't they following the bible? Why do they feel the need to defend God? Or is it really defending their very narrow worldview?
by Mark Knowles4 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make...
by Csaba Bebesai4 years ago
Did it happen, I mean, seriously? What if a God just dropped us here from the space? Or we just came out of thin air? Why Evolution?
by emrldphx4 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by cooldad5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/scien … wanted=allNew fossils were found in South Africa which may help further explain human evolution. The fossils apparently show combinations of apelike and human...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.