Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 10 of 56 | |
|
|---|
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #182 Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:59 AM
Reply #182 Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:59 AM
Anything that bleeds for a week and doesn't die has got to be evil
Or divine...SC
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
Or divine...SC
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #184 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:03 AM
Reply #184 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:03 AM
The watch analogy is fundamentally flawed as a context for evolution. Unlike watch parts, atoms and molecules have an innate characteristic that helps them to form into more complex substances.
Without boring everyone to death with the fundamentals of chemical interaction, atoms forming molecules is not a completely random event. For each type of atom, there are only so many ways that they can interact with another given atom. The same is true of molecules. As long as there is enough energy in the system to allow the molecules to move around and brush up against one another, the odds are relatively good that some will brush together and form something more complex. And so on.
Given enough time, very complex forms can occur.
As for faith, at some level, we all take things on faith. Unless you personally investigate and verify every single thing you're exposed to and accept, there is some level of faith involved. The problem that I have with what most people call faith is the idea that you aren't allowed to question it, especially as regards faith in God.
Being unwilling to question the basis of your faith is laziness. Being told you can't question the basis of your faith is immoral.
No matter what you believe, if you're unwilling to critically examine the fundamentals of that belief, you are doing a grave disservice to the object (or subject) of your belief, because without critical examination, you will ultimately allow yourself to believe almost anything.
Without boring everyone to death with the fundamentals of chemical interaction, atoms forming molecules is not a completely random event. For each type of atom, there are only so many ways that they can interact with another given atom. The same is true of molecules. As long as there is enough energy in the system to allow the molecules to move around and brush up against one another, the odds are relatively good that some will brush together and form something more complex. And so on.
Given enough time, very complex forms can occur.
As for faith, at some level, we all take things on faith. Unless you personally investigate and verify every single thing you're exposed to and accept, there is some level of faith involved. The problem that I have with what most people call faith is the idea that you aren't allowed to question it, especially as regards faith in God.
Being unwilling to question the basis of your faith is laziness. Being told you can't question the basis of your faith is immoral.
No matter what you believe, if you're unwilling to critically examine the fundamentals of that belief, you are doing a grave disservice to the object (or subject) of your belief, because without critical examination, you will ultimately allow yourself to believe almost anything.
joetheblow
Reply #185 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:21 AM
Reply #185 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:21 AM
I have faith that my car is outside. Can't see it from my bathroom whilst taking a shower though...
Guess its not there
Guess its not there
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #186 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:24 AM
Reply #186 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:24 AM
Go look and see ...thats not faith,thats assumption and expectation.
Satans Child
Reply #187 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:25 AM
Reply #187 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:25 AM
refering to #179, everything in the bible was added by "man"
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #188 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:26 AM
Reply #188 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:26 AM
Aleatoric -...you say pretty much exactly what I think...only gooder. 
cosmo-alpha
Reply #189 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:30 AM
Sorry, but I beg to differ. There has never been any concrete, or any other type, proof that the theory of evolution has ever occured. There has been much proof of mutation within a species line, but no credible documention/studies/proof that a new species has ever "evolved" from another.
Reply #189 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:30 AM
| There is concrete proof that we evolved |
Sorry, but I beg to differ. There has never been any concrete, or any other type, proof that the theory of evolution has ever occured. There has been much proof of mutation within a species line, but no credible documention/studies/proof that a new species has ever "evolved" from another.
joetheblow
Reply #190 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:38 AM
Reply #190 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:38 AM
I have faith that if I jump off a roof I will hit the ground.
I choose not to investigate that one!
Yes, I think blind faith is not a good idea. In fact, I think it is rather unwise to do and does not offer too much in the way of meaningful enlightenment.
You have to doubt and question and be able to openly do it as well.
So what have we learned today?
[Message Edited]
I choose not to investigate that one!
Yes, I think blind faith is not a good idea. In fact, I think it is rather unwise to do and does not offer too much in the way of meaningful enlightenment.
You have to doubt and question and be able to openly do it as well.
So what have we learned today?
[Message Edited]
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #192 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
Reply #192 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
Thats still not faith,faith is believing in something you cant prove.
joetheblow
Reply #193 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
Your right! I looked it up. Isn't the internet wonderful!
=====================================
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing;
allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
[Message Edited]
Reply #193 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
| #186 by Skinner I.R. Brainiac - 9/13/2003 10:24:41 AM Go look and see ...thats not faith,thats assumption and expectation. |
Your right! I looked it up. Isn't the internet wonderful!
=====================================
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing;
allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
[Message Edited]
Satans Child
Reply #194 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
Reply #194 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:44 AM
oops ... refering to #187, thats supposed to be refering to # 175 
Aleatoric
Reply #195 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:55 AM
Reply #195 Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:55 AM
cosmo,
The available evidence demonstrates that evolution did indeed take place.
As for species evolving into a new one, you have to remember that what we call a species is merely an arbitrary distinction for the most part. Its primary purpose is to provide a criteria for cataloging.
The basic, fundamental characteristics of all life on earth indicates a profound interrelationship, and there is an essentially linear time->complexity relationship in the examined history of that life. That is the definition of evolution.
The main issue for evolution is, what is the mechanism? We can argue that God is the driving force of evolution, and that it occured to His design. We could argue that natural selection is the organizing principle of evolution. We can even argue both at the same time, in that it is possible that God guided evolution via the process of natural selection. It could also be something we haven't thought of yet.
It is not a disservice to God to try to understand the mechanism of life on earth.
joetheblow,
I actually did test gravity in that respect once, falling off of a garage roof when I was a kid. The conclusion of that improptu experiment was that, yes indeed, gravity does work
The available evidence demonstrates that evolution did indeed take place.
As for species evolving into a new one, you have to remember that what we call a species is merely an arbitrary distinction for the most part. Its primary purpose is to provide a criteria for cataloging.
The basic, fundamental characteristics of all life on earth indicates a profound interrelationship, and there is an essentially linear time->complexity relationship in the examined history of that life. That is the definition of evolution.
The main issue for evolution is, what is the mechanism? We can argue that God is the driving force of evolution, and that it occured to His design. We could argue that natural selection is the organizing principle of evolution. We can even argue both at the same time, in that it is possible that God guided evolution via the process of natural selection. It could also be something we haven't thought of yet.
It is not a disservice to God to try to understand the mechanism of life on earth.
joetheblow,
I actually did test gravity in that respect once, falling off of a garage roof when I was a kid. The conclusion of that improptu experiment was that, yes indeed, gravity does work
The Rated PG
Reply #196 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:39 PM
The Case for Christ - The Hearing
Is there a case for Christ? If there were to be an arbitrary legal hearing - a court case to determine whether or not Jesus Christ is in fact the only begotten Son of God - would He be vindicated by the evidence, or exposed as a fraud?
The Case for Christ - The Prosecutor
Has anybody ever compiled the evidence to determine the case for Christ? As a matter of fact, Lee Strobel, an atheist at the time he undertook this endeavor, decided that he would prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. Strobel was certainly qualified to undertake such a task, compiling the case against Christ. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Strobel's area of expertise was Courtroom Analyst and he rose to the rank of Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune. Furthermore, Strobel was not biased towards defending Christ - he was an atheist!
The Case for Christ - The Findings
Strobel divides the case for Christ into three basic sections:
1. The Historical Record:
The eyewitness evidence (can the biographies of Jesus Christ be trusted, and do they stand up to scrutiny?)
The documentary evidence (were the biographies of Jesus reliably preserved for us?)
The corroborating evidence (is there credible evidence for Jesus Christ outside of His biographies?)
The scientific evidence (does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus' biographies?)
The rebuttal evidence (is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of Christian faith?)
2. A Profile of Jesus Christ:
The identity evidence (was Jesus really convinced that He was the Son of God?)
The psychological evidence (was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God?)
The profile evidence (did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?)
The fingerprint evidence (did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the prophesied Messiah?)
3. The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The medical evidence (was the death of Jesus Christ a sham and His resurrection a hoax?)
The evidence of the missing body (was Jesus' body really absent from His tomb?)
The evidence of His appearances (was Jesus seen alive after His death on the cross?)
The circumstantial evidence (are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection?)
The Case for Christ - Examining the Evidence
In trying the case for Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of experts and recognized authorities in their own fields of study. He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book he entitled, The Case for Christ, which has won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.
Reply #196 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:39 PM
The Case for Christ - The Hearing
Is there a case for Christ? If there were to be an arbitrary legal hearing - a court case to determine whether or not Jesus Christ is in fact the only begotten Son of God - would He be vindicated by the evidence, or exposed as a fraud?
The Case for Christ - The Prosecutor
Has anybody ever compiled the evidence to determine the case for Christ? As a matter of fact, Lee Strobel, an atheist at the time he undertook this endeavor, decided that he would prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. Strobel was certainly qualified to undertake such a task, compiling the case against Christ. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Strobel's area of expertise was Courtroom Analyst and he rose to the rank of Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune. Furthermore, Strobel was not biased towards defending Christ - he was an atheist!
The Case for Christ - The Findings
Strobel divides the case for Christ into three basic sections:
1. The Historical Record:
The eyewitness evidence (can the biographies of Jesus Christ be trusted, and do they stand up to scrutiny?)
The documentary evidence (were the biographies of Jesus reliably preserved for us?)
The corroborating evidence (is there credible evidence for Jesus Christ outside of His biographies?)
The scientific evidence (does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus' biographies?)
The rebuttal evidence (is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of Christian faith?)
2. A Profile of Jesus Christ:
The identity evidence (was Jesus really convinced that He was the Son of God?)
The psychological evidence (was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God?)
The profile evidence (did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?)
The fingerprint evidence (did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the prophesied Messiah?)
3. The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The medical evidence (was the death of Jesus Christ a sham and His resurrection a hoax?)
The evidence of the missing body (was Jesus' body really absent from His tomb?)
The evidence of His appearances (was Jesus seen alive after His death on the cross?)
The circumstantial evidence (are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection?)
The Case for Christ - Examining the Evidence
In trying the case for Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of experts and recognized authorities in their own fields of study. He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book he entitled, The Case for Christ, which has won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.
The Rated PG
Reply #197 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:43 PM
what about other nettlesome issues and questions from the heart that hinder the approach to God of a skeptic, the approach to God even of one already convinced of the hard evidences like Strobel—whose minds refuse to fully believe until their souls are fully convinced? Issues like: What about the horrors in this world that seem to say a loving God doesn’t exist? What about hell and unanswered prayers? What about evil—where does it come from if a good God oversees the world? If God is responsible for the church why has it been hypocritical and brutal through the ages? If God is moral then what about the slaughter of children in the Old Testament that he condones?
Like other skeptics, Strobel determined he needed answers to persuade his intellect and convince his soul before he would be satisfied. In the same way that he investigated and sought out the answers for the evidences for Jesus in his first book, Strobel’s search for satisfying answers for this book took him from coast to coast, from lofty classrooms of Ivy League philosophers to the seedy hole-in-the-wall offices of ministries to street kids, from brilliant and degree-laden theologians to the private anguish of hurting people who know pain and suffering firsthand. Strobel once again makes the journey to determine whether the issues of the skeptics and doubts of the heart destroy the solid reasons he had found for Christianity. Or confirm it.
Reply #197 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:43 PM
what about other nettlesome issues and questions from the heart that hinder the approach to God of a skeptic, the approach to God even of one already convinced of the hard evidences like Strobel—whose minds refuse to fully believe until their souls are fully convinced? Issues like: What about the horrors in this world that seem to say a loving God doesn’t exist? What about hell and unanswered prayers? What about evil—where does it come from if a good God oversees the world? If God is responsible for the church why has it been hypocritical and brutal through the ages? If God is moral then what about the slaughter of children in the Old Testament that he condones?
Like other skeptics, Strobel determined he needed answers to persuade his intellect and convince his soul before he would be satisfied. In the same way that he investigated and sought out the answers for the evidences for Jesus in his first book, Strobel’s search for satisfying answers for this book took him from coast to coast, from lofty classrooms of Ivy League philosophers to the seedy hole-in-the-wall offices of ministries to street kids, from brilliant and degree-laden theologians to the private anguish of hurting people who know pain and suffering firsthand. Strobel once again makes the journey to determine whether the issues of the skeptics and doubts of the heart destroy the solid reasons he had found for Christianity. Or confirm it.
The Rated PG
Reply #198 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:55 PM
Reply #198 Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:55 PM
If you are really wondering, pondering, debating these issues in your own life, I strongly recommend these books. The guy that authored these books sounds exactly like a lot of your posts. He did not believe in a God(s) The God, or any type of religious association period. He was as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist that he first investigated the greatest news story of all--the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, in The Case for Christ, he presents compelling evidence and expert testimony for the claims of Christianity. As a seasoned journalist with a Yale law background, He systematically tracks down his leads and asks the blunt, tough questions readers themselves would want to ask--questions that can make or break the Christian faith. He refuses contrived, simplistic answers. Instead, he pieces together hard facts through interviews with the most educated top scolars known. I think it will really be worth your while....what your outcome may be. Not trying to push on anybody, just wanted to share with fellow skinners cause I Love ya guys and gals.
UBoB
Reply #199 Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:30 PM
Reply #199 Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:30 PM
For an excellent read on Bible authorship I recommend the classic on the subject, Who Wrote The Bible by Friedman.
UBoB
Reply #200 Saturday, September 13, 2003 3:26 PM
"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."
--Bertrand Russell
My views precisely.
Reply #200 Saturday, September 13, 2003 3:26 PM
"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."
--Bertrand Russell
My views precisely.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 10 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #181 Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:59 AM
Doreen hates apples ack!