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 29 of 56 | |
|
|---|
UBoB
Reply #562 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:22 PM
Reply #562 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:22 PM
Among the many Christians who accept evolution is….Pope John Paul II. Yep. The Big Guy himself. On October 7, 1996, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, he declared [the Church's] acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, and noted that there is no war between religion and science: "Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The science of observation describes with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."
paxx
Reply #563 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:56 PM
[Message Edited]
Reply #563 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:56 PM
Yah, well he's a nutcase anyway.
Two recent events come to mind:
1- The legality of civil homosexual marriage (not religious marriage of course) was voted a couple of months ago, but just before the vote, JP2 warned the deputees (equiv to the US congressmen) that voting in favor of homosexual weddings could close them the doors of heaven. WTF? It's a CIVIL marriage is was about. I though the church didn't even recognise civil marriages as valid, so what does he care?
2- A recent propaganda against the use of condoms. The Vatican even claims that condoms do nothing to protect against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Did I say that I hated religions? Retards!
Sure, believe in God, I'm ok with that. But organised religions should be illegal! 
[Message Edited]
EventHorizon
Reply #564 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:33 AM
Reply #564 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:33 AM
Heres one I came across...
Without religion, where is your basis for morality?
Without religion, where is your basis for morality?
IPlural
Reply #566 Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:51 AM
Reply #566 Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:51 AM
Let me expand on this....
I can only speak for myself because I only know my own reality and how I face it day to day.
My commandments revolve around the premise that I should do as ittle harm as possible for the greater good,. Whom would fall into the grouping of the greater good you may ask, well it is expansive but layered.
My wife and children come first.
Others come next.
Animals and earth next.
then followed up by my person.
The order is subjective in the fact that it is applied on a mean base line consisting of intent, results and acceptable loss or gain.
For instance, I have walked in front of traffic to pick up two different dogs at two different times, one of which chewed my arm up pretty good. The first time is when that happened in fact. It did not stop me from doing the same thing the next time around.
I put my life on the line for someone elses animals.
I stop and push cars out of traffic when they are broken down instead of layingon the horn which is as stupid and ignorant as you can get in my opinion, the horn blowing, why make someones already messed up day even more so or at least attempt to to justify you anger at their expence?
I'll give of myself to anyone in need who might ask, or I see is in need but would not ask and yet I would break someone and not think twice about it if they decided to take from me or mine or anyone else.
I think that murder is the worst thing in life a person could do and yet I think that someone who does in fact murder, rape or molest a child, woman or another has removed them self from the human race and has decided to become an animal of prey.
I also think that Bush lied his ass off and his people still keep lying their asses off. Yet I also feel that something shoulsd have been done back when Ray Gun was telling daddy Bush to get Ashcroft to sell them Weapons of Mass destruction was and is criminal and something that people in the USA really need to wake up and look at.
Did he have WMD's yes, we know because we kept the freaking paper trail all the way to our coffers.
anyway...
like I said, personally I feel that I do not need the crutch (my opinion only applied to myself) of God or religion to know what is right or wrong....
By the way...
My Brother was an alter boy and my mother taught Sunday school...
I just spent time on my knees in front of the priest and chewing stale crackers and drinking darkred un-sugared koolaide....
[Message Edited]
I can only speak for myself because I only know my own reality and how I face it day to day.
My commandments revolve around the premise that I should do as ittle harm as possible for the greater good,. Whom would fall into the grouping of the greater good you may ask, well it is expansive but layered.
My wife and children come first.
Others come next.
Animals and earth next.
then followed up by my person.
The order is subjective in the fact that it is applied on a mean base line consisting of intent, results and acceptable loss or gain.
For instance, I have walked in front of traffic to pick up two different dogs at two different times, one of which chewed my arm up pretty good. The first time is when that happened in fact. It did not stop me from doing the same thing the next time around.
I put my life on the line for someone elses animals.
I stop and push cars out of traffic when they are broken down instead of layingon the horn which is as stupid and ignorant as you can get in my opinion, the horn blowing, why make someones already messed up day even more so or at least attempt to to justify you anger at their expence?
I'll give of myself to anyone in need who might ask, or I see is in need but would not ask and yet I would break someone and not think twice about it if they decided to take from me or mine or anyone else.
I think that murder is the worst thing in life a person could do and yet I think that someone who does in fact murder, rape or molest a child, woman or another has removed them self from the human race and has decided to become an animal of prey.
I also think that Bush lied his ass off and his people still keep lying their asses off. Yet I also feel that something shoulsd have been done back when Ray Gun was telling daddy Bush to get Ashcroft to sell them Weapons of Mass destruction was and is criminal and something that people in the USA really need to wake up and look at.
Did he have WMD's yes, we know because we kept the freaking paper trail all the way to our coffers.
anyway...
like I said, personally I feel that I do not need the crutch (my opinion only applied to myself) of God or religion to know what is right or wrong....
By the way...
My Brother was an alter boy and my mother taught Sunday school...
I just spent time on my knees in front of the priest and chewing stale crackers and drinking darkred un-sugared koolaide....
[Message Edited]
EventHorizon
Reply #567 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:23 AM
Reply #567 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:23 AM
Facinating read IP, especially the last paragraph. 
EventHorizon
Reply #568 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:31 AM
Reply #568 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:31 AM
However, I'm not saying you can't be moral without God; atheists can be better people than some "Christians." It's just that without God, morals are subjective; they're no more important than the type of music you listen to. Without God, we can't criticize others for being immoral; we can't criticize Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Jack the Ripper. Without God, life is as meaningless as the action figures children play with. Without God, we're meaningless molecules that just so happened to come together and be intelligent.
kona0197
Reply #569 Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:54 AM
Cathlics and Christains are different religions. PJP2 is a cathlic.
Quite simple IP: Marriage is defined AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, and in God's eyes it is written that homosexuality is wrong.
Reply #569 Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:54 AM
| Among the many Christians who accept evolution is….Pope John Paul II. |
Cathlics and Christains are different religions. PJP2 is a cathlic.
| 1- The legality of civil homosexual marriage (not religious marriage of course) was voted a couple of months ago, but just before the vote, JP2 warned the deputees (equiv to the US congressmen) that voting in favor of homosexual weddings could close them the doors of heaven. WTF? It's a CIVIL marriage is was about. I though the church didn't even recognise civil marriages as valid, so what does he care? |
Quite simple IP: Marriage is defined AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, and in God's eyes it is written that homosexuality is wrong.
Aleatoric
Reply #570 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:21 AM
Reply #570 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:21 AM
Kona,
Catholics ARE christians, by definition.
You're probably thinking of the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, which are different sects of christianity (but both still christian, by all definitions of the word).
EventHorizon,
Even *with* God, morals are subjective. You may have the argument that you can point to a definitive source for your moral structure, but the interpretation of what that structure means is still supremely subjective. Different people in the same religion (let alone different people in different religions), can and do interpret their moral imperatives from God in a very subjective, and often differing manner.
Even the observance of commandments are interpreted subjectively, in accordance with what the interpreter wants it to mean. For example, 'Thou shalt not kill' is routinely interpreted to allow killing criminals, enemies, and people not of one's faith. If you accept it as a moral imperative, then it means exactly what it says, and one cannot kill *at all*, for any reason. The mere existence of a moral structure does not remove the existence of subjectivity.
It is possible to have a well defined moral structure that does not require God. One example is the form of projected self interest, in that as we do not wish to be killed, or robbed, etc., and given that we can recognize that others have the same kind of desire in that respect, we can create a moral framework based on recognition of the integrity of ourselves and others.
In such a structure, it is quite possible (and even defensible) to despise and crimilize the acts of those you mention.
[Message Edited]
Catholics ARE christians, by definition.
You're probably thinking of the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, which are different sects of christianity (but both still christian, by all definitions of the word).
EventHorizon,
Even *with* God, morals are subjective. You may have the argument that you can point to a definitive source for your moral structure, but the interpretation of what that structure means is still supremely subjective. Different people in the same religion (let alone different people in different religions), can and do interpret their moral imperatives from God in a very subjective, and often differing manner.
Even the observance of commandments are interpreted subjectively, in accordance with what the interpreter wants it to mean. For example, 'Thou shalt not kill' is routinely interpreted to allow killing criminals, enemies, and people not of one's faith. If you accept it as a moral imperative, then it means exactly what it says, and one cannot kill *at all*, for any reason. The mere existence of a moral structure does not remove the existence of subjectivity.
It is possible to have a well defined moral structure that does not require God. One example is the form of projected self interest, in that as we do not wish to be killed, or robbed, etc., and given that we can recognize that others have the same kind of desire in that respect, we can create a moral framework based on recognition of the integrity of ourselves and others.
In such a structure, it is quite possible (and even defensible) to despise and crimilize the acts of those you mention.
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #571 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:29 AM
Reply #571 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:29 AM
Kona,
Even if you believe that the differences between catholics and protestants are so great that the decision of the pope is not meaningful, there are clear cut cases of *many* protestant clergy (some of whom I know personally) who have no problem with the science of evolution. They recongnize that there is nothing about the existence (or veneration) of God that precludes the idea of evolution (or anything else discovered by science, as well).
Even if you believe that the differences between catholics and protestants are so great that the decision of the pope is not meaningful, there are clear cut cases of *many* protestant clergy (some of whom I know personally) who have no problem with the science of evolution. They recongnize that there is nothing about the existence (or veneration) of God that precludes the idea of evolution (or anything else discovered by science, as well).
brigidology
Reply #572 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:56 AM
Reply #572 Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:56 AM
I think the improtant thing is to keep a God like image in mind, as the goal of evolution, and to be able to recognise parts of that mental image in each other as we travel the evolutionary path
paxx
Reply #573 Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:19 PM
Reply #573 Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:19 PM
| Quite simple IP: Marriage is defined AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, and in God's eyes it is written that homosexuality is wrong. |
Kona, you didn't understand my point. Try to follow the logic bellow.
1. The Christian religion doesn't recognize civil marriage. If two people get married in a couthouse not in a church, they are not considered married in the eyes of the Church.
2. The government legalizes homosexual CIVIL marriages.
3. The Church is outraged and says what you said, that Marriage is defined AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
Where's the logic? Is a civil marriage considered a valid marriage for the Church or not? If a civil marriage is not valid in the first place, therefore the new homosexual marriages are not valid anyway. So why should the Church care?
grayhaze
Reply #575 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:40 PM
Sounds good to me...
Many other creatures on this planet have rudimentary morals, and generally know the difference between right and wrong in issues that their brains are equipped to understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen a group of dogs going to church to pray, and yet they will generally fight to the death to protect their owners. For that matter, I've never seen dolphins building an underwater church...
Reply #575 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:40 PM
| Without God, we're meaningless molecules that just so happened to come together and be intelligent. |
Sounds good to me...
| Without religion, where is your basis for morality? |
Many other creatures on this planet have rudimentary morals, and generally know the difference between right and wrong in issues that their brains are equipped to understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen a group of dogs going to church to pray, and yet they will generally fight to the death to protect their owners. For that matter, I've never seen dolphins building an underwater church...
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #576 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:48 PM
Reply #576 Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:48 PM
You have to have intelligence to be this stupid
joetheblow
Reply #578 Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:33 PM
You know I was thinking about that last night whilst I was sleeping.
I wondered to myself... if it is just a happenstance that we are here why be moral? Not saying people who don't have no way to be moral...
I actually came to a conclusion but I don't remember what it was.
Reply #578 Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:33 PM
| It's just that without God, morals are subjective; they're no more important than the type of music you listen to. Without God, we can't criticize others for being immoral; we can't criticize Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Jack the Ripper. Without God, life is as meaningless as the action figures children play with. Without God, we're meaningless molecules that just so happened to come together and be intelligent |
You know I was thinking about that last night whilst I was sleeping.
I wondered to myself... if it is just a happenstance that we are here why be moral? Not saying people who don't have no way to be moral...
I actually came to a conclusion but I don't remember what it was.
grayhaze
Reply #579 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:10 PM
Reply #579 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:10 PM
Why is life meaningless without God? It really comes down to an individual's perception of a good life, and what they do to benefit others in the time they have. You don't have to accept the concept of a God to have meaning in your life, it's just that without God you have more choice over what form that meaning takes. You're not restricted to the 'To Do' list of some unknown entity.
I also don't understand why we're not allowed to criticize the immorality of others if we don't believe in God. Surely the very fact that such a person can differentiate between right and wrong, moral and immoral, disproves the entire theory anyway. If, as has been suggested, a person who refuses to accept God into their life has no concept of morals, then surely they would just be a wild, uncontrolled force who did whatever they felt like doing when the whim took them.
I think there's a great deal of arrogance amongst Christians, and followers of other faiths, that those who do not follow their beliefs are somehow inferior to them. That in itself goes a long way to prove which side has the better morals.
I also don't understand why we're not allowed to criticize the immorality of others if we don't believe in God. Surely the very fact that such a person can differentiate between right and wrong, moral and immoral, disproves the entire theory anyway. If, as has been suggested, a person who refuses to accept God into their life has no concept of morals, then surely they would just be a wild, uncontrolled force who did whatever they felt like doing when the whim took them.
I think there's a great deal of arrogance amongst Christians, and followers of other faiths, that those who do not follow their beliefs are somehow inferior to them. That in itself goes a long way to prove which side has the better morals.
paxx
Reply #580 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:42 PM
Reply #580 Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:42 PM
Well, i'm sure to somebody who believes in God, that life is unimaginable and would appear meaningless without God. I can see that.
Just thinking about life without computers personnally makes me freak out.
Just thinking about life without computers personnally makes me freak out.
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 29 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #561 Thursday, October 9, 2003 1:16 PM
Which came first- the chicken or the egg?
Maybe we evolved from sea slugs: http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/memoryslug.htm