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 31 of 56 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #602 Friday, October 17, 2003 7:12 PM
Reply #602 Friday, October 17, 2003 7:12 PM
You got 600 weakest!!!
Anyway, I don't think the Bible was meant to ever be taken literally. It is a guide not a situation.
I can see what people who don't believe are saying. It can't be proven by any scientific means we have right now so it is not true.
But for me I don't think we will ever have enough science to see if it is or not. I believe that is why it is called faith. For me, we are made of and with in this place for what ever reasons. Even a accident has reasons for it to happen. A question could be raise that what caused the elements to create this accident to be there in the first place?
In other words the accident can be part of the design.
Just thought I would throw that out there.
Anyway, I don't think the Bible was meant to ever be taken literally. It is a guide not a situation.
I can see what people who don't believe are saying. It can't be proven by any scientific means we have right now so it is not true.
But for me I don't think we will ever have enough science to see if it is or not. I believe that is why it is called faith. For me, we are made of and with in this place for what ever reasons. Even a accident has reasons for it to happen. A question could be raise that what caused the elements to create this accident to be there in the first place?
In other words the accident can be part of the design.
Just thought I would throw that out there.
UBoB
Reply #603 Friday, October 17, 2003 7:58 PM
Reply #603 Friday, October 17, 2003 7:58 PM
Mankind's natural predators? Hmmm, let's think for a moment.
Well there was The Black Death (Bubonic Plague), TB, Polio, to name a few of the earlier nastier ones, and more recently there's AIDS, SARS, West Nile, etc. I could go on......point is, mankinds sole predator is and always has been the nasty little virus lurking just around the next corner.
Well there was The Black Death (Bubonic Plague), TB, Polio, to name a few of the earlier nastier ones, and more recently there's AIDS, SARS, West Nile, etc. I could go on......point is, mankinds sole predator is and always has been the nasty little virus lurking just around the next corner.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #604 Friday, October 17, 2003 8:19 PM
Reply #604 Friday, October 17, 2003 8:19 PM
Man's natural predator is woman. I speak from experience...
Hawk-3
Reply #605 Saturday, October 18, 2003 1:11 AM
Reply #605 Saturday, October 18, 2003 1:11 AM
Actually, tuberculosis and bubonic plague are caused by bacteria, not viruses... but I get what you're saying
-Drew
-Drew
Sugaree
Reply #606 Saturday, October 18, 2003 1:19 AM
I eat men for breakfest!
Fuzzys right
[Message Edited]
Reply #606 Saturday, October 18, 2003 1:19 AM
I eat men for breakfest!Fuzzys right
[Message Edited]
EventHorizon
Reply #607 Saturday, October 18, 2003 2:39 AM
And dont forget those protozoan-caused diseases like malaria. (Which is much more of a problem than SARS or West Nile)
Reply #607 Saturday, October 18, 2003 2:39 AM
| Actually, tuberculosis and bubonic plague are caused by bacteria, not viruses |
And dont forget those protozoan-caused diseases like malaria. (Which is much more of a problem than SARS or West Nile)
EventHorizon
Reply #608 Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:10 AM
Try this next time you have a kid...
Never show him/her right from wrong. (Its wrong to color on the walls with crayons...Its wrong to chase your brother around the house with a steak knife just because he has a toy you want etc.) See if they develop morals out of thin air. They might eventually get a sense of what is acceptable based on their parents actions, but they will never grasp the idea of morality on their own.
Parents are (in most cases) the ones who teach their children whats right and whats not. And where did they (The parents) learn? From their parents... and so on. Will you find that morals just 'appeared' somewhere along the line? No. On the contrary, they had to be taught by someone...and not just another person.
(Like many liberal politicians?) Just kidding
The above quote is the way little children act. (impulsively) ...Without proper instruction, they will never get past that stage.
Reply #608 Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:10 AM
| Surely the very fact that such a person can differentiate between right and wrong, moral and immoral, disproves the entire theory anyway. |
Try this next time you have a kid...
Never show him/her right from wrong. (Its wrong to color on the walls with crayons...Its wrong to chase your brother around the house with a steak knife just because he has a toy you want etc.) See if they develop morals out of thin air. They might eventually get a sense of what is acceptable based on their parents actions, but they will never grasp the idea of morality on their own.
Parents are (in most cases) the ones who teach their children whats right and whats not. And where did they (The parents) learn? From their parents... and so on. Will you find that morals just 'appeared' somewhere along the line? No. On the contrary, they had to be taught by someone...and not just another person.
| 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. |
(Like many liberal politicians?)
Just kiddingThe above quote is the way little children act. (impulsively) ...Without proper instruction, they will never get past that stage.
grayhaze
Reply #609 Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:46 AM
Reply #609 Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:46 AM
The point is though, God plays absolutely no part in children learning morals. I'm not saying that a person can develop morals spontaneously, I'm just saying that the influence of God is irrelevant to that development.
If it were true that only people who believe in God can develop morals, then surely the influence of the parents wouldn't matter either way.
If it were true that only people who believe in God can develop morals, then surely the influence of the parents wouldn't matter either way.
IPlural
Reply #610 Saturday, October 18, 2003 10:14 AM
Reply #610 Saturday, October 18, 2003 10:14 AM
Technology...
Man eaters in Africa and India have a long history. Humans ask " what turned the Tiger into a rouge that is now a Man eater? " and blame it on sickness and all sorts of other things.
Alligators, in Florida it is against the law to feed them. People still do it and you hear about the results at least once a year. * Child eaten by Gator, Woman or Man attacked and killed *
The fear is remove from gators once they have been fed by humans long enough, they end up equating the odd nasty un-natural smells that hide our natural animal smell and revert back to the natural process of seeing humans as part of the food group.
If you stank like the animal you are if you could stand the subtraction of social grace from your normal day to day living and would move into the wilds without anything covering your body odor. You would find out just how fast anmails feed upon any other animal once they learn just how easy it is to kill them.
Huamns used to hide in caves and only ventured out in packs for protection. In time they learned to pick things up and use them as tools and eventually weapons, then they learned to improve upon them. Animals over time learned that Human kind with those weapons were not an easy meal as they once were. and Over a longer period of time they learned to out right avoid huamns as the weapons technology expanded and they found they had become the hunted.
The fact that on the norm animals do not hunt humans in the middle of the city does not define humans as not having natural preditors by any means...
just my pov...
but when is the last time you hugged wild hungry Grizzly Bear, or let a wild hungry Bengal Tiger slobber kisses all over your face?
Man eaters in Africa and India have a long history. Humans ask " what turned the Tiger into a rouge that is now a Man eater? " and blame it on sickness and all sorts of other things.
Alligators, in Florida it is against the law to feed them. People still do it and you hear about the results at least once a year. * Child eaten by Gator, Woman or Man attacked and killed *
The fear is remove from gators once they have been fed by humans long enough, they end up equating the odd nasty un-natural smells that hide our natural animal smell and revert back to the natural process of seeing humans as part of the food group.
If you stank like the animal you are if you could stand the subtraction of social grace from your normal day to day living and would move into the wilds without anything covering your body odor. You would find out just how fast anmails feed upon any other animal once they learn just how easy it is to kill them.
Huamns used to hide in caves and only ventured out in packs for protection. In time they learned to pick things up and use them as tools and eventually weapons, then they learned to improve upon them. Animals over time learned that Human kind with those weapons were not an easy meal as they once were. and Over a longer period of time they learned to out right avoid huamns as the weapons technology expanded and they found they had become the hunted.
The fact that on the norm animals do not hunt humans in the middle of the city does not define humans as not having natural preditors by any means...
just my pov...
but when is the last time you hugged wild hungry Grizzly Bear, or let a wild hungry Bengal Tiger slobber kisses all over your face?
Bangkokboy
Reply #611 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:22 PM
very simply not true.
"Do not the rivers rush continuously into the sea, yet the sea does not overflow its banks?" man figured out the Water Cycle many centuries after that writing.
"It is I who put the roundness ( "compass" ) in the face of the depths". man proved that the earth isn't flat many centuries later. there are many more which i won't list.
Reply #611 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:22 PM
| Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. |
very simply not true.
"Do not the rivers rush continuously into the sea, yet the sea does not overflow its banks?" man figured out the Water Cycle many centuries after that writing.
"It is I who put the roundness ( "compass" ) in the face of the depths". man proved that the earth isn't flat many centuries later. there are many more which i won't list.
Bangkokboy
Reply #612 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:23 PM
mankinds natural predator is microbes.
Reply #612 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:23 PM
| All other species have a natural predator that controls, as an example, its population. Mankind does not |
mankinds natural predator is microbes.
IPlural
Reply #614 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:40 PM
Reply #614 Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:40 PM
Once a foolish man spoke out of turn and claimed the Earth was in fact not the center of the solar system, that everything revolved around the Sun, silly man, they almost killed him for it, them being the church ad him to be killed for speaking with a heretics tounge...
Good thing they set him straight, because I could not even venture to guess where human kind would find itself if scientific discovery was allowed to run amok unchecked!
[Message Edited]
Good thing they set him straight, because I could not even venture to guess where human kind would find itself if scientific discovery was allowed to run amok unchecked!
[Message Edited]
Bangkokboy
Reply #615 Saturday, October 18, 2003 10:02 PM
Reply #615 Saturday, October 18, 2003 10:02 PM
scientific discovery ran amuck unchecked in nazi germany. 
Aleatoric
Reply #616 Sunday, October 19, 2003 1:26 AM
Reply #616 Sunday, October 19, 2003 1:26 AM
(careful now, we don't want to call Godwin on this thread )
Nope, idiocy ran amok in nazi Germany. Apart from some work in jets and the V2 (which was actually more along the lines of engineering), there was little *true* science under the auspices of the Nazi party (and what there was, was pretty much in spite of the party). Experimentation may have run amuck, but very little, if any, of it was actually scientific.
Science and technology are, in and of themselves, neutral. Good and bad are done by Man.
If a person kills another with a hammer, there is nothing evil about the hammer, only the wielder.
I would also argue that the quotes you make describing 'scientific facts' from the Bible are much more likely to be merely observations. There certainly isn't any text that indicates a detailed, accurate understanding of those observations. Additionally, there are alternate interpretations for many of those quotations (which I've heard from various clergy).
Either way, we still get down to interpretation.
)| scientific discovery ran amuck unchecked in nazi germany. |
Nope, idiocy ran amok in nazi Germany. Apart from some work in jets and the V2 (which was actually more along the lines of engineering), there was little *true* science under the auspices of the Nazi party (and what there was, was pretty much in spite of the party). Experimentation may have run amuck, but very little, if any, of it was actually scientific.
Science and technology are, in and of themselves, neutral. Good and bad are done by Man.
If a person kills another with a hammer, there is nothing evil about the hammer, only the wielder.
I would also argue that the quotes you make describing 'scientific facts' from the Bible are much more likely to be merely observations. There certainly isn't any text that indicates a detailed, accurate understanding of those observations. Additionally, there are alternate interpretations for many of those quotations (which I've heard from various clergy).
Either way, we still get down to interpretation.
EventHorizon
Reply #617 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:04 PM
Thats interesting you should mention that IPlural, Im reading a book about that person/incident right now... Its entitled: 'Galileo's Mistake'. I highly reccomend it.
Reply #617 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:04 PM
| Once a foolish man spoke out of turn and claimed the Earth was in fact not the center of the solar system, that everything revolved around the Sun, silly man, they almost killed him for it, them being the church ad him to be killed for speaking with a heretics tounge... |
Thats interesting you should mention that IPlural, Im reading a book about that person/incident right now... Its entitled: 'Galileo's Mistake'. I highly reccomend it.
EventHorizon
Reply #619 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:19 PM
"Parents are (in most cases) the ones who teach their children whats right and whats not. And where did they (The parents) learn? From their parents... and so on. Eventually you will find that religion was the source of morality. And where would religion be without God? It simply wouldnt exist.
Without God, there is no religion, without religion, there are no morals.
Nowadays we have laws to keep everyone on the (more or less) right track. These laws are based in morality. Which in turn came from religion. You will find that virtually all criminal laws in the US are based on a Judeo-Christian system of values. And I would assume that the laws of other countrys are not too much different.
Reply #619 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:19 PM
| The point is though, God plays absolutely no part in children learning morals. I'm not saying that a person can develop morals spontaneously, I'm just saying that the influence of God is irrelevant to that development.If it were true that only people who believe in God can develop morals, then surely the influence of the parents wouldn't matter either way. |
"Parents are (in most cases) the ones who teach their children whats right and whats not. And where did they (The parents) learn? From their parents... and so on. Eventually you will find that religion was the source of morality. And where would religion be without God? It simply wouldnt exist.
Without God, there is no religion, without religion, there are no morals.
Nowadays we have laws to keep everyone on the (more or less) right track. These laws are based in morality. Which in turn came from religion. You will find that virtually all criminal laws in the US are based on a Judeo-Christian system of values. And I would assume that the laws of other countrys are not too much different.
kthxbye
Reply #620 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:40 PM
Reply #620 Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:40 PM
You know - I have to say that I clicked on this topic thinking it would be something related to skinning! You know, about whether certain designs are a creation, or merely an evolution of an older, and the merits of each.
Oy.
Oy.
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 31 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #601 Friday, October 17, 2003 7:09 PM
Wha's the lion's predator? What's the shark's predator?
Sure, if a lion falls in a crocodile pond, he's gonna get eaten, and so will any man.
Man is no different in the food chain as a lion, a wolf, a grizzly bear, a shark or a crocodile. He eats meat, and gets eaten himself if he get caught by a pack of other predators.