Originally Posted by -Adam- "I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."
"I don't see how an animal could become a man"
No one can, it would take millions of years.
So, why did you say this?
"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"
You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?
I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but you have a lack of understanding of how evolution works. First of all, it's been said that man evolved from apes, which is in correct, man is an ape, that's the category we all fall in. We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.
Basically, evolution never states anything about man evolving from an animation, it states that man is an animal. Evolution states that animals that are born with a trait that gives them an advantage and they are more likely to breed and pass on that trait. Over time, those species become so different that they can no longer breed with the original and thus become a new species. Most creationists like to exaggerate this and try argue that it claims the species instantly change from one to another, or meld together to make a completely different species, for instance the ever so "intellegent" Kirk Cameron and his "crock-o-duck". Here's some more info detailed in one neat package by AronRa:
His entire series on the subject is excellent, although this one really hits home.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Stating that "no one can" more or less implies impossibility, and unless someone actually lives for millions of years, which they clearly won't, it is entirely impossible. The closest anyone ever came to a million that I've heard of was Methuselah, that guy from the bible who lived until 900. That's still 999,100 years till a million.
...Am I still missing something here? We could still be on two totally different pages.
Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
What I point out is the following;
1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).
2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".
=
You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.
That's what I meant.
Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.
No Werewoof, you misunderstand. I meant that people won't see evolution happening in front of them within a life time. Not that people don't see it happening because it doesn't exist. Nice attempt on twisting my words, though.
I seriously doubt we need to bring in Creationism here. No one has stated that they share the Creationist belief.
Though, on an evolutionary note:
One of my favourite authors on religion, John F.Haught, makes an insightful reflection upon evolution in his book God and the New Atheism;
"As the ultimate ground of novelty, freedom, and hope, the Christian God offers the entire universe as well as ourselves the opportunity of ongoing liberation from the lifelessness of perfect design. Evolution, therefore, may be understood, at a theological level, as the story of the world's gradual emergence from initial chaos and monotony, and of it's adventurous search for more intensely elaborate modes of being. The God of evolution humbly invites creatures to participate in the ongoing creation of the universe"
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
What I point out is the following;
1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).
2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".
=
You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.
That's what I meant.
Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.
I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.
And I agree. I actually argued with people who try to tell me that dinosaurs lived with humans, that the earth still is flat and that every fossil that has ever been discovered is a fake. Some people just don't understand the concept of peer reviewed documents.
Edited by HorrendousGames
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Ah, okay. And thank you, but I wouldn't say twisting words, just a misunderstanding of what you were saying. Nice try accusing me of something false (the same way you accused me of "trolling" in a newspost and "constantly spamming" (a.k.a. extremely frequent posting) in a trophy which I deleted out of sheer n00bishness about 2 years back), though.
With that cleared up, I turn my attention elsewhere to a less debatable subject. Probably pomegranate and vanilla white tea.
Edit: Once again, in reply to -Adam-. Once again, too late.
I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.
It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.
Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.
No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof? Also, if God created everything, then who created him? If you say no one created him, then we could have just as easily been created by no one. If you do say someone created him, then who created his creator? If god loves us all then why would he send us to burn forever? That doesn't seem like something that a loving person would do. If God commands us to not do things, then why doesn't he get rid of those concepts from human thought? I have alot of other easons not to believe him but who cares?
And the theory is that humans didn't evolve directly from apes, but both Apes and humans evolved from another species millions of years ago.
Just to clarify a few things: The same way I wouldn't believe in god for what's on the bible, I won't say god doesn't exist based on it. Religion is much more than just a book, and that's how I see and that why I don't feel I need it.
You won't hear me say that god doesn't exist because in the bible it says he made our planet with his bare hands when we know that's definitely not true, even if it makes me wonder what were the intentions and the reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement.
Religiou and faith are what we want them to be.
Before we discovered that we live in a spherical planet, people believed and didn't question the bible's teachings that the earth was flat. Then it was discovered that that was not true, and people started interpreting that part of the bible differently. After that we discovered that what created our planet was the a giant explosion, not god's hands. The world moved on, and interpreted that part of the bible differently, again.
The bible is sometimes subjective, sometimes it's not, but regardless people always find a different meaning for each little bit. The way religious people interpret the bible is the same way they interpret for example an unanswered prayer. As an example, when I was in my early teens I'd study my ass off for my exams and pray for a good result. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. If it didn't I'd find all sorts of explanations. They all made sense and were very similar to some of the stuff I've read in this thread.
The point being, as I got older I started seeing things differently. I realized that perhaps when I had good results it wasn't god helping me but it was my own effort. Perhaps when I had bad results it was simply because I didn't work hard enough. It was simple and so obvious yet I complicated it so much.
I won't convince anyone that I'm right or wrong, it's impossible because it's all about different points of views. Different meanings can be taken from the same thing. The bible is a good example. What for some is a collection of fairy tales, for some its poetry and for other it's the sacred word of god.
btw chrilley, +10000 for the call of cthulhu reference.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.
Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.
Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )
In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"
That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.
I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.
God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.
Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.
Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )
In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"
That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.
I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.
God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.
I think you went past my point there.
I believe faith to hold a bigger reward than an illusion, I believe it adds a depth to our existance that science cannot. I completely understand your view though, it's typical. Though I find it quite blunt to equal religion and fairytales...
Originally Posted by Fish20 No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof?
You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.
Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)
Advertisement
Post Reply
Please clarify, I'm confused.
Edited by W3R3W00F
Probably pomegranate and vanilla white tea.
