Evolution

[FlexThis]

I have a "good idea"1 that both accounts are true. Evolution explains how things adapt and change over time, like the hair growing on most men's faces. Over time the hair grows and evolution explains this perfectly. What it lacks is why hair? And I don't mean why hair grows on men's faces, but rather why hair and not pasta?

God is a human answer to help explain the unexplainable. Evolution is the bridge between God explanations and daily reality. Evolution has been proved by the mere viruses that now reject antibiotics. Scientists are like "hmmm ... maybe antibiotics used to cure everything might have been a little over used".

If you were to look through the most powerful telescope (God scope, for lack of a better word) you can see the past. Scientists have noted that the Big Bang can be seen, before this there is nothing. Another unexplainable instance that reguires a God placeholder.

It is my personal opinion that God did create the heavens and the earth, but not in 7 days exactly as pre calendar men wrote in the Bible. The Earth was still flat then, remember? The Bible needs an upgrade for sure. But what I believe is that it is ignorant to say with 100% certainty that either side is the only explanation. It is also ignorant to believe we are the only universe just because we can't see another.

Imagine a rat in a shoe box sitting on a kid's closet shelve. To him the universe is finite. We are but rats in a shoe box ladies and gentlemen (drum roll). We can only reach as far as an arms length. We can only imagine what our tiny brains can conceive. Yet with all our Egos and technology we can't even begin to understand how our lungs take in and expel oxygen. Or how the brain translates nerve impulses. We can learn about it slowly over time (evolution) but we never 100% understand anything. That would be God's job

~peace

Damon

1 = Dogma

[HG]

Who's to say that the pore's on our faces aren't the molds for the pasta we call hair?

[Frank_Sinatra]

Do I get a point for spotting Plato's cave?

I agree that we can't say with 100 % certainty whether or not god exists.

But I think to say the equivalent of "human capacity for knowledge is limited therefore we can never know anything with 100 % certainty" is to deny or misunderstand the value of empiricism.

And then there's this statement: "Another unexplainable instance that reguires a God placeholder." I could interpret this a couple different ways, either:

1: Another unexplained instance for which people will use god as an explanation;

Or:

2: God is the only explanation for this instance.

If what you meant is the first interpretation, then I agree. If you meant the second interpretation, then you are re-creating the same fallacy (hasty conclusion) as the Intelligence Design movement, being "we don't fully understand phenomena X, therefore god did it."

[FlexThis]

I meant the first - and cleaverly you pointed out the second which is a fallacy.

Dictionary word of the day:
empiricism
Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"siz-&m, em-
Function: noun
1 a : a former school of medical practice based on the teachings of the empirics b : QUACKERY
2 : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences

Sorry, I needed to brush up on my vocab.

~peace
Damon

[Stoneman]

And God said, Let us make man in our image. - Genesis 1-26

If that is the case, explain why about 95% of natives in the Americas died of disease when the Europeans arrived, and an insignificant while an insignificant amount of Europeans died of disease.

I don’t understand your argument. What does god making man in his image have to do with the natural resistance to a disease Native Americans had never seen before? Why didn’t Europeans die? They already had a resistance built up against diseases like measles and chicken pox, and the already deadly smallpox had even more of an effect on them. I don’t understand the connection your trying to make. Oh, and 95% is the highest estimation I’ve ever heard, it is very unlikely it was that high.

I didn't have to go very far to find one. Chapter 1 of Genesis:
11: And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.
12: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

This happened on the 3rd day of Earth's creation. In reality, plants took a couple of billion years to evolve after the first single-celled organisms appeared on the planet.

Don’t take day literally, and you will find nothing against evolution “Let the earth put forthâ€

[dp]

I like how you said something to the effect of "well if you just ignore the word day, then everything makes sense." That made me laugh.

[Frank_Sinatra]

And God said, Let us make man in our image. - Genesis 1-26

If that is the case, explain why about 95% of natives in the Americas died of disease when the Europeans arrived, and an insignificant while an insignificant amount of Europeans died of disease.

I don’t understand your argument. What does god making man in his image have to do with the natural resistance to a disease Native Americans had never seen before? Why didn’t Europeans die? They already had a resistance built up against diseases like measles and chicken pox, and the already deadly smallpox had even more of an effect on them. I don’t understand the connection your trying to make. Oh, and 95% is the highest estimation I’ve ever heard, it is very unlikely it was that high.

I think the point is that the two statements "god made man in his image" and "man evolved from the same common ancestors as today's apes in a long chain of evolution over billions of years" are not entirely consistent with one another.

That being said I think its obvious a Christian who doesn't take a literal interpretation of the bible can find room for both god and evolution.

[sanuke okumatzu]

Hey.. it's called religious devotion for a reason...You believe in something because you think it's right. Whether you're right or wrong dosn't matter in some peoples view. They'll openly admit that evolution may be right, but would rather believe in god creating everything and whatnot. Some people believe in evolution, and some believe in god. It's just a way to explain the world around us. Or some smart sounding post like that...

Except for mennonites.

[Moxie]

Don’t take day literally, and you will find nothing against evolution

The "problem" is not the religious people who think that the bible (or whatever religious text) is to be interpreted as they feel appropriate, but the people who take it literally and therefore deny the possibility of evolution.

[Jeremy]

And God said, Let us make man in our image. - Genesis 1-26

If that is the case, explain why about 95% of natives in the Americas died of disease when the Europeans arrived, and an insignificant while an insignificant amount of Europeans died of disease.

I don’t understand your argument. What does god making man in his image have to do with the natural resistance to a disease Native Americans had never seen before? Why didn’t Europeans die? They already had a resistance built up against diseases like measles and chicken pox, and the already deadly smallpox had even more of an effect on them. I don’t understand the connection your trying to make. Oh, and 95% is the highest estimation I’ve ever heard, it is very unlikely it was that high.

Because Europeans had lived in high density societies with close proximity to animals for thousands of years before "discovering" America, they had evolved a natural genetic resistance to those diseases. It wasn't that they caught the disease and then were better for it, they were much less likely to catch those diseases; just like races from the tropics have much lower rates of catching malaria.

So the Bible says that God made man in his image, but it's undeniable that humanity has evolved over the last 10,000 years in different directions for different populations.

The figure of 95% comes from Guns, Germs and Steel By Professor Jared Diamond, which won a number of awards, including the Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. You may well have heard different figures, but it's completely irrelevant to the point isn't it?
er of Genesis, or it actually literally means a 24 hour day.[/quote]

I agree with evolution, but the fact that god came before everything disagrees.

What's your evidence for that?

[Blue_turnip]

uh hello ? Are you Serious ?

Those heathen natives lacked Jesus in their hearts !
I think it is obvious. God led his faithful from the
repressions of the state sponsored church of England.
They arrived in America, where they could be MORE
obedient to the words of the BIBLE. God sent a plague
to the Americas to demonstrate his power to the natives,
and interest in making the Super-Religious-Whitey the
new standard of expected obedience. When the natives
clung to their inferior ways, God let them die.

lol

I agree with evolution, but the fact that god came before everything disagrees.

HOw so? God isn't a spirit that bangs chicks and reproduces is he?

[Jeremy]

I've been reading Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond recently and it made me realise something.

Creationists believe in a much faster rate of evolution than evolutionists.

Let me explain;

According to Christian creationism, everybody on Earth is a direct descendent of Noah, some 6000 years ago. If we say a generation is every 20 years (and that's being fairly generous to the creationists) then that's 300 generations.

Creationists believe that that in 300 generations, it's possible for these two people to evolve from a common ancestor;



Scientific evidence puts the separation and length of time for evolution at well over 40,000 years - or over 7 times as many generations.

Now look at the difference between Scandinavian people and Indigenous Australian people again. If they evolved to be so different with in only 300 generations, and we imagine that life on Earth actually is the 4 billion (3.7 to be more accurate) years old, that science says it is, how big would the difference be after 200,000,000 generations. How big would that difference be if it was 600,000 times bigger than what it is between those two women?

Creationists claim to believe in "micro" evolution but not "macro" evolution, but actually the micro evolution that they believe in is significantly greater than the "macro" evolution that rational people believe in.

[Frank_Sinatra]

But you see, the result of bringing an all-powerful magical force into an argument is that your logic no longer means anything. The first presupposition on the part of the creationists is god did it. The second presupposition is that god can do anything. A person with that worldview will respond to hole you poke in their argument by filling it up with god.

There's a whole complex of ideological infrastructure - churches, publishing companies, think tanks, political groups, etc. - reinforcing this worldview, so even if you make a little headway with one person odds are they'll return to their like-minded peers, have their original ideas reinforced, and you're back where you started. Not trying to say its impossible, but that, similar to a comment by Emily earlier in this thread, your tactics of argumentation are not going to convince committed creationists.

[CautionFragile]

The true answer to this question can only be found in one's own death.

[CautionFragile]

Ooooooooh, deep .

[Bringerofpie]

But you see, the result of bringing an all-powerful magical force into an argument is that your logic no longer means anything. The first presupposition on the part of the creationists is god did it. The second presupposition is that god can do anything. A person with that worldview will respond to hole you poke in their argument by filling it up with god.

A magician did it.

[Blue_turnip]

What a babe. Oh my god.

[Blue_turnip]

I havn't met one Swedish chick that I wouldn't tap. Thats fairly insane.(I havn't met any Norwegians or Fins)

[Jeremy]

But you see, the result of bringing an all-powerful magical force into an argument is that your logic no longer means anything. The first presupposition on the part of the creationists is god did it. The second presupposition is that god can do anything. A person with that worldview will respond to hole you poke in their argument by filling it up with god.

There's a whole complex of ideological infrastructure - churches, publishing companies, think tanks, political groups, etc. - reinforcing this worldview, so even if you make a little headway with one person odds are they'll return to their like-minded peers, have their original ideas reinforced, and you're back where you started. Not trying to say its impossible, but that, similar to a comment by Emily earlier in this thread, your tactics of argumentation are not going to convince committed creationists.

I wasn't saying that creationism is wrong, I was simply pointing out that the evolution that creationists believe in, is much faster than the evolution that rational people believe in.

Nothing can convince close minded religious people that they're wrong. That's one of the most obvious differences between religion and science. Science says; "we don't know how the world works, but we'll try our best to find out." Religion says; "This is how the world works, and anything that contradicts that must be wrong."

[sanuke okumatzu]

I havn't met one Swedish chick that I wouldn't tap. Thats fairly insane.(I havn't met any Norwegians or Fins)

My woman is Norwegian/German. I bet you'd 'tap' her.....I'd bet all the ladies would 'tap' her too.


I think creationism is downright ignorant. I especially think that the people who blindly believe every word of religion. Science has proven so much more than a religion could ever hope to. Except for Scientology...Because people were created by aliens who use our souls as starship fuel. Anywhom, give me one religion who can give me more true answers then science, then I'll blindly follow whatever homo-sui-cidal cult you want.