Evolution: Your Thoughts

[Prime]

Fair enough.

 

Allow me to rephrase. I'm saying that the Scientific Method doesn't not preconclude what the answer is and never deviate from that answer, regardless of what/how much evidence contradicts it.

 

You know what I mean!!

[Darth InSidious]

Um, no...

 

On the whole, religion tends to deal with things which can't be measured, at least as of yet, and while I can't speak for other faiths, certainly Christianity has been pretty hot on reason since Aquinas in the thirteenth century

[Emperor Devon]

He also gave us free will. To interfere, even to save lives or do good, would be to destroy that freedom.

 

So children should be allowed to be beaten to death by abusive parents because saving their lives would interfere with their murderer's freedom? Is it more important to give rights to the sinners than it is to save the lives of the innocent?

[Jae Onasi]

Um, no...

 

On the whole, religion tends to deal with things which can't be measured, at least as of yet, and while I can't speak for other faiths, certainly Christianity has been pretty hot on reason since Aquinas in the thirteenth century

Or even earlier with Augustine.

 

@Prime-- I knew what you meant, though it took me a flow chart to get through that statement. I think I have a headache now.

 

So children should be allowed to be beaten to death by abusive parents because saving their lives would interfere with their murderer's freedom? Is it more important to give rights to the sinners than it is to save the lives of the innocent?

 

I don't begin to completely understand it myself--it's a challenging philosophy to understand. I hate seeing kids die. I despise it when kids are abused. However, just like you can't locally bend laws of physics (like you can't say 'on this part of earth, there's no gravity), you can't bend laws of free will. We experience the consequences of sin. In the case of the children, the ones that die go to heaven, which is a far better fate than anything here on earth. Would God like us not to beat the snot out of our kids? Yes. And it seems awful that He apparently didn't intervene. But what if He did? What if by allowing that child to die, it prevented that child from experiencing even more beatings or worse abuse, or have to go through the mental trauma, or it prevented the child from growing up and turning into a child abuser himself? We think something can be bad, but it's possibly a blessing instead when you look at it from a perspective of the Divine.

[Emperor Devon]

What if by allowing that child to die, it prevented that child from experiencing even more beatings or worse abuse, or have to go through the mental trauma,

 

Then why are there cases of children who go through terrible abuse and live? Or why not blast the sinner of his (or her) feet with a bolt of lightning to stop children from being harmed?

 

or it prevented the child from growing up and turning into a child abuser himself?

 

Then why not send the kid to Hell, or let him (or her) live through the abuse as punishment?

 

We think something can be bad, but it's possibly a blessing instead when you look at it from a perspective of the Divine.

 

Then why doesn't God have us all slit our throats and go to heaven? That would be a blessing, if it's such a wonderful place.

[lukeiamyourdad]

In the case of the children, the ones that die go to heaven, which is a far better fate than anything here on earth. Would God like us not to beat the snot out of our kids? Yes. And it seems awful that He apparently didn't intervene. But what if He did? What if by allowing that child to die, it prevented that child from experiencing even more beatings or worse abuse, or have to go through the mental trauma, or it prevented the child from growing up and turning into a child abuser himself? We think something can be bad, but it's possibly a blessing instead when you look at it from a perspective of the Divine.

 

Suposition. He could grow up to find a cure for cancer or something. The weird argument often used by anti-abortionist.

 

Then if he stopped the child from growing up to be a child molester himself, thus meaning that he can foresee the future, why could he not "kill off" the child's abuser when he was young to prevent the events from happening?

 

 

Free will, in my personal opinion, was just created as an excuse to explain the misery in the world.

[Windu Chi]

Is not God perfect? If we were made in His image, we should have been.

 

If a someone who has unlimited power isn't perfect, I have another reason to be an atheist.

 

 

 

That would have been a poor decision on His part, then.

 

 

 

Why should a baby in Africa who's done nothing but exist be guaranteed to a life of suffering, then? That is not justice. Someone who has not done anything wrong should not be punished. Is God corrupt?

Yes! God is corrupt!

 

The example of the Holocaust is visible evidence of that fact.

Thoses unluckey souls was'nt given any hope of survival.

They prayed to God! They got nothing!

But death and suffering !

More death! More suffering!

Can anyone tell me of what was the so called, "Supreme Being" excuse was?

Why did it do nothing to intervene in that hellhole?

[JediMaster12]

^^^Such dark thoughts you say. Have you not read the other posts concernign this? God made men in His own image yes. He also gave us free will. We chose to sin and disobey him. Ecclesiastes puts events like the Holocaust better: "There is a time and a season for everything under heaven." There is a time to laugh, a time to weep and a time to mourn. God leaves suffering in our world to remind us of the consequences for our sin.

 

Enough of that wandering off topic. I have have a question for you windu6: what are your thoughts on evolution?

[Windu Chi]

I believe evolution is right in its theory of species changing properties in relation to the Earth's climate change.

The similaries of life's properties in the present to the distance past life is so apparent that some people have to be brain dead to say, that it is nothing but errors in the data concerning its facts about how life has change over millions of years in relation to Earth's climate change.

Of course the alternative is religion interpetations of how life to day come to be over time.

Which is of course preposterous for a scientist using logic and the scientific method.

The explaination they give is from their religious texts which of course can't be corroborated because scientists can't disscuss it with their god or gods.

With Christianity being the major opponent to evolution.

The scientific method is a system of logical rules navigation that teach us how to be objective.

It teaches us how not to depend on emotions, bias attitudes or not to have the corrupting influence of others controlling our decision making on testing arguments.

While using the scientfic method for testing the vality of evolution, they have gather lots of convincing evidence to try to quail the skeptics doubt.

The bias of some religious skeptics will never allow them to accept the damning truth of the science.

The corruption of some people in some religions like Christianity for example, try to influence others of their beliefs, that if others don't change their belief in not favoring their religion's belief that they will suffer in hell.

This is very apparent! In some cases!

They don't use the scientific method, or logic for that matter.

Their emotions have taken over to influence their reasoning.

Some of them! In my opinion some of them have the fear that they will be banish to hell if they accepts evolution's interpretation.

Well, thats where some of their religious peers would have imprinted in their minds.

Their is no way, in my opinion to convince them of evolution validity if they have fear influencing their decision making.

Of course there are people who is not going to accept evolution until they have almost a 100% certainity.

 

The understanding of evolution is incomplete because the simple fact we only have the evidence of evolution happening on Earth.

I am not saying we need to explore the galaxy or universe to accept evolution validity.

As far as the present is concerned the evidence of evolution on Earth is valid.

But there is still a galaxy, universe and other possible infinite universes in existence left to explore.

Of course you can say, we will never have a finish definition of the evolution process with that statement said.

But the science of biology is based on life here, we have no idea of what life can evolve into elsewhere in the universe or in the rest of existance.

Until we aleast start exploring the galaxy our understanding of evolution will remain incomplete to say the least.

[Darth InSidious]

Certain elements of Christianity, certainly. But as a whole? Bollocks.

 

I refer you, for example, to the Roman Catholic position on evolution. As I'm sure such an erudite member such as yourself will recall, this group is the largest within Christianity, and could be said therefore to reflect the major views of said group of religions.

 

You also fail to mention people like Richard Dawkins, scientist who have allowed their emotions to cloud their judgment, and have become fanatics over evolution.

 

Your whole post seems to me one-sided, and seems to be a barely controlled tirade against Christianity.

 

So children should be allowed to be beaten to death by abusive parents because saving their lives would interfere with their murderer's freedom? Is it more important to give rights to the sinners than it is to save the lives of the innocent?

 

 

Here we enter hypotheticals. Neither of us know what might have happened otherwise- the child might, as LIAYD puts forward, have found a cure for cancer. The child equally well might have turned into the next Hitler. We can't say, but God is omniscient. He knows everything, past and present, and not quite but almost, and never would have or could have happened. We are limited, he is unlimited. His reasoning is far beyond ours, and His understanding is too. Perhaps He knows that to allow that child to survive would be to inflict untold evil on the world, or that the consequences of his discovery of a cure for cancer before we were ready for it might lead to a shortage of medicine and war over it, leading to more deaths. Who can say? We can't. Most of us don't have that detailed a knowledge of the future.

 

Unless you're claiming prophetic visions...?

[Windu Chi]

The theory of gravity hasn't been disproven yet, as no other theory can satisfactorily explain what is going on.

 

Well there is a new theory of gravity, that it is a component of electromagnetism.

The book about this theory can be found here http://www.electrogravity.com/.

[Windu Chi]

Certain elements of Christianity, certainly. But as a whole? Bollocks.

 

I refer you, for example, to the Roman Catholic position on evolution. As I'm sure such an erudite member such as yourself will recall, this group is the largest within Christianity, and could be said therefore to reflect the major views of said group of religions.

 

You also fail to mention people like Richard Dawkins, scientist who have allowed their emotions to cloud their judgment, and have become fanatics over evolution.

 

Your whole post seems to me one-sided, and seems to be a barely controlled tirade against Christianity.

 

 

 

 

Here we enter hypotheticals. Neither of us know what might have happened otherwise- the child might, as LIAYD puts forward, have found a cure for cancer. The child equally well might have turned into the next Hitler. We can't say, but God is omniscient. He knows everything, past and present, and not quite but almost, and never would have or could have happened. We are limited, he is unlimited. His reasoning is far beyond ours, and His understanding is too. Perhaps He knows that to allow that child to survive would be to inflict untold evil on the world, or that the consequences of his discovery of a cure for cancer before we were ready for it might lead to a shortage of medicine and war over it, leading to more deaths. Who can say? We can't. Most of us don't have that detailed a knowledge of the future.

 

Unless you're claiming prophetic visions...?

Well if my post seem one sided, I am sorry.

I don't know of Richard Dawkins.

I was trying to explain that some religious skeptics won't ever be convince about evolution.

Well because of fear as the reason.

[Darth InSidious]

Fear? Not sure of fear...Perhaps, perhaps insecurity in their own beliefs, perhaps simple rigidity, perhaps any number of things.

 

I suspect there are more people in the world than we know who genuinely think evolution is totally preposterous.

 

re: Richard Dawkins : Click!

[Windu Chi]

Fear? Not sure of fear...Perhaps, perhaps insecurity in their own beliefs, perhaps simple rigidity, perhaps any number of things.

 

I suspect there are more people in the world than we know who genuinely think evolution is totally preposterous.

 

re: Richard Dawkins : Click!

Thanks for informing me about Richard Dawkins, Darth InSidious.

[Mace MacLeod]

I suspect there are more people in the world than we know who genuinely think evolution is totally preposterous.

 

No offence, but the only people I've ever heard from or about saying evolution is absurd or impossible are those people whose religious beliefs require them to interpret their repective doctrines literally. I've really said everything I have to say on this subject in the thread about the exact same thing I linked to earlier, so I'm not going to go on repeating myself. Besides, these novellas people are starting to post are giving me a headache.

 

The Evolution of Species is a now very well established scientific theory supported by the last 150 years of research in archaeology, genetics, biology, organic biochemistry, taxonomy of species, etc etc etc. Evidence supporting the gradual evolution of species isn't the work of some cabal of atheists trying to "kill God" or destroy religion or some such nonsense, it's a vast and very robust collection of observations made by generations of people over many disparate scientific disciplines. If the Theory of Evolution didn't work, it would have been discarded by now.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

He also gave us free will. To interfere, even to save lives or do good, would be to destroy that freedom.

Lucky us:rolleyes:.

 

I'd rather he permanently removed suicidal thoughts from all humans' brains than let us be free to kill ourselves and ruin the lives of our loved ones. I'd rather he made us so that we felt no need to rape our fellow humans. I think rape victims would appreciate it.

 

The police, too, prohibits us from being truly free. But it's a worthwhile trade, in my opinion, as it drastically reduces instances of murder, rape, theft, and other "Sins" in our society.

 

And either way, the "freedom"-argument still does not excuse natural disasters. God loves us so much He killed the mom of one of my best friends with a mudslide a little more than a year ago.

 

He loves Americans so much that he drowned New Orleans in water.

 

He loves San Fransisco so much that he ruined it with an earthquake.

 

He loved the people of Pompeii sufficiently to make their neighbour Mr. Vulcano erupt, destroying the city and killing hundreds.

 

[quoe][A blind man] won't suddenly, on picking [the watch] up think "Aha! A device for measuring time! How ingenious its cog-wheel mechanism is!". He may surmise a lot from what evidence he can find through his other senses, but without sight, he cannot confirm that it is indeed for measuring time.

Neither can a man with the sense of sight. Both might eventually figure out several uses for the watch, though.

[JediMaster12]

All these things must happen before the seven years of tribulation, which are much worse by the way, then the second comming. Seems to me that you have lost fiath or something but I won't go into that.

 

The Evolution of Species is a now very well established scientific theory supported by the last 150 years of research in archaeology, genetics, biology, organic biochemistry, taxonomy of species, etc etc etc. Evidence supporting the gradual evolution of species isn't the work of some cabal of atheists trying to "kill God" or destroy religion or some such nonsense, it's a vast and very robust collection of observations made by generations of people over many disparate scientific disciplines. If the Theory of Evolution didn't work, it would have been discarded by now.

Couldn't have said it better. Instead of disproving, science has once again confirmed what has been observed by people like Charles Darwin.

[Pavlos]

Before this subject is driven back on topic by someone with a whip, I thought I'd add something to this growing discussion about religion. Why do threads about evolution vs. intelligent design/creationism always end up with these long winded discussions about whether God exists or not? I am guilty of it too, heh. Evolution and Religion are not mutually exclusive, there are many who believe in both. I don't but that’s just me. I have no problem with people worshipping a supreme being, or worshipping nature in all its beauty. What annoys me is when a religion, rather worshippers of a religion, becomes absolute in its righteousness (Not that I have seen any examples of this on these forums).

 

Religion has hindered scientific progress in the past, in an effort to maintain control over the masses. Religion has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of men and women - and still does in some parts of the world. That is a form of absolutism, something that I cannot stand. But someone saying that they find evolution difficult to believe in, so default to their religion's point of view, is no problem to me - provided they don't stick their views down my throat, that is (Because I don't do that to them, unless in a debate but that is allowed on both sides ).

 

I don't consider myself to be an atheist because although, strictly speaking, I am one... God doesn't exist, in my opinion, so there is no point in being against something/one that doesn't exist - which is not meant to offend anyone.

 

Edit: Oh and, Jae, thank you for enlightening me on the topic of Mendel . Always good to learn something new.

[Emperor Devon]

{snip} Who can say? We can't. Most of us don't have that detailed a knowledge of the future.

 

Blind faith has rarely produced anything good.

 

But I still think it's wrong that someone as powerful as God turns a blind eye to the suffering of people who have not done anything wrong in order to preserve the freedom of murderers.

 

Using a system like that here would result in disaster.

 

Unless you're claiming prophetic visions...?

 

I'm claiming ethics.

[Darth InSidious]

Um, where did I mention blind faith?

 

I just said that neither you nor I know what is in store, nor have an unlimited and objective view of the universe past, present and future and maybe.

[JediMaster12]

Religion has hindered scientific progress in the past, in an effort to maintain control over the masses. Religion has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of men and women - and still does in some parts of the world. That is a form of absolutism, something that I cannot stand. But someone saying that they find evolution difficult to believe in, so default to their religion's point of view, is no problem to me - provided they don't stick their views down my throat, that is (Because I don't do that to them, unless in a debate but that is allowed on both sides ).

It is true that religion has hindered scientific progress. In fact the best example is the Inquisition and the Catholic church. However to say that all those who keep to the faith hinder science is not necessarily true. For a year when I was in Chicago, I was taught by Jesuits, well a school that was founded by Jesuits. The Jesuits were a sect of the Catholic denomination that believed in teaching the secular subjects like math and science. Maybe that's where I get my liberal ideals. Anyway, science is not evil. Evolution is not evil. Evolution merely explains how the present state of our world came to be in terms of speciation. The seeming hatred of this subject is often caused by people who misinterpret what is being said. I am not claiming to be perfect because I am not. There is only one person who is perfect.

 

Evolution I think explains what seems improbable as it was written in the Bible. I have stated that I believe in both. I have seen the evidence. I have had evolution, primarily human evolution drummed into my brain for the last three years. This is something that we can't just pretend it doesn't exist. We have years and years of supporting data.

[Darth InSidious]

The Inquisiton interefered once, with Galileo, and there were political undercurrents involved.

 

I suggest some people here read up on a guy called Thomas Aquinas.

[Pavlos]

However to say that all those who keep to the faith hinder science is not necessarily true.

 

Oh no, I didn't mean to come across that way, sorry.

[JediMaster12]

No problem Pavlos. Sometimes we forget that what we say may be misinterpreted which is exactly my point concerning evolution. It is misinterpreted by people and now we have a huge debate and verbal wars occurring though thankfully not here.