Nedak Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Potholer is my hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 personally, i dont really care either way. "yoda." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill in the holes. But they want the holes. They want to live in the holes. They go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes people! ~ Hugh Laurie I have nothing against people who believe in something greater than themselves, but I don't think that people should hold to something that doesn't hold water. I'm for keeping the moral principles within a religion... those are good attributes. But you are not disrespecting god by dismissing all the faith-related subjects in favor of something more solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 It CAN'T be both. Bull****. See Mimartin's post. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Bull****. See Mimartin's post. _EW_ Already did and rejected it. If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension. Science: Clearly it has proven to explain everything, so long as you find enough evidence to support the theory. Religion: Constructs that depend upon faith, which relies heavily upon a LACK of proof. It goes against the very nature of science. Galileo is a prime example of the evil of religion against the efforts of contrary minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Already did and rejected it. If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension. That is merely opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 That is merely opinion. Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist--I believe God created each species using evolution as a tool. as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof. Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend? How do they? We don't, thus making neither you or them incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend? Have you ever looked through a telescope and turned it towards the Ring Nebula found in the constellation Orion? In the center is what appears to be nothing, but is in reality a super-intense star that emits ultraviolet radiation. We can't see UV rays, so that would explain why we see what appears to be nothing. Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard? However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm confused by the supposed question, "evolution vs. creationism." The ideas don't cover the same subject, so I don't see any possible dichotomy. Even with naturalism vs. creationism, I don't see any possible resolution to the discussion, so it's all just meaningless to me; or rather, I don't see that any sort of fruitful discussion is possible, since both account for the same exact things (i.e., there's only a definitional distinction here, not an evidential one). One decides such "questions" mainly upon the sort of upbringing one has, apparently, although you can usually use the science bit a lot more effectively with other subjects as well. I'm not a philosophical pragmatist, but I choose the science bit; I don't quite understand those that choose otherwise. At any rate, I don't consider those who believe in literal creationism to understand what evolutionary theory entails, or what it is supposed to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension. So just because it's something humans can somewhat understand...it can't be a higher power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard? Some Christians think of him that way because that's their interpretation of god, if they COULD see him. But that has nothing to do with anything and you answered your statement. "If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension." Your own answer: God, because accord to Christians god is beyond our comprehension. However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there. I never disagreed with you here. I'm an Agnostic who sways more towards Atheism than any sort of mono-theistic religion. But my point was that you can't say that it "CAN'T BE BOTH" as it is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Shake Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 A lot of people hear Creationism and interpret it as God snapping his fingers and poof, everything came to exist. I believe God was the original scientist. Rather than it just coming to be, he created everything just as a human scientist tests his hypothesis, by trial and error. God could have caused the Big Bang and then created everything else accordingly, then things evolved into what they are today. So in essence I believe in creationism, but not as others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSion399 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I am a Will Wright's SPORE®ist myself, I believe that all species were created and evolved by a number of different entities for their own amusement and challenge, and the plane we exist in is essentially a simulation, comparable to the Internet. They also think we are really cute when we discuss topics like religion and philosophy like this. Alternately, I am known to subscribe to classic evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trench Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God. I like that perspective. I'll go with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Shake Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God. I wouldn't say it was simple, after all it did take SIX whole days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmerman Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Personally, I'm all for evolution. I'm not religious by any means, but I also have no problem with people beliving what they want to. I have done considerable research into microevolution back in school, and yes, it does exist and is proven to exist. Macroevolution (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it. The issue I have with ardent believers of both is that there is no room for compromise. Evolution had to start somewhere. Something had to kick it off. As many in this thread have said, they view that kick as coming from God, and letting evolution do its work to create life...evolution as a tool for creation. I could honestly believe that. The current scientific hypothesis (generalized) is that back in primordial ooze days, atmospheric electrical activity charged the ooze to create proteins and amino acids, which combined together to make stuff, then compounds, then cells, then life, then...raptor jesus. The ooze/soup to amino acids and proteins has been proven in the laboratory, so it is conceivable. However....much past that has not yet happened. Honestly though, while I believe evolution is the correct method for us being here, it doesn't really matter in my daily life; I don't ponder from whence I came. I do not understand though, why, in the face of considerable evidence, hardcore religious people cannot accept that evolution does exist and simply explain it as God's method for creation? Many religious people do that, why can't the nutjobs? Just because the Bible says so? There are many passages in the Bible that aren't taken seriously any more, like stoning a wife for adultery, allowing a father to sell his daughters into slavery, yet people believe the world came into being in six days? Does not compute. The Pope(and Catholicism) view evolution in that way. No other first world country in the world has the same massive debate over this that the US does. Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Shake Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense! You don't need to be American to discuss something that doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people?Well, if that is true, then God is a sadistic mad scientist, and we are his lab rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image. Evolution: The Earth is billions of years old. Humans were the product of millions of years of evolution. We share characteristics from our ancestors the further back in history you go. There is very little that makes us different from other animals. The only difference is that we have become sentient beings. Biologically our origins can be mapped. I won't reject alternate theories that people may have, but the evolution theory works works without god. Present something that can prove god exists, and I'll listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Christian Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Fine, the Christian version of creation. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it. Shwa? (translation: huh?) Yet to be proven? Why isn't it proven? And 'simply a theory'? Sounds like the all to common argument of 'It's only a theory', if I'm not mistaking your post's intentions. Gravity is a theory too, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.