Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[Pace Setter]

I recall reading that some micro-organisms can "show this casual link" because they multiply so rapidly that sometimes mutations occur.. Does that mean there are no more "casual links" and you would consider evolutionism is true by every means? Well, or at least more authentic than creationalism?

Evolution- When a species has been forced to either change in some manner to survive in the environment, or become extinct. This theory almost completely places the reason for the change on the environment of the species.

For mutation to be the cause of evolution, you have to prove that the mutation occurs solely as a product of external factors, rather than any already-existing ability of the genome itself (to alter itself). If the former is the case, I'd accept it as a cause for evolution and accept evolution to be an almost infallible theory. If the latter is the case, then you've only proven a species' ability to adapt, which would mean it hasn't actually changed since the day it came into existence. Unless some sort of new discovery's been made recently, this proof would be difficult, if not impossible with what little we know about genome.

It occurs to me that people who have created and supported (are supporting) the evolution theory produced solid evidence and facts based on logical inferences. If such logical inference is a "logical fallacy", does that mean murderers who have no witnesses for their crimes should not be accused of murder, just because of some finger prints of a weapon found at the murderer's home which has the blood of the person being murdered?

For that analogy to parallel evolution, ONLY the fingerprints, not the weapon of the murder suspect at the crime scene can be discovered. Similar to how the cause of evolution has not yet been established, the method of crime has not yet been established in your analogy. Sure, there is the possibility that the suspect committed the murder, as he was there at the crime scene. But with what weapon? (and don't say martial arts or kung fu because that's not the point ) How do you know it was a murder, rather than a suicide? You have the environment (the suspect was THERE), the effect (dead person on the ground), but you have not established a CAUSE. Thus, you can't rule out suicide(by the needle) or some other method of death, because you are yet to prove what caused the death.

Now switch that around and you get: environment (Fossil records that suggest some possibility of conditions that the species' may have trouble surviving in),
effect(the existence of similar, yet slightly different species not long after the existence of the first), but you have NOT established a cause, and thus you cannot assume that evolution occured.

 

[mitochondria]

Heheh I'm up for a challenge, especially if it helps me clarify my thoughts and feelings. This might be a very long post though, I'll try to keep it as short as I can, but no promises!

That was indeed a long reply.. in fact the longest and the most thoughtful, considerate and open-minded reply I have ever gotten on these forums - and you remain true to your believes.. Thank you for taking the time to adress my queries.. But I just couldn't help myself to raise yet more questions since I found some of the things you proposed are predictive (for me, as I have very pronounced memories of this kind of conversations) and stereotpyical.. (please don't misunderstand me, I do take as a fact that you are as unique as the novelty of your arguments.. I will come back to that later..)

Why should there be a higher entity? I don't think it's a matter of should or should not. The question is akin to 'should we have parents?'

Of course we should have parents - this is what everyone has a "heart" would say. However, I question the validity of making such juxtaposition.. And again, I will do this by asking a question. Let's look at it with a different prespective: "why do we recognise ourselves as descendents of two beings of the opposite sex?" This is probably a question even a twelve-year-old can answer, it is she recognises the physical relationship of such two persons, the twelve-year-old's parents, and herself as a result of this relationship.

As as result, I think you may have overlooked the fact that the bonds one has with her parents, and thus she will call them partents, is more than a mere spiritual coinage. We can feel an invisible force, love, which connects us with our parents - and I assume that this is the driving force for you to admit the existance of God. However, what more we have with our parents is a physical bond, our flesh, our blood, are all part of them - and we can identify physically, and hence make logical judgements that we are part of them. Whereas our closest relationship with God (sorry if I am making wrong assumptions) is by praying and to understand Him we read "recounts" (I do not totally agree on using the word "recount".. At least not yet) about Him.

I stretch the parallel further by pointing to children's attitudes towards parents: ... People who have very strong faith in their religions thus may find it incredible that others can refute the existence of a God: as you have ties to your parents and cannot refute their existence and their contribution to who you are today, I have similiar feelings towards both my parents and my religion.

Umm.. I want to point out that I do not find abnormal or unbelievable for the "people who have strong faith in their religions [to] find it incredible that others can refute the existance of God".. And I do respect their believes.. However, I also want to point out that those people might be a little bit too extreme. No matter what message of goodness they want to bring across to other people, not noticable by themselves, they appear to have no respect for what other people believe in.. And this absurd close-mindedness is part the reason for this series of questions..

I have strong feelings towards my parents, but I just cannot simply accept the fact that there is a higher-entity watching over me. Everyone wants to be love.. but let me ask you another question: "Why does cyber love fail?" (referring to those that involve no physical contact). If I am ever to be loved, I would prefer that the person who loves me can approach me physically. If I am ever to be loved, I would prefer the person who loves me help me with her own hands and thoughts. If I am ever to be loved, I would not let someone who borrows another being to love me - and claim it as her own.

Why don't we feel the presence of our 'higher entity'? I can't do anything but speculate on this, because I am one of those that have just accepted God as a fact, just as you accept that your existance was your parent's responsibility.

Accepting as a fact and accepting because of plausible evidence are different.. In my previous post I have mentioned that so many people are raised that way therefore they take that a higher entity exists "as a fact".. Wouldn't that be contradictive to the way we think? We make judgements and tell whether something is right or wrong based on evidence. Would you believe me if I tell you that there is an immortal creature by the name of edanomel without showing you the actual creature? I almost certainly wouldn't if I were you

There are so many miracles in the world - we have just cease to find wonder in them. Have we ceased to believe there is something beyond the mundane? Has the world really become a place where we rather believe that the world and all it's wonders was a one in a zillion coincidence rather than that some divine hand had some role in it's making?

We have ceased to be impressed by miracles because the more we know about the world around us, the less miracles appeal to us. However, that does not mean only people who have spiritual contacts can percieve beyond the ordinary. I love music, I love languages, I love Science - and what they make me feel is no less than miracles. But is it really necessary to have this someone to govern everything? For example, I love jazz pianist Bill Evans' music and he brings miracles in the form of music to me. Bill Evans is who he is, he is an individual and his musical talent is his own - not given by anyone. Or for instance, I like Lainee because of who she is, and as a creation of someone.

I think the question you wanted to ask was: if there really is a higher entity, why is there still pain in the world? If there was someone or something that created us, why doesn't it love us and look after us?

hehehee.. I actually had in mind to not lead you to think that I wanted to ask questions of that sort while I was typing.. but while we are at it we might as well talk about it.

That was a very good yet typical example from Angels and Demons to explain why we have to suffer if God do exist. I had doubts on whether Dan Brown himself is a question so I ended up finding this on this official website:

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

Source: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

Well.. that kept me silent for a while and tried to comtemplate whether "by attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we [will really] end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment." But then I don't think we are debating I got carried away for a while.. but I think I am just trying to understand your believes So let's carry on..

If I were a creator of humanity, I would still let them to "learn to skate on their own".. I would let them feel pain and sadness, but not to the point that they suffer.. Take for example - the Tsunami.. was that necessary? I almost certainly would not destroy such wonder things I have created, no matter how much they defy me, or how much they try to distant from me.

If I ever have children, I will always look after and love them no matter what they do - and try my best to teach them to love other people as well as themselves. That gives me another anology - would you hit your child when she is ill-behaved? (Yes.. I am implying something here)

If you really do perceive it in such a way, I really have to ask you - what is your definition of religion? ... But the Bible isn't religion... The bible is just a collection of recounts that people wrote. If you witnessed the baptism of Christ, and God speaking from the heavens - how would you write it down so that generations after would understand what you saw and feel the mystery and awe within it?

Well if you recall me saying that I'll come back to the disagreement of using the word "recount" this is exactly where we are at.. If I did witness the what you have mentioned there, I would not even hesitate to use the best of my language skill to write recounts about the miracles I have seen. But is the Bible truely historical? I do not doubt that most people described in the Bible probably have once existed. I'm not sure if you have read my response to "Pace Setter before", but I have this hypothesis that spiritual believes could have once been used as a tool to manipulate people.. Who uneducated people would fight against a spiritual entity? As I have pointed out before, lack of education, together with wars and the absence of scientific udnerstanding on nature (say, weather is the best example) - what would be more powerful than creating a spiritual entity to motivate these people?

(by the way .. do you happen to know how old the bible is on top of your head? I googled a bit.. and some people say the first book - Book of Genesis was written in around 15 B.C... but some sources says the Bible is about 4000-6000 years old.. sorry about the side-track )

I think you meant 'oppose' rather than 'propose' in your first sentence. I'll leave the bulk of this to acmilan to answer since it was directed to him, but I urge you once again to consider what you believe religion is. Further, the church has denied such controversial issues such as homosexuality - if your logic holds true, and the church really just wanted to 'appease the masses' - why the inconsistency in accepting some claims and not others?

I think I did indeed mean propose rather than oppose but anyways, that's not important anymore..

A very open-minded Christian once told me that he believes that "religion is demonic".. Yet he is a "true" Christian, he lives his life in the name of God and he is constantly helping people.. I promise that I will reconsider what I believe religion is, and I would like to ask you to do the same thing for your religion and your believes

As for the reference to homosexuality.. I recall someone telling me that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Well.. I really can't help but say that this is just wrong.. The church "just doesn't like it" and there are no excuses..

Please don't mind me saying this - there are too many intelligent and intelligible people like you defending religions, and since the more intelligent a person is, the better she is skilled at debats/litigation/convincing someone, and the better religions can sustain in speculations about the trueness of what they believe in.

(I am a bit confused about what you meant by that.. who were you referring to by "the masses"? umm.. retains any comment on that one for now.. )

The purpose of religion? I reiterate - religion is not some political scam or power struggle as sceptics tend to believe... It is a personal devotion to something which you feel is so obviously true, that you feel everyone else must be blind (please see my first example where I posed the question: 'should we have parents?'). You must excuse some extremist sometimes when they go a bit overboard, but the faith is so obvious to me that for me to think otherwise will be just like me suddenly believing I'm an immaculate conception.

I must have repeated some of the things that you *might* not want to hear above.. I don't think I have taken any extremists into account (take Christians for example, I know very few who do not use God as an excuse to commit "sin" - because everytime they commit a sin they will just pray or confess to someone and think that it's over, and please don't deny, there are many people who do that.. It's just that they don't realise it themselves)

Let me remind you again, I do not question the passion you have for your believes and I do not want you to feel that I have violated them in any way..

 

[Lainee]

Right, to discuss cr05's idea first, because I promised.

I asked the very same question in Scripture lessons. "What happens to people who died prior to the birth of Christ? Or even those who die without hearing about Jesus today?" The answer that I was given isn't one that would be conceived as rational by many standards. In John 14:6 it says that mankind cannot be saved apart from the obedience of faith in Jesus Christ. It is also said that God will reveal himself to those that seek him. In a similar vein, it can be extracted that for example, missionaries do not find heathens and pass on the good news, but God orchaestrated the meeting so that those heathens can learn about God. God cannot be reduced to human philosophising, and has to be taken as a matter of faith.

In summary? Those who wanted to learn about God, did learn about him.

But I just couldn't help myself to raise yet more questions since I found some of the things you proposed are predictive (for me, as I have very pronounced memories of this kind of conversations) and stereotpyical.. (please don't misunderstand me, I do take as a fact that you are as unique as the novelty of your arguments.. I will come back to that later..)

You found my responces predictable because, I will admit it, they were not truly mine. Most of what I say in my posts have surely been addressed (in sharper and more scholarly detail) by others before me. I'm not a philosopher, a millitant supporter of freethought, or an epistemologist, I wasn't hoping to spring some novel answer to age old questions. I just hope I've given some people here some food for thought.

However, what more we have with our parents is a physical bond, our flesh, our blood, are all part of them - and we can identify physically, and hence make logical judgements that we are part of them. Whereas our closest relationship with God (sorry if I am making wrong assumptions) is by praying and to understand Him we read "recounts" (I do not totally agree on using the word "recount".. At least not yet) about Him.

Hmm... you raise a very valid argument. Let me answer you this way; you do accept the fact that your parents had parents and that they too share the same physical and biological ties that you now have with your parents?

Say 200 such generations ago... you can imagine that your ancestor had a biological and physical bond to their parents. The echoes of this past relationship are still reflected in the colour of your skin or the shape of your ears.

Yet, do you remember these ancestors, those which you inherited your genetic structure from? Do you know what acts they did when they lived? Or what kind of people they were? It is not that you have no ties to these ancestors - science has told us this - but that through time your feeling of a 'connection' to these people were lost. My father's mother passed away before I was born, so I never had the opportunity to meet her and get to know her. But I learn that she was a chef and what her food tasted like and how skilled her needlework was, all things that my father told me because he -knew- what person she was. The closest relationship you have to your ancestors is through someone else, but my father tells me that my grandmother still watches over us and we can still talk to her and know she is listening.

We were all created in the image of God. But what -does- He look like? Does he have two arms, two legs and five fingers on each hand like we do? We have forgotten all this, though sometime in the past someone once knew. And they've told us all that they remember. Mark made such efforts to record exactly who Jesus was and what he did when he walked among us: "Not long afterward Jesus came from Nazareth in the province of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As soon as Jesus came up out of the water, he saw heaven opening and the Spirit coming down on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."" I am sure you recognise where this passage is from and what event it documented.

Thus, drawing the two threads together, our knowledge of God is like our knowledge of our ancestors - we have forgotten who He is even though He is still present in each and every one of us and everything we see (the pattern of his making is like DNA), we know only of Him through what others tell us, and it is believed that He is still with us and watching over us and that when we talk to him He will be listening.

For me, a Catholic, it is not just a matter of faith. It is a matter of fact. Who and what I am today is entirely because of Him, and I have both a spiritual and physical connection to him. -We- all have a physical connection to him, but I guess the spiritual bond is one that some have and others lack (just like, sadly, the bonds between parents and children).

However, I also want to point out that those people might be a little bit too extreme. No matter what message of goodness they want to bring across to other people, not noticable by themselves, they appear to have no respect for what other people believe in.. And this absurd close-mindedness is part the reason for this series of questions..

That is one of the most unfortunate side-products of religion. But like science experiments, the one limitation that one cannot erase is the human margin of error. I have total respect for what others believe in, but I also believe that a great many of those people are wrong. To illustrate:

I insist that fish can read minds. There is nothing that would persuade me otherwise, it was what I was brought up to believe and I have found concrete evidence to prove it. Just last week I brought a live tuna home for dinner, and I left it next to the stove and then fell asleep and forgot to cook dinner. I woke up hungry and to my surprise the tuna was lying in the pan, cooking itself. Yes, I know it takes a leap of faith to believe this, but I truly truly believe it was a sign.

Well... ahem... my purpose there was to create a story that is hard to believe. To many religious extremist, I think they may view science or other religions in a similar vein. I am not condoning some blatantly separatist religion actions (Vatican responces in past centuries have not been exactly model Catholic practice) but I again stress the limitation in all human endeavours - sometimes even one's faith succombs to one's ambition, or greed, or self-righteousness. It is, I am afraid, unavoidable. But I might add, I would like you to find any 'just' cause in society that isn't guilty of this.

I have strong feelings towards my parents, but I just cannot simply accept the fact that there is a higher-entity watching over me. Everyone wants to be love.. but let me ask you another question: "Why does cyber love fail?" (referring to those that involve no physical contact). If I am ever to be loved, I would prefer that the person who loves me can approach me physically. If I am ever to be loved, I would prefer the person who loves me help me with her own hands and thoughts. If I am ever to be loved, I would not let someone who borrows another being to love me - and claim it as her own.

I understand where you're coming from. However, God did not borrow another being to love you. He sent Jesus because he was the -embodiment- of God's love for mankind. Jesus walked among us, human just like any other one of us, to explain to us how to live our lives and to love God in return. And in the end, He sent him to show us the fallibility of the human itself. He was an example to mankind about how a person, made of flesh and bone, should live.

Accepting as a fact and accepting because of plausible evidence are different.. In my previous post I have mentioned that so many people are raised that way therefore they take that a higher entity exists "as a fact".. Wouldn't that be contradictive to the way we think? We make judgements and tell whether something is right or wrong based on evidence. Would you believe me if I tell you that there is an immortal creature by the name of edanomel without showing you the actual creature? I almost certainly wouldn't if I were you

Human logic... like humans is not unfallible. In human perception and analysis, there is so much room for error. Yes, I was raised Catholic, and many are. And so I understand your argument about being conditioned into believing in God as fact, but I cannot conceivably accept it. Would I still have the beliefs I have today if I were raised by atheist or agnostic parents? - I don't know. The fact is, like you said, if you told me that such a creature existed I wouldn't believe you. But God told me to trust him, so I do. I wake up every day accepting the path he wants me to take. Yeah, psychoanalyse me: it must be because I need structure in life, so I'm prepared to believe in something without concrete evidence. I feel lost and alone and I need to feel as if there's a guiding hand.

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5 & 6

But the fact is... prove God -doesn't- exist. Even science hasn't managed to do this (maybe if it just gets more funding... ).

We have ceased to be impressed by miracles because the more we know about the world around us, the less miracles appeal to us. However, that does not mean only people who have spiritual contacts can percieve beyond the ordinary. I love music, I love languages, I love Science - and what they make me feel is no less than miracles. But is it really necessary to have this someone to govern everything? For example, I love jazz pianist Bill Evans' music and he brings miracles in the form of music to me. Bill Evans is who he is, he is an individual and his musical talent is his own - not given by anyone. Or for instance, I like Lainee because of who she is, and as a creation of someone.

Thanks. I think.

One question: Why is it so unbelievable that God grants each one of us gifts?

I had doubts on whether Dan Brown himself is a question so I ended up finding this on this official website:

Well.. that kept me silent for a while and tried to comtemplate whether "by attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we [will really] end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment." But then I don't think we are debating I got carried away for a while.. but I think I am just trying to understand your believes So let's carry on..

Understand my beliefs? I think I lose a bit of meaning when I try to convey what I believe, it's really quite difficult to explain a feeling. How would you answer it if I asked you to explain 'happiness'? I tried my best to explain though, and I'm glad that you're keeping a degree of open-mindedness as well.

If I were a creator of humanity, I would still let them to "learn to skate on their own".. I would let them feel pain and sadness, but not to the point that they suffer.. Take for example - the Tsunami.. was that necessary? I almost certainly would not destroy such wonder things I have created, no matter how much they defy me, or how much they try to distant from me.

If I ever have children, I will always look after and love them no matter what they do - and try my best to teach them to love other people as well as themselves. That gives me another anology - would you hit your child when she is ill-behaved? (Yes.. I am implying something here)

Parenting is a difficult task (as documented by the wide and rather redundant selection of parenting guides available). Does a parent need to have their child fear them in some degree to afford respect? From your analogy I would assume your answer would be 'no'. The fact is that we fall and fall and scrape our knees, break an arm, crack our skulls and we still have learnt nothing. God is waiting for us to just follow the rules he set out for us, we just have been too busy arguing over who gets the bigger skateboard and who has a bigger skateboard than us and how we should steal their skateboard.

What is the will of God? Well, one that we obey him. Love one another. Obey your parents. Do not lie. Etc. Etc. Those are the rules, we have the instructions - why aren't we following them? Let's just say... and God help me if I'm totally out of line... but why not just try following those rules first before we complain that God is so unfair towards us.

I have this hypothesis that spiritual believes could have once been used as a tool to manipulate people.. Who uneducated people would fight against a spiritual entity? As I have pointed out before, lack of education, together with wars and the absence of scientific udnerstanding on nature (say, weather is the best example) - what would be more powerful than creating a spiritual entity to motivate these people?

True and true. Christianality could be the biggest hoax and most widely believed hoax that was ever invented. It could've been created by people who had nothing better to do than invent some dude called Jesus who turned water into wine, and brought the dead to life. It could've been created by people who thought religion was the best way to control people, and thus is a good tool to gain power.

But just ask yourself, would you rather live in a world without science or without religion? Is one destined to rule the other obsolete?

If science answers all worldly questions then why still do people turn to religion? Is it because we refuse to accept the obvious? If so, I think we are experiencing a case of what would be medically termed mass delusion.

(by the way .. do you happen to know how old the bible is on top of your head? I googled a bit.. and some people say the first book - Book of Genesis was written in around 15 B.C... but some sources says the Bible is about 4000-6000 years old.. sorry about the side-track )

That's quite okay. The Old Testament is also part of the Jewish scriptures is believed to be Jewish 'canon' from around 200 BC to 200 AD. The oldest book of the bible is the 'Book of Moses' or the Torah, written in Hebrew, and traditionally Christianity and Judaism believe that this was written by Moses himself and thus the time given. Someone explained all this to me before, but quite frankly, I've forgotten it all. I'll see what I can find and will report back on this.

I promise that I will reconsider what I believe religion is, and I would like to ask you to do the same thing for your religion and your believes

Thankyou, and I will. I have tried, so far, to step back from my beliefs and look at things critically. But it's like looking in the mirror and trying to imagine where your heart, lungs, liver etc would be.

As for the reference to homosexuality.. I recall someone telling me that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Well.. I really can't help but say that this is just wrong.. The church "just doesn't like it" and there are no excuses..

Conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This results in two contradictory sets of interpretations on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception.

Personally, I would consider myself a liberal Christian. And as such I do believe in same-sex marriage, protection against discrimination, equal protection under hate-crime legislation and so forth are fundamental human rights issues. I don't accept the conservative view that homosexual behaviour is always a serious sin. I read somewhere once that there are people who suggest that three homosexual couples are written about in the Bible. These are Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan and, Daniel and Ashpenaz. (If anyone is interested in this aspect, I made some notes on it once and will PM or email you it just to save space here cause I'm writing way too much. )

Please don't mind me saying this - there are too many intelligent and intelligible people like you defending religions, and since the more intelligent a person is, the better she is skilled at debats/litigation/convincing someone, and the better religions can sustain in speculations about the trueness of what they believe in.

I think you may have succeeded in trapping me into a corner! I have tried my best to be analytical and intelligent about this discussion, but in no way have I tried to convince anyone anything! I cannot explain any of this to you otherwise, if I don't attempt to sound reasonable and analytical you would not read what I have to say. I could just have written "Go God! God rocks!". I am truly hurt that you're so paranoid that I, and other people, are just using our knowledge to trick you into believing us. Truly!

I don't think I have taken any extremists into account (take Christians for example, I know very few who do not use God as an excuse to commit "sin" - because everytime they commit a sin they will just pray or confess to someone and think that it's over, and please don't deny, there are many people who do that.. It's just that they don't realise it themselves)

There are people who tattoo themselves with green scales, fork their tongue and worship the snake god - need I say more?

 

[katie_tully]

I like the evolution option better, atleast it has a scientific basis and although cant be proved yet is quite logical..
Adam and Eve on the other hand... I like how we're moulded in the image of god, except nobody has ever seen god... and technically speakign, we're moulded in the image of our genetic make up..
Hmm...

 

[soha]

i remember learning about evolution at school..and the big bang theory
and people complained because it was going against what their religon tells them
of how the world..evolved

 

[mitochondria]

I am truly hurt that you're so paranoid that I, and other people, are just using our knowledge to trick you into believing us. Truly!

Umm... Didn't think I would have to start my reply to you like this..

Well, first of all, I am very sorry *frown*

Honestly, I really didn't mean it that way when I said "there are too many intelligent and intelligible people like you defending religions." Even it might still hurt you, what I rather meant was that they use their knowledge to prevent believers from not believing.

Or let me tell you this (rather specific).. I always think sincerely of the people who promotes Christianity, to the point where I admire them - because they sacrifice their own time to simply bring a message of happiness to everyone else. And I never, and never will, think of them as trying to trick us into believing in God

Is hurt *frown*

I never cease to realise what I would get if I choose to believe but I also realise what I would lose if I choose to believe. I live in the borderline of believing and disbelieving.. That reminds me that I forgot to ask you something last time.. let's come back to that later

But just ask yourself, would you rather live in a world without science or without religion? Is one destined to rule the other obsolete?

If science answers all worldly questions then why still do people turn to religion? Is it because we refuse to accept the obvious? If so, I think we are experiencing a case of what would be medically termed mass delusion.

You know my answer (or so I think..)

I must add that it's our nature to find out what seems right and what is not. I admit that I used to be atheistic but have gradually become agnostic.. Only through contradicting some aspects in Science to those in Religion can a conclusion be made.. Although I'm well aware of the fact that there might never be a conclusion.

Yes, our logic is not infallible, so is our perception. Hence we depend on recounts (let's suppose the Bible is a recount now) and our own preception. And the fact that some people, like me, can't bring themselves to believe what are being recounted is because they are against our preception. (Let me repeat to emphasise that this does not mean we are against religion) And these raise some questions:

• How does one realise that she is not committing a fallacy by taking religion as a fact? Or in other words, how does one know that it really isn't a "mass delusion"? Reason being that religion "could" really just be one massive psychological condition. (As I would question the validity of Science... I don't take it as a fact)
  
• It follows that: should one believe in something she can't percieve? With regards to the possibility that believing can be a phsychological disorder.

Just to make it clear, I do believe that Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive entities. And like you have said: "One day, it is my belief that all humans will discover that science was just trying to explain what religion already told us." I'm looking forward to that day.

God cannot be reduced to human philosophising, and has to be taken as a matter of faith.

In summary? Those who wanted to learn about God, did learn about him.

Sorry to intrude the discussion..

This is a rather.. bold statement you have made

Let me say this: of course "God cannot be reduced to human philosophising", it is because we were taught that way and if I "wanted to learn" about Him, I shall be taught about Him. Also, if I were to teach you something, I would teach you what I think is right and I hope you will find what I teach you is right.

Let's have some examples:

I want to learn Latin and I wish to be able to speak original Latin as well as writing and reading. However, the Latin ways we speak today is quite diversed because nobody from the time Latin was widely spoken has ever recorded how to speak Latin. Even the "closest" way to speak Latin today includes predictions on how it was spoken. Without knowing all these, I consult a scholar who can speak fluent Latin (or so it seems) and learn from her. After 3 months of hard work, I have finally learnt how to speak Latin fluently. This is all because I wanted to learn about speaking Latin, so I did learn it. However, I may never know the truth behind speaking the original Latin - or maybe it was never spoken? (a bit exaggerated) Thus what I have learnt could be redesigned, superficial and erroneous.

We think that there is a singularity at the very centre of a black hole - but we have never seen it before. We can only speculate on what happens at the singularity but over time it seems that having a singularity within a black hole is a fact. When we can't "see" something the best we can do, and we always do, is to "make guesses" about it. And over time if these guesses are appealing they will start to be falsibly taken as a fact, regardless to the actual existance of the singularity. Thus if I want to know about black hole today, I will be taught that there is a sigularity within it, and I will learn about it according to how I am taught.

Suppose I am a world renowned biologist who is particular interested in extara-ordinary creatures. Recently I claimed to have sighted a lovely and friendly but very shy, immortal creature called edanomel and is now conducting a series of research on it. One day Lainee wants to learn about this wonderful creature and she came to me. I am an honest scientist and loves to tell people what I have found so I explained everything to Lainee and provides her with documentations of edanomel. Due to the fact that edanomel is extremely shy I was unable to prove the existance of such creature to Lainee but she was convinced that edanomel exists because of my reputation and she knew I am an honest scientist (or so it seems ). And so the existance of edanomel has become a fact to her. If anyone ever tells her that it doesn't exist, she would reply: "you can't find it because it is extremely shy, but it does exist."

Just some interesting (and some crazy) examples for you to think about You can of course argue that they are not relevant. Although if you are to think about them (strongly recommended ), do that in conjunction with this quote:

You found my responces predictable because, I will admit it, they were not truly mine. Most of what I say in my posts have surely been addressed (in sharper and more scholarly detail) by others before me

and I'll remind you of:

(please don't misunderstand me, I do take as a fact that you are as unique as the novelty of your arguments.. .)

Conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This results in two contradictory sets of interpretations on just about every conceivable topic.

Umm.. indeed... In fact, conservative Christians are scaring me Although, don't you think it's a bit like evolution? Those who can adapt to what our world has become - the liberal Christians - are more open-minded and thus interpret the Bible differently in order for their believes to survive? Don't forget that it's our nature to strive for survival, and that applies to all of us physically and mentally. I really am not sure how homosexuality is described in the Bible.. but I really doubt anyone would support it in those days when the Bible was written

How would you answer it if I asked you to explain 'happiness'?

That's mean..

I just consulted my big-chubby dictionary and it gives a very disappointing definition (as they always to do to derived nouns):

the quality or state of being happy

*sweat drops*

So I looked at happy... and it gave me more words that can't be explained using the language we have

but this might give you a rough idea:

- when I find out that someone has given me a thoughtful reply on BoS

or simply this? --------->

Would I still have the beliefs I have today if I were raised by atheist or agnostic parents? - I don't know. The fact is, like you said, if you told me that such a creature existed I wouldn't believe you. But God told me to trust him, so I do....

It never helps asking "what-ifs"... (umm... I have a feeling that I have just contradicted myself since there were so many assumptions made up to this point )

As for the second part of that quote.. Don't you think it's rather contradictive? It of course is prefectly fine that you don't believe that edanomel exists. However, wouldn't this mean that you also wouldn't believe in the existance of God? How do you justify on what to believe and what not to believe? Say, you have read biographies about how wonderful and nice of a person I am. Would you trust me, under that condition, if I tell you to do so?

hehehe.. I am a nice person

Wait, would you believe me?

..but I again stress the limitation in all human endeavours - sometimes even one's faith succombs to one's ambition, or greed, or self-righteousness. It is, I am afraid, unavoidable. But I might add, I would like you to find any 'just' cause in society that isn't guilty of this.

I'll answer you with this: would it make a difference if I take, say ambition, and replace it with passion? Or greed with aspiration? And self-righteousness with scrupulousness?

One question: Why is it so unbelievable that God grants each one of us gifts?

Well, it is not unbelievable However, then I really wouldn't know why there are people who are not gifted at anything. Umm.. Don't argue that they "might have an impaccable sense of humour"; or "she is a really nice person, like an angel sent from heaven"; or "God has someone planned for everyone, it's just a matter of realising your own strength"; or "you are gifted in Mathematics but not Painting because it is God's will"... etc.

I feel very lucky that I am happy with who I am. Although, I have once wondered, like most people would have, why didn't God make me more intelligent? Or maybe why isn't everyone as smart as Einstein? Does that mean God is biased before we're even born?

This is even more compelling: why should there be neonatal diseases? Is this how God bring us to realise something? By making infants suffer? If those are plans then they are cruel, appalling and grotesque plans.


----------------------

I hope you don't mind me for not addressing to some of the issues that you have raised but I personally think that it's best to avoid discussing them..

I just hope I've given some people here some food for thought.

Yes, you most ceratinly did and thank you

I feel lost and alone and I need to feel as if there's a guiding hand.

Sometimes what you think is the cloestest help is the furthest and yet the furthest maybe the closest Advice: if you ever feel lost and alone again, take a deep breath and observe everything around you and try to appreciate them



I promised that I'll come back to this at the beginning. Well.. They have been telling me that only those who believe in God can go to heaven. I have been taught that heaven is a wonderful place since I was a child - and who wouldn't want to go to a wonderful place? So, is it true that if I am at heart a good person for all my life and I am no less nicer than a true believer in God - I still don't get to go to heaven?

Thank you for everything oh.. and sorry about the late reply..

 

[llamalope]

wow...what an arguement...I applaud you both

is it naieve of me to suggest that perhaps its possible to believe in both?

 

[thaoroxy2001]

my god! what's with all the long replies....I can't be bothered to read them....

 

[ramin_87]

In my opinion the earth, human beings and animals have all been created by GOD, a supernatural being who loves us all. As a Christian I have developed this belief through parental influence and my own personal reading of the bible and various religious books. But in recent times I have also discovered that human logic will also support creationism. How does your human body function? How can we reproduce? How were human beings put on this earth? How was the sky, rivers and mountains created? These are all questions we must ask ourself and in my opinion the theory of evolution fails to answer these questions. Human logic and rational must tell us that someone more powerful than human beings created human beings, the earth and animals, someone more supernatural. And that someone is GOD. So even if you don't accept creationism on the basis of belief, you should on the basis of logic. i leave you with this thought, could humans or apes have created the earth, human beings, animals and all other beutiful surroundings. I think not. Please believe in GOD, in his son JESUS and the fact that JESUS died on the cross for human sin. Believe the unbelievable!

 

[malkin86]

Um, GGM, all of your scientific references are from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.. Do you have anything more current?

 

[Arvin Sloane]

Lunacy or sanity? My, that is a hard one!

 

[Xayma]

Is evolution really scientific?

The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

The scientific method stuff is bullshit and is often quoted around. In the real science world it doesn't matter that much. Things that haven't been observed have been predicted and later observed. Quantum Mechanics is an example, many particles have been predicted before they have been observed.

Also the whole branch of theoretical physics relies on the principle.

Observe first isn't necessary, as long as it is testable which through fossil records it is.

 

[katie_tully]

GirlGoneMad, do you really have to keep posting page, after page of copy/pasted info? Cant you just link us, ffs.

 

[Pianpupodoel]

this arguement, although targeting one metaphor, i think can also be applied to many other 'life is too complex, therefore there must be a creator' arguments.

When crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it.

the universe is estimated to be 13.4 billion?? years old. That means, there are things 13.4 billion light years away from us. which is around 127300 billion km away. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the universe is 127300 billion kms 'long'

the size of an average house, say 15m long, would be 333 333 times smaller than the sahara. ( sahara being 5000km long)

the earth (12700km diameter), on the other hand, is at least 10 000 000 000 smaller than the rest of the universe, being 127300 billion kms 'long'

That would mean the earth is like a house found in the middle of 30 000 sahara deserts put together. (This is all for the sake of simplicity. If you want to go into arguements about measurements, i can assure you that an earth relative to the universe is much much smaller than a house relative to the desert)

The sahara covers around 8% of the world's surface, therefore our earth would be like finding one single house out of 2400 earths.

Therefore, what are the chances of finding at least some intelligent life in the desert of 2400 whole earths? greatly improved due to the VASTness of the sample size?

add to that the fact that the sahara desert has only been a barren landscape for around 6000 years. Compare that length of time to the 13.4 billion years it took to create intelligent beings such as ourselves in the universe. What are the chances that out of these 2400 worlds, over a time 2 230 000 times longer than the time the sahara has of creating house-building life, there would be at least one intelligent being able to 'create their own house'?

The universe in the beginning was not empty, and not uniform. it can be shown that all the natural elements came from the light elements such as hydrogen and helium and the great pressure cooker that is a star. so there is something to work with, and over a time so long, in an area so big, you would expect at least ONE intelligent being would be able to arise to ponder such questions and argue such topics. Wouldn't you?

 

[Serius]

how come the options in this thread are mutualy exclusive? its not like saying there was an adam and eve means that evolution didnt take place at all, or that saying evolution happened means that adam and eve couldnt possibly have existed

...

 

[Keen]

That's Christians for you. They can't have God without religion or vice versa. Of course God exists (well I think so) but religion is rubbish (but they can't even comprehend this as the two seem to mutually exclusive yet they're not - one's possibly real, the other's a pretty average fiction novel).


Keen

 

[alien]

always there to point the finger Keen

 

[Casmira]

afiak scientests ruled out us coming from monkeys/apes - we're similar but lets say we did evolve from them, why is there still monkeys/apes?

 

[Dreamerish*~]

well the monkeys and apes will always continue to reproduce and give birth to only monkeys and apes, but sometimes there are "mutants" which have different genes than what they should have as monkeys or apes. years ago there were probably some monkeys which gave birth to babies with mutated genes. it doesn't happen overnight, it takes thousands of years for ancestors to develop into different species.
but it's true. if you remember from science in year 10 or 9, a lot of different animal species today can be traced back to one ancestor.

 

[Casmira]

every living animal has a common ancestor, single cell organism, duh

originally life started in the ocean afaik, maybe plants came before?

i have my doubts that my ancestors where monkeys/apes, i think something more happend