HOME | DD
No-Reason-At-All β Evolution vs. Creationism
Published: 2008-09-16 16:12:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 2829; Favourites: 101; Downloads: 52
Redirect to original
Description
Don't hate me for my beliefs and I won't hate you for yours...But hating ideas is just fine.
Related content
Comments: 121
That seems rather incompatible to me ...
π: 0 β©: 1
Why. Every artwork takes time and goes through stages before it is finished. One who invents something or creates an artwork is referred to as its creator. A person who brings something into existence out of nowhere is not referred to as a creator they are referred to as a magician. A god is still a being, gods are still people so I don't see why God would have to have created everything out of nothing to be a creator. Especially since it has even been said a number of times that he can't create something out of nothing.
π: 0 β©: 2
I read your reply and thought I could relate.
From the time that I was a Christian to the time that I was a Deist, I believed that evolution and God were not completely incompatible. As a young writer myself, I envisioned God as "The Great Author of Everything" and the designer of all life through the process of macro-evolution over millions of years. That was how I reconciled science with faith and that worked for me for a large portion of my life. Regardless of whether or not Jesus Christ ever existed or Christian dogma was anything more than a few good moral teachings buried in a pile of Iron Age crap, at least I could be certain of God's role in the history of life on Earth and his guiding force in my own life. At least that's how it was before my Deism led me to Atheism. It was simple really and the reason for it has been stated many times. Deities are completely unnecessary for our universe to function and, although the unnecessary nature of God is by no means proof of the nonexistence of deities, using "God" as a placeholder for what we don't know is not a final solution. I came to the conclusion that my previous faith was not, as I had once thought, a virtue but instead a shackle. I started relying on my own senses and empirical evidence, rather than faith, when deciding what is worth believing in. Although I cannot and will not ever try to disprove the existence of God, I have chosen not to presuppose the existence of an unnecessary and virtually (for all extensive purposes) nonexistent deity in favor of openness to other explanations and theories; especially those supported by evidence. For me, that is how everything started to make sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
Jesus probably did exist but regardless I don't believe or support the holy trinity. Its an under thought out theory that worst of all draws away from the most important aspect of Jesus' depiction. He was a teacher and perceiving him as a deity ruins the point of his existence both in reality and in historical text.
But anyway I don't think a deity is necessary for the formation of the universe but I do think their might be some sort of code or something that helps to determine how things form in the universe. Like DNA in our bodies.
As for the existence of a deity. That all depends on your idea of what a deity is. If an advanced alien race were to create and guide a new race would that new race not come to see them as gods?
Regardless I do think it is possible for entities of great power like a deity to form or evolve. I also believe that its probably possible for life forms like us to some day reach such a point ourselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you. Just, thank you. I agree with you 100%, which is something I have never said to anyone concerning my beliefs.
In all honesty, I hope that Jesus, and people like Jesus, existed throughout mankind's history. While the man who inspired the Jesus myth may or may not have existed (there is virtually no evidence that he did beyond the Bible), there are countless other "man in desert" mythologies which predate biblical times and have the potential to hold at least some truth. And I agree. Jesus as a man, the great "precursor" of modern Humanism, is a much more genuine and meaningful story, worth teaching to our children.Β
I often wonder at the great, absolute laws which govern our universe, and yet the existence of such governing laws has never led me to believe that they were set by a being which predates their conception, is separate from their mechanisms, and for some odd reason wants to have a personal relationship with me.Β
Of course, perceiving an advanced, extraterrestrial race as deities will not alter reality.Β
And there's nothing really to add to your last statement. Completely agree.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The biggest problem with the belief that a being predated the universe is that you then have to ask where that being came from. While it may seem like a simple answer to a question it in fact only makes the question more complex. However there is still the possibility that this universe was created artificially. With our limited knowledge we just simply don't know.
π: 0 β©: 1
Agreed. But when people make such an assumption purely on faith and call others "irrational" for not agreeing with this unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated assumption, that is when we Atheists feel the need to put them in their place.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
True but Atheists often do the same back to religions. Even when the people in question were just minding their own business. It maters not what one believes its about whether you respect others beliefs. If you feel the need to force your opinions on others then you don't truly believe them yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course, I can only speak for myself and my own behavior. I would like to say that all Atheists are like me and act only in defense of Atheism, with a calm head and rational arguments, rather than attacking harmless Theists without provocation, but obviously that is not the case. Regardless, the majority of us either don't care what misconceptions non-Atheists have about us or are (like myself) working hard to correct misconceptions about Atheism which result from such blatant misrepresentation. In all honesty, that is the reason that I get into these kinds of discussions, whether with a Theist or not. I cannot remember the last time I replied to a Theist (or anyone else) and had something negative to say about their beliefs. In all of the time that I have been doing this, I have spent the whole time saying what Atheism IS NOT and clarifying what Atheism IS to those with preconceived misconceptions. That's why I do this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well one thing is for certain. I know that both sides can get along. One of my internet friends is Christian, another is Muslim and another is an Atheist that is in a relationship with a Christian.
And I know I certainly wouldn't care if I was in a relationship with someone of a particular religion as long as they don't try to grind it down my throat.
π: 0 β©: 1
As I think I've mentioned, I live in Texas where 95% of the population is religious and less than 2% identity as Atheist. Tolerating religion is not a problem. This is a minority majority and you cannot throw a stick without it landing on the lawn of someone of a different faith than you. Here, people not only tolerate diversity of faith, they embrace it. We are raised in such an environment. But this embrace and acceptance does not extend to the non-religious, especially those who explicitly identify as Atheist. I have often seen nonbelievers stigmatized for their beliefs and react irrationally to the intolerance of others. I stride not only to be tolerated by people of faith, but to be respected through understanding. That's what many religious Texans lack in regard to Atheists. Understanding.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I live Victoria where practically everyone wants to stab you in the back and where most people generally aren't very religious even when they follow a faith.
π: 0 β©: 1
It quite perplexing. Unlike some parts of the American South, here in northern Texas we really do have that "southern hospitality" vibe. Its not that we have strong southern accents or that we live in rural manner. In fact, most of us talk like we're from the Midwest and we live in suburbs. It's that the majority of people here really are just kind and open. I meet almost a dozen people every year who move here from other parts of the country expecting racism and bigotry and tell me a month in that they couldn't of been more wrong. What's perplexing is how quickly that can change when they find out that I'm an Atheist. When they find out that I'm a homosexual. When they find out that I'm a Democrat. The change in behavior and the way they treat you, just because you fit into a stigmatized minority. That's what gets me.
So not all Canadians are super nice and thoughtful?!? D:
π: 0 β©: 1
The stupid thing is that bias toward atheists and homosexuals shouldn't even belong within the Christian religion but people make everyone believe it does.
Saying your religion gives you the right to put someone else down is a bold faced lie. Even if it is written into your religion you still have no right to put others down.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've always had mixed feelings about people who cherry-pick the Bible. On one hand, they might only follow the Bible verses which promote Humanistic morals and kindness, ignoring all of the obvious immoralities. On the other hand, they might follow Bible verses which promote bigotry and hatred while simultaneously ignoring the verses which forbid such bigotry and hatred. It doesn't help that the Bible is such a contradictory book. In any case, the fact that they feel they have the right to negate certain parts of the Bible makes it much easier to justify negating the Bible in its entirety.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Very often people are probably deliberately misinterpreting many of the versus as well to suit their opinion because they don't want to be wrong.
I still haven't found anything substantial in that book that absolutely supports Homosexual bias.
π: 0 β©: 1
From what I've read, I would say that certain verses of the New Testament explicitly condemn homosexual behaviors independent of the context of any situation (objectively), but at the same time there are verses which condemn bigoted behavior and bias as well. I am, of course, not extremely knowledgeable about the Bible. When I was a Christian, I concentrated on faith rather than scripture. I tend to read such bigoted claims in the Bible literally, as nothing is worst than literal interpretations. In my opinion. Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The only mention of homosexuality I could find was a verse that says its natural or something. Which is actually technically true. Just like dwarfism, left handedness and autism, sexualities outside of heterosexuality are biological abnormalities. That's why heterosexuals are more common.
But of course sexuality has never been a matter of choice (especially for males) so bias towards them is stupid and pointless.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you don't countΒ Romans 1:26-27 orΒ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10?
π: 0 β©: 1
Huh, what do you know. I never saw those verses.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? I've heard some people claim that these verses are being misinterpreted, because the Bible doesn't specify in what context homosexuality is wrong. Of course, I would take that to mean that the Bible specifically says that homosexuality is always wrong, regardless of context.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well yes in those two verses are pretty blatantly obvious but there are also verses in there that strongly support slavery that I've found.
The Bible is a collection of stories and verses from a number of different sources so you can't say that everything in there is reliable. Unless you think slavery is OK that is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Preachin' to the heathen choir 
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, like I already said ... there are indeed many religious people who claim that he did indeed create something out of nothing.
That aside, though, I see no reason to suppose that there is some kind of intelligence behind natural processes when - as far as we can tell - things work just fine without that supposition.
You could of course add a "god"-tag after every scientific explanation, but it would hold no explanatory value and could be added or removed at will with no consequence.
π: 0 β©: 1
True but there must be some external input. Otherwise where does instinct come from? And why do other variations of thought sometimes show some form of interactivity between the thought of other individuals such as that shown in the 100th monkey experiment.
π: 0 β©: 1
Depends on what you mean by "external". External from the universe? Since the universe encompasses, by definition, everything there is, that's very likely an invalid concept.
That aside ... why must there be external input? I frankly do not see this as a necessity. If you argue from the point of every human-created system requiring external input to work correctly, that's a very anthropocentric argument (just like the apologist assumption that "information always comes from a mind", which is also only true for human-created information and not necessarily true for all information in the universe. Actually, it is evidently untrue because DNA is a form of information that does not come from a mind but occurs naturally, unless you pre-suppose that there must be a god who created it. Which is when the whole argument becomes circular ... ).
Where instinct comes from is a good question. I think it likely that instinct is a result of naturally reacting to increasingly complex stimuli to which organisms have been conditioned to respond over the course of evolution. Which is also why different organisms have different instincts, just as they have different evolutionary traits.
The 100th monkey effect is an urban legend that has since been debunked. It was based on misinterpretations of a study by japanese scientists and relied on a lot of hearsay.
That said, though, never underestimate the power of coincidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, and I don't believe its all from an external source (outside ourselves) however though and instinct are still a bit of an enigma and have yet to be fully understood. I believe that thought could be a lot more than what we think and while many of the concepts and ideas we come up with are a form of data created by us it could be possible that some of this data could have been downloaded from somewhere else and that some of the data generated by us is also uploaded to an external source. After all we created the internet, data from many computers being uploaded and downloaded and computers interacting with each other. Our brains are still computers and we are constantly seeing that nature does a better job of everything than we do so perhaps it created its own version of the internet. A sort of universal consciousness. A network consisting of the thoughts of many life forms together.
π: 0 β©: 1
Β Oh, I agree that we do not know and understand everything yet especially pertaining to the brain.
They are incredibly complex biomechanical computers after all.
Something like the network you describe could indeed be thinkable, yeah. And I'll agree that there could be external influences as well, I just wouldn't go so far as to ascribe to them any supernatural properties.
Whatever may be out there, I am convinced it can be explained rationally.
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe everything can be scientifically explained. However to believe that our level of science can explain everything is foolish. There are probably many things we have yet to learn and understand. Some of the theories we currently follow could even turn out to be wrong in the future.
But in the end all magic is just science that we have yet to understand.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, of course our current level can't explain everything.
Same was true for any point in the past, after all, and yeah, just as some theories of the past have been found to be lacking or inaccurate (I wouldn't say wrong, at least not for mainstream theories ... besides a few obvious ones like phlogiston or vis vitae ... but those had for the most part been debunked rather quickly), the same is bound to happen here or there for theories that are accepted today.
Some people seem to take this as an indicator of science being wrong, though, when in fact it's a beautifully self-correcting system.
π: 0 β©: 1
What people don't seem to get is that science is not about knowing. Its about learning what we don't know. Humans are curious creatures and are always driven to try and understand what we don't yet understand and learn about things that don't yet make sense to us. Science builds up using the knowledge of those who came before as steppingstones to see what lies ahead (a bit like a coral).
Scientific theories may tern out to be wrong but that doesn't mean science in general is wrong. It just means that there were limits to what we understood and that those limits have finally been broken. Even the theories that are wrong still often played big roles in finding the right paths. Our current understanding of the elements may have never come to be if the four elements theory didn't precede it. And for its time the four elements theory made sense and could be tested, seemingly verified and justified.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree.
It's sad that so many people don't seem to understand this, it's such a simple concept, really ....
π: 0 β©: 1
A lot of people don't want to understand it.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Aye. The attempt of understanding it would force them to reevaluate their worldviews, after all ...
π: 0 β©: 1
Or reinterpret them. After all many interpretations theses days are very likely not the intended interpretations (if their ever was meant to be any one interpretation). Some of them can simply also be narrowed down to a lack of understanding for the time period to.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
This sounds like a song. But Creationism doesn't question the obvious empiricalΒ evidence. But the Neo-Darwinian stuff, even Evolutionist don't listen to that guy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yes, creationism most certainly does. At least biblical creationism.
π: 0 β©: 0
What about the law of entropy? Or the law of conservation of energy? Or the staggering complexity of life? Or the mathematical odds of even a single protein forming by random chance being 1 out of 10 to the 123rd power? Or not a single credible "missing link" of the millions that must exist if the theory was correct never being found? Or the current population of the Earth? Or the lack of skeletons found in the Earth? (if it was millions of years old there would literally be trillions that must be buried in the Earth, and only a tiny fraction of that number actually being found.) Did you know that men have one less rib than females? Did you know the same minerals found in the dirt are also in our bodies? Did you know your eye can do more in 2 seconds than the most advanced super computer on the planet can in 2 hours? Did you know that despite millions upon billions of dollars and fifty years of advanced research, there are no computers that can equal your brain? Did you know that Darwin was a racist and a sexist? And I quote: βThe chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain, whether required deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.β
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Descent, v 2, 327
According to Darwin men have attained a higher eminence on the evolutionary scale than women in anything and everything he chooses.
Charles Darwin also wants people to believe that black people are less evolved than white people.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are pasting the same comment in response to a bunch of different deviations. Stereotypical creationist, copy-pasting and quoting out of context. Please, take a good hard look at yourself.
π: 0 β©: 0
Your name really shows how much you failed biology.
π: 0 β©: 0
FUCK OFF YOU POMPOUS COW
π: 0 β©: 0
Damn, I really need my SCIENCE TEACHER of all people to see this. She teaches biology, but when we were looking at a powerpoint explaining the reasons, a kid asked her "Do you believe in evolution?" And I quote, she said "I believe in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior." WTF?!
π: 0 β©: 1
So long as the material she is teaching is accurate and not biased it really shouldn't be a problem. However one can believe in Jesus and evolution with some non-literal interpretations of the bible. Though by her response I doubt she has a degree in biology or any hard science.
π: 0 β©: 1
The material isn't biased, thankfully. And I'm perfectly fine with religion and biology coexisting,I just don't like it when people use it close their minds
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah they say "Evolution is a theory" but last I checked we have a hell of a lot more proof than some ancient myth that's actually a revamped version of ANOTHER myth.
π: 0 β©: 0
i just love it when people say that they can reject evolution...I'm like okay, go on, reject what has been proven by countless discoveries and tests" I usually get something back along the lines of "you don't really have proof, it's just a theory"
...yeah, so's gravity... you don't believe in that...here, let me push you down this flight of stairs...believe it now???
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>