Debate and Discussion

Do you believe in evolution?
mlai at 10:51AM, Nov. 30, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
If only all religious ppl understand that. Rather than attempt to subvert science for the sake of their religion. But then, that's history for you.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Loud_G at 11:19AM, Nov. 30, 2007
(online)
posts: 389
joined: 8-13-2007
mlai
If only all religious ppl understand that. Rather than attempt to subvert science for the sake of their religion. But then, that's history for you.

Hehehe, I know. But part of that derives from them not understanding their own religion….
Find out what George is up to:

 
 
Go! Visit George or he may have to eat you!*
*Disclaimer: George may or may not eat violators depending on hunger level and scarcity of better tasting prey.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:46PM
bobhhh at 10:08AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Loud_G
I have read about it. I have studied all the sciences and engineering. I am a GeoScience person. So I have a back ground and understanding of scientific principles and theory and discovery. I just have not seen enough conclusive evidence to back evolution 100% of the way. I have seen what some people call conclusive, but which really has holes all through it.

I guess that begs 2 questions:

1) Granting that there is not 100 percent proof, don't you think there is enough compelling evidence to teach kids evolution as a likely theory?

2) Do you feel it's really appropriate to in clude religious theories about the nature of the universe and man in science class?

Because that's what this all boils down to. I wouldn't have a beef with creationists if they just kept their theories in religious history class. Science class is for more scientific theories with hard data to support them, even if they are not 100 percent irrefutable.

For example we teach theories about the super continent and the big bang as likely scientific analyses given our understanding of our universe and planet.

They have less data to back them up than evolution.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 11:04AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
bobhhh
Because that's what this all boils down to. I wouldn't have a beef with creationists if they just kept their theories in religious history class. Science class is for more scientific theories with hard data to support them, even if they are not 100 percent irrefutable.

I'd just be happy if they made sure kids knew the definition of “theory” in the scientific realm… Kids, its not a synonym for “idea”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Aurora Moon at 3:22PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
bobhhh
Loud_G
I have read about it. I have studied all the sciences and engineering. I am a GeoScience person. So I have a back ground and understanding of scientific principles and theory and discovery. I just have not seen enough conclusive evidence to back evolution 100% of the way. I have seen what some people call conclusive, but which really has holes all through it.

I guess that begs 2 questions:

1) Granting that there is not 100 percent proof, don't you think there is enough compelling evidence to teach kids evolution as a likely theory?

2) Do you feel it's really appropriate to in clude religious theories about the nature of the universe and man in science class?

Because that's what this all boils down to. I wouldn't have a beef with creationists if they just kept their theories in religious history class. Science class is for more scientific theories with hard data to support them, even if they are not 100 percent irrefutable.

For example we teach theories about the super continent and the big bang as likely scientific analyses given our understanding of our universe and planet.

They have less data to back them up than evolution.

agreed.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
YoungNastyMan at 12:44AM, Dec. 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 87
joined: 9-7-2007
I had been trying to put a name to the way i see it, and my friend gave it a great term. The agnostic evolutionist. While I consider the possibility that there just might be an almighty being or essence that created us, all living things still have the ability to adapt and evolve. That would explain why some creatures are so genetically similar to others, and the fact that orgasms DO adapt. So, then comes the word “agnostic.” I do not stick to one solid belief, because without solid proof, it is impossible to find the answer. So, I don't tell someone that I do or do not believe in creation or evolution, because until I am presented with solid evidence of either statement, I must continue to press for the answer. Now, while there does seem to be more proof toward evolution, I will not make my decision.

I do not know. I hypothesize. I do not give answers. I ask questions. I do not preach. I share ideas. I do not believe. I consider. Good times.
(>^_^)>(>^.)>('<)
Tag you're it! Tag, you're it! Tag, you're….Oh, god dammit!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
glenfx at 10:21PM, Jan. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 64
joined: 5-25-2007
This comes down to religion.

Religion was invented by intelligent men to get wealthy, it comes down to how to manipulate other people “on the name of A god” to do the things they want.

There are some religions that get wealthy by taking 10% of their followers earnings, others selling books door by door, others by receiving “donations for the poor” yet they manage to build walls of gold *coughthevaticancough*.

If you read the bible its filled with fantasy stories amazingly simmilar like the Arabian nights, for example.

.-god creates Adan and Eve, they ate an apple, had sex (why the hell did he create sexual organs and reproductive systems if it was going to be a freaking sin??) anyway had two children, one kills the other and leaves… finding a civilization…wtf? god made several other sinful beings?? with all his power and inteligence… he made the same mistake over and over??…. and im supposed to praise him? lol

.-Noe's ark, he makes a huge boat and fills it with two of each animals to survive the flood, but there are millions of species and there are millions unique to specific countries, yet at the time they coudnt travel to the americas… so those should have died in the flood. Anyway if god is “fayr”… why did he killed the inocent animals as well if the siners where the humans??

.-Samson who was as powerful as Hercules, but his power came from his hair, he gets blinded and enslaved but when his hair grew back he made the building collapse killing everyone. (if he had godly powers… shoudnt he be gods real son??)

That book is just filled with fantasy, AND the “intelligent Design” is just one of them.

Evolution is much more reliable because there is at least some tangible proof of it, though there are several theories that are as absurd as the bible's version.
For instance i dont believe humans came from monkeys… its just like elephants, cats, gorillas, etc. Those are different species, humans are something other than monkeys.
Every species had an evolution of about 25%, so why humans/monkeys where the exception and had an evolution of 1000%?

There are some religions, and religious people who believe that scientists created the dinosaurs resently to discredit their feith because the bones belong to periods way before god created the world ^_^

Well ill leave it at that :P
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
ozoneocean at 11:39PM, Jan. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,023
joined: 1-2-2004
Religion wasn't "created“ for money. Wha???

Have a look at the earlier examples of it in its ”primitive" forms rather than its tawdry modern day derivatives to see where it came from. Working back from contemporary examples is akin to what creationists do when they say “God must have created man because he's too complicated and perfect to have arrived that way by random processes”.

ie.- man evolved, like all life, from a far simpler form, adapted to his world and then adapted it to himself.
Religion began with our earliest beginnings as a social species. Part of social cultural cohesion, knowledge transference, a store and source of knowledge, information, and wisdom, as well as the laws and rights that governed communities, regulated planting times, relations between other communities and so on.
————————————————

I tend to think that the true problems here are these:

-People who staunchly hold onto old ideas and refuse to adapt them, in spite of innovations around them.
-People who have no respect for older ideas, not realising that all human knowledge exists in a social matrix, no matter how scientific, and that simply trampling or steamrolling their own ideas through ultimately harms their cause by creating reactionary and equally staunch opposition. Retarding their adoption. (I'm guilty of that one in this very post! lol! )
-Those with a limited or inadequate conception of the ideas at hand mischaracterising and misrepresenting them, further muddying the argument.
———————————————–
The most interesting thing here is the thread title: "belief“ in evolution.
It is of course science and not ”faith“, so ”belief" should never come into it… But how many people actually ever bother to study the history and science of evolution, or any science for that matter? Due to our ignorance, laziness, and just plain old ordinary limitations and lack of interest, much science never goes too far beyond a “faith” level with most people -functionally and in their every day lives that is.

What a delicious, silly, and hilarious irony. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
glenfx at 1:45AM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 64
joined: 5-25-2007
I should have used the word Power instead of wealth but didnt remember the word ^___^

Even in the most remote place which held some sort of civilization, youll see religion played a strong role in favour of the leaders of that civilization.
Power as in if you attack me god will do something to you and since most people is influentiable that can work as a charm because they could think it can be true.

AC after Christ, Almost every battle was because of “A god's will” and killed, conquered, and robed every other people, rome was very good at it and kept strong AC
The most powerful persons in history where from the church… even Kings kneeled to a priest meaning priests had power over the kings, and some other priests became kings.

Also the current bible isnt the same bible preachers used BC before Jesus, yet the disciples of Jesus took part of the old bible's stories and thats why you see fantasy in the new bible just like the fantastic myths in Greek gods.

Its all a bunch of man made stories that people took as real and used it in their favour.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
kyupol at 2:08PM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Evolution?

What about DE-volution?


Could it be that there was a pre-historic nuclear war?


Perhaps we humans were at one time, more advanced than we are now and that nuclear war wiped us out and sent us back to the stoneage. Then as time went along, we re-learned little by little the level of technology that our ancestors once had.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Hawk at 2:12PM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
kyupol
Perhaps we humans were at one time, more advanced than we are now and that nuclear war wiped us out and sent us back to the stoneage. Then as time went along, we re-learned little by little the level of technology that our ancestors once had.

Story-wise, that would be really interesting and cool… I just figure we'd find more structural remains if that was the case.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ozoneocean at 2:41PM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,023
joined: 1-2-2004
Technically De-evolution is impossible, like paradoxes it's more of a literary conceit than anything real. Evolution is a one way linear process, a description for the changes that occur over time to the genome or whatever.

Kyupol's post holocaust theory has been the meat of SciFi since it SciFi existed. It also has resonance with real world history: The fall of Rome -> the dark ages -> the Renascence.
As well as made up history: The fall of Atlantis -> Stone age -> Rise of Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
TnTComic at 4:02AM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
kyupol
Evolution?

What about DE-volution?


Could it be that there was a pre-historic nuclear war?


Perhaps we humans were at one time, more advanced than we are now and that nuclear war wiped us out and sent us back to the stoneage. Then as time went along, we re-learned little by little the level of technology that our ancestors once had.




I love Planet of the Apes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
kyupol at 5:23PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Technically De-evolution is impossible

Imagine this: A big nuclear war happened and it managed to kill off the scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. And all that is left is a bunch of people who dont know anything about technology.

There is no choice but for them to start living like the primitive man. Hunting and gathering or something like that.

Everything known to humans had a history of some sort. From drawing to rocket science… even stuff like martial arts and military strategy. Those things were learned one way or another.

Since I suppose everyone here is an artist, remember the time when you could only draw stick figures? I checked out those ‘improvement threads’ over the years and yes there is an improved quality in ALL of them. They improved because they learned something. Improvement comes from trying out stuff and experimenting with them. As artists, we tend to continue what ‘works’ and discontinue what ‘doesnt work’.

Same thing with other stuff.

Even things taken for granted like eating. How do you know what food is edible and what is poisonous? That involved trial and error that caused human lives. The knowledge that was gained at the expense of human lives.

Technology cannot be learned overnight. There has to be a learning process.

Also if you followed the news, notice that the war-torn areas of the world have backward technology. The more conflict and war, the more these humans destroy each other, the more their technologies will stagnate.



As far as creation and origins of humanity is concerned, there are 3 sources of info I've looked at:

- Evolution (I somewhat doubt it. How can you make something out of nothing?!?)
- The Bible (It somewhat coincides with evolution theory if not taken in a literal context)
- The ‘conspiracy’ (sometimes offers consistent and convincing proof that ties up evolution theory and the biblical one. But its inconsistencies are all over)

All three of them somewhat contradict one another.

Though the reason why evolution theory is the most widely accepted one is because it is what everyone sees around them. Even the biggest lie can become a truth just because it is that which is widely seen. A human's perception of ‘truth’ can be altered by massive propaganda machines as demonstrated throughout the world's history.

Though the truth will always come out in the end. That is what I believe. The truth shall always prevail.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
mlai at 5:46PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Kyupol, what was your point?

Anyways there's no such thing as devolution, even in your example. What you're talking about is regression of civilization and knowledge, nothing to do with genetics. And as was stated, there is no such thing as backwards evolution, because to think of evolution as a process of ‘going lower to higher’ or ‘going from simple to complex’ is absolutely wrong.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
TnTComic at 6:11AM, Jan. 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
kyupol
Imagine this: A big nuclear war happened and it managed to kill off the scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. And all that is left is a bunch of people who dont know anything about technology.

I love Planet of the Apes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
RabbitMaster at 12:09PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
The short version of my answer is that I've been on both sides of the issue, but became a Christian in 1995. I soon thereafter became an ardent creationist.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
imshard at 1:01PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
I always viewed it this way:
Just because they quit writing the bible, doesn't mean God quit creating.
As the lowly human how are we to know that it isn't God's hand at work in evolution? Like the sculptor slowly chipping away at the unwanted chips from his masterwork?

Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
StaceyMontgomery at 1:26PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Science is about asking Questions. Religion is about already knowing all the answers.

In my experience, people who ask questions are always better off than people who think they already know all the answers.

that sums up my views on creationism in a nutshell.

(edited for clarity)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
RabbitMaster at 3:34PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
Well StaceyMontgomery, I disagree with your basic premise, but you certainly have a way with words.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
pinkertonpark at 5:37PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 13
joined: 12-30-2007
I think it basically comes down to the individual. Some folks need faith in order to make it through the day. They need to know that something better is out there waiting for them. It keeps them in check. Then there are the other folks who need solid proof before they commit. I wouldn't call them pessimists or even realists. They're proofists. They need solid proof before they commit. They need tactile reassurance.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
RabbitMaster at 8:10PM, Jan. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
Pinkerton, that is certainly one way to view it, but it doesn't quite explain those of us that have switched sides.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
mlai at 5:20AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Are you trying to say that because someone is a born-again Christian, that he must automatically switch his stance on evolution?

1 thing has nothing to do with the other.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
StaceyMontgomery at 7:41AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
In my limited experience, they have a lot to do with each other. Creationism is a Born-Again Christian philosophy. I would think it would have very little to offer otherwise.

I mean, you could say that Believing in the Rapture has nothing to do with being born again - but generally, it does.

Even the “Intelligent Design” people, who are essentially trying to find a way to make Creationism “non-denominational” have to talk about “going beyond materialism” a lot- that is, going beyond science into religion.

Obviously, not all Christians are creationists - and not all creationists are Christians. But as far as I can tell, most creationists are Christians, and that seems kind of inevitable.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
RabbitMaster at 7:51AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
It's really quite simple. The Bible says that I am a sinenr and must someday stand before a holy and righteous God who hates sin and has to judge it. But out of his love for me, God sent his Son to the cross to pay the penalty for my sins and that by repenting of my sins and putting my faith in that atonement, I can be forgiven and receive eternal life. Now, why would I believe what the Bible says about that and not believe what it says about the origin of life?

It really doesn't impress me what ‘other Christians believe’. Within any group you can find any number of subgroups that believe just about anything, even things that are contrary to the stated beliefs of the group.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:43AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Well, of course, I know many serious and faithful people who follow many different religions, and they believe in the various truths that their faiths reveal to them.

Of course, throughout history, people of different faiths have often found it difficult to get along, and people have tried all sorts of approaches to dealing with this - from war and Inquisition to ghetto walls to creeds of tolerance.

Myself, I've been a great fan of the American Secular approach to culture, which for hundreds of years has created a “commons” where people of all faiths can meet and interact peacefully. It creates an environment where everyone - of every faith - can live in peace, and try to follow the path that their conscience sets before them.

This secular space is a practical and pragmatic one.

I find this approach to be incredibly valuable and beautiful, and historically, it seems to be one of the most successful and prosperous ever attempted. I am myself an atheist, but like any intelligent person, I listen to what others say, and every day I have to weigh what i think i know against the uncountable mysteries that I certainly do not comprehend.

And so I treasure the American Secular Experiment - which creates a place where I am free of the government or the local majority controlling the faith of others. Of course, the American Secular Experiment is a human artifice - and therefore flawed and imperfect. We all have to work every day to keep it working right.

And so I have felt some despair, lately, as various Fundamentalist faiths have tried to oppose The American Secular Experiment. My dictionary defines “Fundamentalist” as meaning “A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism” and that is how I am using the word here.

Modern Fundamentalist of various faiths seek to weaken the Secular space - but i think it is a great error. The idea, of course, is always to replace the Secular Space with a Space dominated by your own “One True Faith” - whether that is Evangelical Xtianity or Radical Islam or whatever. But I think this is a mistake - The American Secular Experiment creates a space where all religions and worldviews have a chance to flourish and spread in a free marketplace of ideas. After all, if your faith is the One True Path, it cannot help but prosper in such a space!

But once you unwind the American Secular Experiment, then we have nothing left but the Crusade and the Inquisition, and we know how those go. One faith wins, and then another, and then another, on and on, in the endless logic and chaos of war and strife.

And so I oppose the Creationists and the Intelligent Designers and their various allies, and anyone who seeks to unravel the Secular Compromise. I fight to defend everyone's rights to the public space - but obviously, when the space does not defend me, then I will not defend it.

Believe in Creationism all you want. Preach it from every pulpit. Teach and spread your truths in good faith. But beware of the impulse to turn Creationism into a part of the public cirriculum, and to change the rules of the public space to favour your faith over others.

It is one thing to debate with the other people who share your house - it is quite another thing to set the house afire.


(edited a bit, for I am a font of typos)

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
pinkertonpark at 9:30AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 13
joined: 12-30-2007
RabbitMaster
Pinkerton, that is certainly one way to view it, but it doesn't quite explain those of us that have switched sides.

But why did you switch sides?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
mlai at 9:46AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Oh I didn't know BAC meant a specific philosophy. I just thought it meant an adult converting to Christianity.

I still don't see the logic of taking every word of the Bible literally. Even if you accept that it is a book of the words of God, just by rudimentary knowledge of history you know it's a book written by mortal men long after Jesus is dead. Certainly not by Jesus himself. So of course even if it contains segments of Truth, not every word is infallible. Unless you actually believe that hosts of angels watched over the authors writing every single word.

As for the Secular Space. Great socially-oriented argument. I was thinking more of the unadulterated application of science, but yes society too needs to be defended from the ugly throwbacks to medieval theocracy.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
StaceyMontgomery at 10:03AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
mlai

Many (not all) Born again Christians in America do in fact hold that Biblical inerrancy is absolute, with the Divine overseeing the efforts of all translators.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
RabbitMaster at 10:10AM, Jan. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
mlai
So of course even if it contains segments of Truth, not every word is infallible.
You and I simply disagree on that point.

StaceyMontgomery
I find this approach to be incredibly valuable and beautiful, and historically, it seems to be one of the most successful and prosperous ever attempted. I am myself an atheist, but like any intelligent person, I listen to what others say, and every day I have to weigh what i think i know against the uncountable mysteries that I certainly do not comprehend.
Well said as always ,Stacey. one of the reasons I am in favor of freedom to the extent that I am is that I believe the gospel flourishes in the free market of ideas. Neither I, nor any rational person, is in favor of a theocracy, but I won't insult your intelligence by saying that I think all viewpoints are equally valid. And neither do you, I would guess.
I have been preaching on the streets for almost 13 years now, and it is very easy for a society that claims to be neutral towards ‘religion’ to become hostile towards ‘religion’ while still claiming to be neutral. On a hundred different fronts, modern day Christians are being told our views are not welcome in the public square. That's a natural side-effect of becoming a more secular society, and to be expected. A lot of my well-intentioned brethren react to this by ttrying to codify their personal convictions into law. In most cases, I think they are well-intentioned, but wrong.
But this has almost nothing to do with evolution. Sorry to have strayed off topic.

pinkertonpark
But why did you switch sides?
That is a quite involved story. Another time perhaps.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved