DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Page 5 of 19 [ 296 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19 Next

What most closely describes your view?

God created all life in its present form within the last few thousand years.	8%	[ 16 ]
God created all presen life within the last few million years.	1%	[ 2 ]
God created all present life withi the last few billion years.	4%	[ 8 ]
Non-human life evolved, but God directly created humans in their present form.	2%	[ 3 ]
All life evolved, but God guided evolution.	20%	[ 38 ]
All life evolved without any supernatural intervention.	65%	[ 122 ]

Total votes : 189

SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

29 Sep 2007, 1:08 am

My personal belief is that life evolved without divine intervention. I'll repeat that it's my personal belief. I feel there is evidence (fossils, comparative embryology, DNA etc., etc.)to support my personal belief, but, it's still my personal belief and not a truth. I just believe in evolution, and not the creationist theory, but I respect the personal beliefs of others.

But it's just my personal belief.

_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

29 Sep 2007, 1:10 am

elizabethhensley wrote:

************************************************************************
HOW GOD EXISTS. Study Relativity: Time & space curve, bent by the gravitational mass of the Universe. Future is the past. Evolution + billions of Years + Human desire grows Christ who builds the Universe He evolves in. Heaven is built because of Science & our desire. Humans want immortality and it is the purpose of science to learn all knowledge and preserve species and eventually individuals. Every computer scientist is building Heaven. Every doctor is working towards immortality and what this tenacious species wants, we eventually obtain. That's what we do with the next five to ten billion years. We want immortality for everyone and as sure as we built the Nautilus, the Moon Program, & International Space Station we shall have that 1500 mile cube mentioned in the second to last chapter of Revelation. All started off as dreams but Humanity makes dreams come true. What faith conceives of science can build and will build because what faith wants and what science wants, is the same. That cube may be self fulfulling prophesy, but did Christ from the future inspire John to write what he did about it? I believe Christ did, but even if He didn't, as sure as the Nautilus, the moon-ship Columbia and the communications satellite (invented in a science fiction story by Arthur Clarke), it will be built! Because Humans want it.

That cube must have a Leader. The Galilee Carpenter is Christ because we want it. Future Humanity can have any one we want to in that position. From reading both their words I can tell, Christ wants it. Buddha does not. Even folks that don't believe in God, know Jesus is special. He is what He is because we want Him to be. Study relativity. Time and space are bent by the gravitational mass of the Universe. They curve, and black holes bend space and time. In the future life learns to get back to the past. Why? Because we want to, just as we wanted to fly and go into space.

Brains are carbon based computers. Souls are Operating systems Christ must indwell, & debug to make us fit for Heaven. (Infected OS's ruin ANY Network) The contents of any hard drive can be "ghosted to a bigger, better, faster hard drive. I had mine done a few weeks ago. We haven't learned to do the carbon based kind yet, but our descendants will and due to relativity, everyone is uploadable, IF we let Christ debug us and make us fit to be uploaded. We all have a choice we must make. Like all OS's we get defects that would corrupt any network we were connected to, so we are not connected to the Kingdom of Heaven until we invite Christ to indwell us, and repair us. That's known as becoming Born Again. Pray, "Jesus Christ, please forgive my faults, come live in me, correct my faults and help me to forgive and bring others to you. Amen."

Some of course won't be fit for that cube because they won't let Christ indwell them and debug them and/or, they won't forgive. If Christ let undebugged souls/operating systems and the souls of those who won't forgive into Heaven it would soon be as much as the beta test environment we have here. But those not fit for Heaven will still have immortality. It just won't be as good. I believe Heaven is Heaven and Hell becomes Hell because of the folks who go there. Some pick up litter. Some drop it. Now imagine litter bugs littering for eternity unstopped in what started out as a nice environment and imagine a similar place where there never were any litter bugs. Just what exactly is God supposed to do with those who wont let themselves be made fit for Heaven? What would you do? Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along? But some just won't.

Google the Anthropic Principle. There are actually three versions of them. There are over a hundred ways the laws of the Universe had to be "just right," in order for life to be able to evolve,. This shows it either had to be a "done deal." (the Strong Anthropic Principle), or else there would have to be so many Universes that the equivalent of a hundred quarters all falling out of someone's pocket and landing on their edges happened all by accident. It would take googleplexes of Universes for that to happen by chance. (The weak anthropic Principle). But if there are that many Universes, the chances of God evolving are increased by all of them and once He existed in any of them He would "scoop the pool" the way the first single celled organism did in the oceans of Earth those many billions of years ago.(The modified Anthropic Principle). If there are that many Universes for God not to exist here would have to be something constant through out all of them with all their different laws of physics that stopped evolution before it reached that point. Not very likely.

Form follows functionality. God is only member of His species but He IS a species. There is only 1 best, ultimate, fittest way to survive in the Multiverse. Wherever the Supreme Being evolves He will reach that 1 best, ultimate, fittest way & thus become the exact same Being. Multiple starting points also would not stop this & He would encourage as many starting points as possible just as many life forms have multiple births.

The Gaia hypothesis states that life regulates the atmosphere of Earth to keep it life bearing. I submit that the Gaia Hypothesis and the Anthropic Principle are the same. Due to relativity, evolution and the desire of life to keep existing, life also regulates the Universe(s) to keep it life bearing.

Evolution IN Bible. 1 Cor. 12:27. We are body of Christ, individually members of It. Eph 4:15 Rather speaking the Truth, In Love, we are to grow up in ALL WAYS into the Head, into Christ. John 15:1-2 I Am the vine. My Father is the Vinedresser. Every branch and me that does not bare fruit He takes away. Every branch in me that does bare fruit He prunes so that it may bare more fruit. Luke 13:9 It is like a mustard seed......it grew and became a tree, & the birds of the air perched in its branches.

Revelation 3:20. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me, If Christ did not ask permission before entering us to debug us, He would be no better than those creatures on Star Gate who invade and take over people. He does not turn us into pods. We continue to exist, but we are fulfilled and loved from the inside out! http://www.proofgodexists.org

I...um...er...I don't even know where to begin. Holy non-sequitur, batman!

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

29 Sep 2007, 1:12 am

elizabethhensley wrote:

There really was no "Big BANG," because sound will not travel in the vacuum of space. So the scientific Big Bang theory is just as inaccurate as Genesis if we insist on taking it literally too!

Can I assume that was meant as a joke? Nobody claims there was a loud "BANG!" noise, lol.

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

29 Sep 2007, 1:21 am

Inventor wrote:

One, religion was trying to reach some answer long ago, science is a baby.

Ah. Age indicates verity? Interesting notion, that. Shall we assume that the older a religion is, the more likely it is to be true? Shall all the Christians defer to their Jewish siblings? Shall the Jews convert to Zoroastrianism? Shall the Zoroastrians become Hindu? One could go on, but I believe the point has been made.

Quote:

Religion claims the world was created in 4004 BC, so that God could make copies.

Please don't confuse the terms 'religion' and 'a particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity'

Quote:

Evolution is weakened by lack of a planet. Science skipped over that. It is all natural processes.

To this, I can only say, "Huh? What?"

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

29 Sep 2007, 1:23 am

SilverProteus wrote:

May I ask a question regarding that? If you met a person who believed passionately that China didn't exist, would you respect that belief? I assume here that you do not live in China.

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

29 Sep 2007, 2:04 am

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

SilverProteus wrote:

May I ask a question regarding that? If you met a person who believed passionately that China didn't exist, would you respect that belief? I assume here that you do not live in China.

Wow. Where did that come from? First we're talking about evolution vs. creationism and now suddenly China's in the picture?

If someone came up to me, positively convinced that China didn't exist, I would think that person was delusional, at most. Of course, it exists, you don't have to live there or have a geography major to know that. You can't compare those examples, it's like saying "If you met a person who believed passionately that 1+1=3, would you respect that belief?"

When I said I respect other people's beliefs, it means I try to be as polite as possible about it, not that I believe them to be true. If somebody believes that good people go to heaven after they die, and you think there's no such place, are you going to argue over that? If there's one thing I've learned from living with my mother, who is very dedicated to religion, is that there's no point in arguing over these things.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is also a theory. I believe in evolution, some believe in creationism. I choose to believe in evolution because I think the proofs are more substantial. Those who chose creationism did so because they believe the Bible to be all the proof they need. (This is to illustrate the extremes, I'm not considering those who believe in both theories combined.)

_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Sep 2007, 4:07 am

Evolution is a theory because there are mountains of evidence indicating its validity. Creationism is pure empty speculation with no evidence as to its truth. The best that religious people can do is to declaim that the evolution of complicated structures is beyond their imaginative capability which says more about their imaginative capability than evolution.

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

29 Sep 2007, 4:18 am

SilverProteus wrote:

If someone came up to me, positively convinced that China didn't exist, I would think that person was delusional, at most. Of course, it exists, you don't have to live there or have a geography major to know that. You can't compare those examples, it's like saying "If you met a person who believed passionately that 1+1=3, would you respect that belief?"

When I said I respect other people's beliefs, it means I try to be as polite as possible about it, not that I believe them to be true. If somebody believes that good people go to heaven after they die, and you think there's no such place, are you going to argue over that? If there's one thing I've learned from living with my mother, who is very dedicated to religion, is that there's no point in arguing over these things.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is also a theory. I believe in evolution, some believe in creationism. I choose to believe in evolution because I think the proofs are more substantial. Those who chose creationism did so because they believe the Bible to be all the proof they need. (This is to illustrate the extremes, I'm not considering those who believe in both theories combined.)

Actually, the China thing is nothing like the 1+1=3 thing. The China thing remains a matter of likelyhood, China is not a neccessary and absolute truth. That 1+1=2 on the other hand is a tautological truth in and with it self. China has not always been "China", neither will it always be. At most, it will always "once have been", as a part of history.

Evolution, fits in. Science is a puzzle, and all parts are supposed to fit, like evolution does. It is not unquestionably true IN THE SAME WAY that it is true that 1+1=2. But it IS THE most probable.

If there is a Guiding Will or not is, I think, unfalsifiable, thus a barren, needless question. Ponder it if you like, it's just a waste of time.
But please do not use That Certain Book in your arguments. Or at least: First read Voltaire's Encyclopedié-article "Genesié". It shall shed light on the reliability of That Book.

_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

29 Sep 2007, 10:46 am

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...

Science and Religion ask two different questions. Science deals more in the How, the way systems work and the natural laws that came into existence in the universe.

Religion, on the other hand, asks the Why and Who questions. Why did a quantum singularity all of a sudden explode and start the universe? As far as I know, the closest science has come to answering that is M-theory, which is still just a theory anyway. Also, why are the laws of physics established as they are? Why is the law of gravitation based on an inverse square proportion instead of an inverse cube proportion? Who set these values to begin with? I cannot see something as elegant and simple as the laws of physics being randomly set with no input from some cosmic creator...

elizabethhensley
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Williston, Florida

29 Sep 2007, 10:53 am

elizabethhensley wrote:

There really was no "Big BANG," because sound will not travel in the vacuum of space. So the scientific Big Bang theory is just as inaccurate as Genesis if we insist on taking it literally too!

Can I assume that was meant as a joke? Nobody claims there was a loud "BANG!" noise, lol.
_________________
------------------------
I said it to make a point. Folks who think we should not listen to ANYTHING the Bible says because the Hebrews used the words day, morning and evening in a nonliteral, poetic sense, and used the same word for both earth and land, are being just a illogical as those who would pooh pooh the Big Bang theory because there was no literal BANG.

karasu
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 132

29 Sep 2007, 11:03 am

Before one can argue for the action of "God" in the development and adaptation of organisms over time to environmental pressures, one must first define "God". Is it the God of the Christians? What about the Godhead of the gnostics? First one must define one's terms, and not just throw around terms like God and assume everyone knows exactly what you're talking about.

Secondly, 99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed on the earth are now extinct. NINETY-NINE POINT NINE PERCENT. What is God's role in that? I'd like very much to hear the ID people's answer, and see if sounds anything like, "God didn't like all those animals/plants and decided to get rid of them. Humans still exist, therefore we are the CHOSEN OF GOD AND CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO THE REST OF THE PLANET AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! ! (Incidentally that also makes it okay to overrun and use up the resources of other nations that are weaker than us because if God didn't want us to, he'd just wipe us out LOLZ)".

Finally, what Richard Dawkins calls the "argument from personal incredulity", i.e. the argument that: "Evolution is liek omg too complicated and stuff and cannot fit inside my head despite the fact that it is so empty I hear an echo whenever I think!!11" is basically as bogus as it seems. Just because a person can't understand the mechanism behind evolution doesn't mean it doesn't work. Likewise, just because it happens over millions and millions of years and is therefore not observable over the course of a human lifetime doesn't mean it is inviable. By that argument the theory of plate tectonics also must be negated, as well as anything to do with the movement of extraterrestrial bodies in space, etc. etc. Hell, if I can't look out my window and see that the world is round, it must be flat, right? Right!

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

29 Sep 2007, 11:06 am

ToadOfSteel wrote:

Ah, but you underestimate the power of pure chance, my friend.

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

29 Sep 2007, 11:27 am

Pure chance seems too far-fetched for me (even more far-fetched than religious views.) You're basically asking me to "have faith" that a quantum singularity exploded at random, for no reason at all...

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

29 Sep 2007, 11:35 am

Yes, I'm aware. :lol:

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

29 Sep 2007, 12:18 pm

The oldest writtings are science. The power of knowledge was stolen by religion.

What amazes me is how they came to the Creation of the Universe story.

This Magic, Which Auther Clark defined as , "Science you do not understand."

First problem is endless nothing. The Universe is not a speck of dust in the endless nothing.

Infinite, without boundries. A lot of nothing to ponder.

Second problem is from nothing comes the Universe in an instant.

As far as we can tell it only happened once.

It can be dated, Time was Created 15,000,000,000 years ago. Than is recent.

After Creation, all the Laws of Physics were working in their current form.

2/3 of the time of the universe was spent creating matter in suns which exploded.

Life was not possible till the last third. As soon as it was possible, there it is, DNA.

Like the Laws of Physics, once started it continued.

Unlike Physics, where decay towards disorder is the norm, Life develops toward a complexity.

As the Universe was Created, destroyed, to host life, Life was Created, destroyed, to host Thought.

Something Created a Universe of light from nothing.

Light formed matter, which became the body of life, but it took a seperate Creation to produce DNA.

All of life tracks back to one DNA.

Higher life forms think.

My strictist Islamic friends have listened to my thought. It agrees with the Koran.

There were many Adams before Adam, he was just the first to ask, Who built this house? For what purpose? When he asked, he was answered.

Thought built this, and gave you thought. Thought tells you right from wrong, do right.

The gods of man are made by man, there is a Supreme Being, who Created Light, Matter, Life, Thought, from nothing. The Supreme Being has no parents, no children, no helpers.

It is the only thing of importance. The Supreme Being is everything, look upon the works and know you were given the means to understand.

The Tibeten Book of the Dead says,

O Benovelent gift waves of reality,
grant me the ability to know all things,
by seeing, hearing, and reflecting.

The Gift Waves keep rolling in.

There is One Source.

Religion is the second oldest profession.

Science is in denial.

I believe in magic.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Sep 2007, 12:31 pm

What you do not understand is that there can be thought without mind. There are established laws within physical reality which govern the behavior of the elements of the universe. As time progresses these governing laws provide the avenues of development of energy and matter and nothing beyond that is required. To posit a unique being rushing around the universe like a cook pulling cookies from an oven is beyond illogic. It is plain silly.

Page 5 of 19 [ 296 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19 Next

Jump to:

DARWIN VS. GENESIS Post Reply New Topic

DARWIN VS. GENESIS