Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 439,240 views
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Okay, I should probably forewarn you that that is an argument that I really really really hate, for two reasons:
1) I have no fear of spending an eternity in hell. Yet, you don’t see me killing children and raping and pillaging and doing all kinds of horrible things. Same with Danoff, Duke, Touring Mars, Famine, etc. etc.
2) So, if you didn’t fear spending an eternity in hell, does that mean you would suddenly do all kinds of immoral things? Furthermore, if your fellow Christians didn’t fear eternal damnation, you think a lot of them would suddenly become immoral thugs?
1) I have no fear of spending an eternity in hell. Yet, you don’t see me killing children and raping and pillaging and doing all kinds of horrible things. Same with Danoff, Duke, Touring Mars, Famine, etc. etc.
2) So, if you didn’t fear spending an eternity in hell, does that mean you would suddenly do all kinds of immoral things? Furthermore, if your fellow Christians didn’t fear eternal damnation, you think a lot of them would suddenly become immoral thugs?
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
I don’t think you want to hear my opinion on what a world without religion would be like.
.Well, that’s a bigger issue than I wanted to bring up, but as long as we’re at it: what about free will?
If God has the power to make “good” people from scratch, then why not just do it?
And why would God bestow free will on people if he demands absolute obedience?
Why does God even give people the chance to go to hell if he can prevent it?
Well, UnoMoto was implying that the world would be filled with more immorality if there were no fear of hell, so I just chose a few immoral things. Replace those with whatever you wish, the point still stands.
I was just replying to UnoMoto’s statement.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
He does.
Who wants forced love? What would the point of being married be if you are forced to love your spouse? Your parents most likely demanded absolute obedience, did it take away from your free will or your ability to love them(over all)?
The carnal answer is heaven is worth the "risk". The biblical answer is that God makes it very straightforward how to get to heaven, there's only one other place besides heaven.
Ok. 👍
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
The world wouldn't be the same without the fear of God and the fear of Satan, think about how many nut jobs out there are reformed by religion. I'd rather have them fearing hell and hoping the man upstairs lets em into heaven then have them running about on the streets.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Well, like I said, my opinion of how a world without religion would be probably doesn’t jive with yours, but if you insist
…Atheists, of course, believe that morality is distinct from religion, so if everybody were atheist, there can still be a morality. Atheists make up between 8–16% of the US population (depending on whom you ask), but make up less than 1% of the prison population, so atheists as a whole obviously aren’t immoral monsters – that’s a severely disproportionally low number. My point is, I’m not a fluke – atheists are generally very keen on their morals, and I would argue more so than religious folks on the whole.
So I think a world without religion would be wonderful. Everybody could focus on technology and bettering everybody’s lives instead of getting caught up in Islamic terrorism and the supposed morality of stem cell research and abortions and gay marriage and what not. It wouldn’t be anarchy – I mean, seriously, is the only reason you don’t kill somebody because God says it’s bad or because it’s illegal? No, you don’t kill people because it’s morally wrong and it violates the social contract we human beings have. Same with stealing.
Atheists aren’t completely clean – we have boobs like Lenin, for example. But we didn’t have the Crusades, and we didn’t fly a plane into the Twin Towers, and 99% of us only desire to live our lives productively and without harassment.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,961
- Mile High City
Without the fear of hell, religion becomes somewhat moot. Without religion, we lose all sorts of bad things - like the folks that fly aircraft into our buildings, blow up our abortion clinics, hide their women behind ridiculous clothing, fight gay marriage, fight stem cell research, or just plain refuse to tell their children about Santa Claus.
And what do we lose? Fiction. Do I think people will go ape**** when they lose the fear of God? No. I know many people who lead civilized lives without believing in the existence of God.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Well, even Lenin is in doubt. Lenin believed irrevocably in his theories of socialism and communism without exception... wouldn't that be a form of fanaticism, something we atheists criticise (and rightly so) when we see it in religion?
I sometimes think that Communism is a religion... between hiding myself from Korean Missionaries (honestly... why do you guys come to a Catholic country to try to convert people to Christianity?) and Communist zealots (Communism is dead, comrades! Get over it!) in College, I hardly got any studying done.
I think what it all boils down to, in the religion versus science debate, is fanaticism. Just the unwavering, illogical ability to deny the real world and the value of humanity and human ability in favor of some construct of religion/philosophy/new-ageism/politics/conspiracy theory/crackpot idea.
You can't generalize religion, either. Buddhism doesn't preach hell of any sort... and is so non-combative that it usually co-exists with other religions without strife (depending on how much vitriol the other side has). It's got its own problems, though.
To remove religion completely, we'd have to actually remove all abstract belief systems, including the belief in ethics and morality. While, admittedly, some abstract value systems are better than others, you can't deny the fact that they're all abstract.
And that's what makes us human... not logic, but rather our ability to conceptualize the abstract, the bizarre, and the illogical. (cue Star Trek theme, here... run clip of Kirk beating Spock, yet again, at 3-D Chess
) Of course, it is possible to use science to demonstrate the superiority of living in a fully-cooperative system versus acting as selfish solitons (some mathematicians did this experiment with A-life some years ago, and the only stable system was a cooperative one), but then again, you can use science to prove the bad guys right (Social Darwinism - only ze fit shaaaalll zurvive!).
And that's where the Creationists get it all mixed up. They view Science as a competing religion preaching different things about the Origin of Man when it is not. Science is a tool for understanding, period. Religion is a tool for living, not a "How-stuff-works-according-to-Sheperds-who-didn't-know-a-pipe-wrench-from-a-differential-gear" guidebook.
And back to the immortal words of Christ: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Give unto God what is God's, and Give unto Einstein what is Einstein's."
- 26,626
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
Very nice, niky(and no, it won't let me rep 
).
Hardly scientific, but my stance on this is that, there are good and bad people on both sides. Most people believe in some sort of god, so my guess would be that more crimes are commited by the religious types, but you get the point.
On people flying planes into buildings, do you guys truly believe that the problem is with their religion? Way I see it, the religion is being used to move their political pawns. Problem with the politicians, not religion.
).Hardly scientific, but my stance on this is that, there are good and bad people on both sides. Most people believe in some sort of god, so my guess would be that more crimes are commited by the religious types, but you get the point.
On people flying planes into buildings, do you guys truly believe that the problem is with their religion? Way I see it, the religion is being used to move their political pawns. Problem with the politicians, not religion.
- 8,015
- GTP_Royalton
You talk about not generalizing religion but you generalize those who believe in creation
I have no problem with science at all. I believe in every single proven scientific fact.
I do have the right to debate and disagree with scientifiic theory, do I not? According to you debating a scientific theory is viewing science as a competing religion. Not so. I love science, the discoveries of science uncover the awesomness of creation. From scientific discoveries of the building blocks of our world, atoms, to the vastly complex cell, to awesome galaxies in wonderfully organized clusters that hang on galactic 'walls' of incomprehensible size.
There is even the new scientific discoveries of dark energy and dark matter. Scientists can't see dark matter and energy, but they can see the effect it has on the universe. Before it was believed that galaxies revolved due to the basic rules of gravity. But now it is believed that this 'dark' energy plays a roll in keeping the edges of galaxies rotating at the same speed as the center. What is this 'dark' energy and matter that cannot be seen but only the effect can be seen?
God cannot be seen
As for those who say God used evolution to create life, did he not say when he created things that it was 'Good'? Is a wild ape-man that was dreamt up in some man's imagination devouring a dead zebra 'Good'? No
When God created life, it was good. Did He not use a bone from Adam to create Eve? If you want to believe in God-Evolution then Eve and Adam must have been ape-like.
Of course if you tell alot of scientists that God guided evolution most will disagree with you as Famine did
People do not need God to lead a good life. God gave humans free will. The Bible is His book of instruction. Following it is for your own good. That's been proven many times over. But you do have a choice of not following what is written in the Bible. You have the choice to not accept God as well. You have a choice. Adam and Eve had a choice. God gave humans a choice. That does not mean any choice you make is in harmonly with his will, though. But you have free will.
- 29,148
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It's an interesting question - but you have to be pretty careful how you frame the question before you can answer it properly...
First off, as Swift seems to be suggesting, you won't find many people who live a virtuous life simply because they are religious or have a fear of hell... Most people have a mixture of basic humanity towards their fellow man, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of them), so persuading someone of this type that 'hell is nothing to be afraid of' will probably not make a huge difference.
However, if someone is living a virtuous life simply because they fear hell/God/the consequences after they die, then convincing them that there is no hell to be afraid of might be a pretty bad idea... but, it might also be extremely difficult to do, if not impossible...
What you seem to be alluding to is that the fear of hell is somehow a deterrent to the masses which stops the world from sliding into anarchy - by providing believers with a notion of 'consequences beyond this world'. Ironically, there is an equally damaging notion to consider on the flipside.. how would the world be if everyone believed that, no matter what they did, a heavenly reward awaited them? This is what your typical jihadist thinks, and if everyone behaved like that, you can bet your bottom dollar that the world would slip into anarchy...
So how would you think the world would change without the fear of spending eternity in hell...?
- 86,676
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Interesting way of discounting a hundred years of corroborative data. Particularly for one who claims to "believe in every single proven scientific fact"...
No. If you believe this, which bone was it?
I don't disagree with the notion, I just don't see how it can possibly sit with you that omnipotent, omniscient God had to make a universe full of stuff in order to change some plants and animals over time - meaning they weren't perfect, or "good", to start with - to make humans in his own image at the end of it. Fossilised progenitor species of any kind deny simultaneous instant creation of all living species - or Genesis, as it's known.
The concept of God-guided evolution contradicts the underlying "facts" presented in Genesis - though perhaps not the message. Genesis then becomes an allegorical novel, written by humans trying to understand that which they do not. If Genesis isn't The Word Of God, what else in the Bible isn't?
- 26,626
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
- 8,015
- GTP_Royalton
Famine
Exactly how skeletons that were dug up look in the flesh is debatable and up for a guess for the most part. Some believe dinosaurs had hard, reptile skin, some say feathers. Some say they were slow and lived in swamps and some said they are fast and energetic. These are ever changing theories, not fact. An apeman is hairy, stupid, butt ugly, and bent over because that's what theoretical apeman are suppose to look like not because of proven scientific fact. (Real apes look beatiful, nothing like the monsters seen in some evolution programs) A few days ago everyone knew we started as a knuckle dragging ape and marched our way directly to modern man. Now that theory is coming under fire.
Famine
It was a rib. On a side point, I do not believe in blindly believing everything you are told. I do not simply believe anything someone tells me, whether that man claims to be a man of God or a man of science. Believe me, I've seen my fair share of evolution programs on the Discovery channel to equal out my research of creation and Genesis.
Famine
Some believe that, but a close examination of Genesis says something quite different. God made the universe, the earth and life on it in 'days'. Some believe these days to be literal 24 hours but Genesis 2:4 makes it obvious these days can mean any amount of time. From the online King James Bible:
Genesis 2 [4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Notice the entire creative period of 6 'days' is summed up with the term 'day'. Therefore the word day used in Genesis is equal to saying "In the day of my Grandfather.
I believe God created a variety of animals 'in the beginning' during the 6 creative days of Genesis. For example, He created your basic 'horse' and this creature changed, or you could say 'evolved' over time and became mustangs, zebras etc. Just like how humans all belong to the same species but can look vastly different. The same thing with all the other animals that resemble eachother. The only difference in the theory of evolution and this is that Genesis says that animals must reproduce according to their kind. This means that an ape can't become a human, and a dinosaur can't become a bird.
Famine
Good question. The answer is that Genesis IS the word of God and IS truth. If you deny the credibility of Genesis and claim to believe in God you put in doubt the credibility of the rest of the Bible, that includes whether Jesus was God's son, everything. You either believe the entire Bible as fact or you believe it all to be fairy tales. You can't pick and choose what is fact and what is myth in the Bible just to have your ears tickled
- 29,148
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I take it this is a reference to the article you posted last week... the theory that man is a product of evolution is not coming under fire at all... all that has changed is to say that our direct ancestors, Homo erectus, did not supercede Homo habilis in a linear fashion, but that the two species co-existed for quite some time, which wasn't previously known (it may have been strongly suspected, but until now there was no physical evidence to support the claim).
Also, to say "we started as..." is a bit misleading... we didn't 'start' as apes any more than we didn't 'start' as humans, but I'm not sure if you meant it to sound like that or not. Human evolution has followed the same type of branching pathway that everything else has... our ancestors had ancestors, etc. So it's hardly a surprise to find out that these two species in our evolutionary history may have co-existed rather than have been a 100% linear progression from one to the other.
- 86,676
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And once again you discount hundred(s) of years of corroborative data.
Science isn't guessing.
Some say birds can fly. Some say they're confined to the land and only come out at night. Some say they can only swim.
Who is right?
Everyone. Birds cover a massive variety of species with different capabilities - some of which fly, some of which are confined to land (ostrich, cassowary) and only come out at night (kiwi) and some of which can only swim (penguin species).
Dinosaurs similarly cover a wide variety of species - some flying, some swimming, some carnivorous, some herbivorous (and omnivorous), some massive, some tiny. You cannot assign an arbitrary set of characteristics to "dinosaurs", since there were over 2,000 genera of them.
As explained to you when you posted it, the recent data is a corroboration of "that theory". As ALL data with relation to evolution is.
Oh, and here's Lucy, member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, a hominid ancestor (though not necessarily a human ancestor) from about 4 million years ago. She's an "ape-man" - one of the earliest.
Not exactly a monster, or butt ugly.
So, one would assume that men and women have differing numbers of ribs, and men have an odd number?
Intentional irony? Pick up some research papers from your local library - they're a better source of accurate information than "popular science" TV.
Which all misses a fundamental point - why do God's creatures NEED to evolve when they were all "good" to start with? That suggests God didn't make them perfect - or that the Earth has changed requiring the creatures to change to survive (evolution) and He didn't make the Earth perfect.
Both imply imperfection in God's creation.
Which is odd, because you earlier said:
And now you say you refuse to question any part of the Bible simply because you can't choose what to believe and what not to believe in it.
Which sounds like you believe anything the Bible tells you - meaning you put more stock in the claims from a man of God (the human Bible authors) than from a man of science.
- 23,800
- Philippines
@Earth: I didn't mean to generalize... but it can't be helped in this case.
Let me replace "creationists" with "Creationism/Intelligent Design lobbyists".
The "Creationism/ID" lobby seems something uniquely western, and seems most linked to Biblical fundamentalism in the US and UK.
Here, science is seen as a threat to religious beliefs... a trend that goes all the way back to the excommunicated Galileo. Simply put: some religious organizations and leaders could not and cannot accept scientific revelations about the nature of the Universe, as they run counter to religious dogma and undermine the authority and power of the Church. (in their limited world-view)
Thus, "Creation vs. Evolution" is all about treating Science as a competing "religion", purely on the institutional level, whatever the personal beliefs of people like you and me.
A few centuries on, the excommunication of Galileo seems like a silly thing. Another century or two after this one, and the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" debate will probably seem sillier yet.
In Eastern religions, there is a more widespread acceptance to the fact that people have different beliefs... period. While this doesn't mean there isn't strife (Hindu versus Buddhist or Hindu versus Muslim, etcetera... but then Islam is Judaic, not Eastern), it means that there is a bit more open-mindedness about these things.
------
Regarding the Bible... Yes, I can actually pick and choose what I want to believe.
The Bible may be the "Word of God", but it's filtered through centuries of political intrigues throughout the early and middle Churches, written by dozens of varying sources, and is a mixture of two entirely different religions. The Bible contradicts itself everywhere... Jesus contradicts many of the teachings of the old order... ever wonder why we don't rest on the Sabbath? Why we actually eat pork (and other non-kosher meats)? Why we don't stone adulterers to death anymore? Simply because it isn't a Christian thing, even though the Bible preaches some of these things, they don't apply to the modern Christian world.
The Bible, for the Christian, is the living history of his Religion... history, not Codex of Laws.
Back when I actually believed more in these things, I was very happy that the Vatican was taking us in a more modern direction. In fact, Pope John Paul II himself issued an edict stating, unequivocally, that Evolution, in no way, countered the Word of God (It's somewhere back on page 200 or so of this thread ...) Now, with Papa Ratzi ( ) on the throne, it seems that fundamentalism is starting to creep back into the Church. And that's sad.
Let me replace "creationists" with "Creationism/Intelligent Design lobbyists".
The "Creationism/ID" lobby seems something uniquely western, and seems most linked to Biblical fundamentalism in the US and UK.
Here, science is seen as a threat to religious beliefs... a trend that goes all the way back to the excommunicated Galileo. Simply put: some religious organizations and leaders could not and cannot accept scientific revelations about the nature of the Universe, as they run counter to religious dogma and undermine the authority and power of the Church. (in their limited world-view)
Thus, "Creation vs. Evolution" is all about treating Science as a competing "religion", purely on the institutional level, whatever the personal beliefs of people like you and me.
A few centuries on, the excommunication of Galileo seems like a silly thing. Another century or two after this one, and the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" debate will probably seem sillier yet.
In Eastern religions, there is a more widespread acceptance to the fact that people have different beliefs... period. While this doesn't mean there isn't strife (Hindu versus Buddhist or Hindu versus Muslim, etcetera... but then Islam is Judaic, not Eastern), it means that there is a bit more open-mindedness about these things.
------
Regarding the Bible... Yes, I can actually pick and choose what I want to believe.
The Bible may be the "Word of God", but it's filtered through centuries of political intrigues throughout the early and middle Churches, written by dozens of varying sources, and is a mixture of two entirely different religions. The Bible contradicts itself everywhere... Jesus contradicts many of the teachings of the old order... ever wonder why we don't rest on the Sabbath? Why we actually eat pork (and other non-kosher meats)? Why we don't stone adulterers to death anymore? Simply because it isn't a Christian thing, even though the Bible preaches some of these things, they don't apply to the modern Christian world.
The Bible, for the Christian, is the living history of his Religion... history, not Codex of Laws.
Back when I actually believed more in these things, I was very happy that the Vatican was taking us in a more modern direction. In fact, Pope John Paul II himself issued an edict stating, unequivocally, that Evolution, in no way, countered the Word of God (It's somewhere back on page 200 or so of this thread ...) Now, with Papa Ratzi (
) on the throne, it seems that fundamentalism is starting to creep back into the Church. And that's sad.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
What if you can see some of the Bible as somewhat symbolic and other parts as laid out fact? Do you practice all the cleansing rituals suggested in Leviticus? I know plenty of people that will quote Leviticus for their defense against homosexuality, yet they do not avoid women on their periods as unclean.Earth
You don't have to take the Bible 100% literally to be Christian or believe in God. I cannot accept that the universe is only 6,000 years old, yet I can still be Christian.
First, I will point out a trap, which you are presenting, that many Christians fall into. I don't think you are trying to make it a trap because most Christians create it for themselves.
Trying to explain the whys, hows and whats its of God is pure folly. If God is what we believe him to be then our understanding of why he does anything is nill. We don't have the conceptual ability to figure it out. Truly understanding the concept of God would be worse than trying to understand everything in the universe all at once. Being God would make him a complex entity, yet Christians are asked questions, that we try to answer, to describe him in the simplest of terms that couldn't even explain a simple man.
So, please excuse me if in trying to explain God's actions I just say, "I don't know," because I don't.
As for the Bible: While I use the Bible as a guideline and view many parts as factual I have no qualms seeing symbolisms and allegories in other parts. There is a large jump from Genesis to civilization. Genesis also mentions other people outside of Adam and Eve's lineage, outside the garden, telling me that Adam and Eve were not precisely the first man and woman everyone paints them to be. Some Chrsitians overlook details such as this to defend what people have said is how the story happened. Adam and Eve had two sons, and somehow these two sons had wives that were never claimed to be decended from Adam and Eve.
My theory (note the theory part): Adam and Eve were the first people to be made aware of God. At most they were plipped into the universe, that had already spawned humans through evolution, as the catalyst to set forth God's plan, setting up the lineage to create Jesus.
As for the Bible as a whole: written by man in parts, collaborated by man with parts left out, and blatant adjustments made by politicians. I have studied and taken courses on Bible study. Many scholars can go through and point out what makes certain areas stand out as historical and others as story. For example: Job has every tell-tale saign of being parable as it teaches a lesson and talks of God talking to Satan like good buddies. Yet it lacks any historical markers. The gospels of Jesus give quotations and historical references. That is enough to say that at least four guys came together and created a story just to pull a quick one on the world, or they knew a really good guy that they thought was teh sone of God, or at most that the story is true.
Actually, review my above statement. But I don't deny teh credibility of Genesis, I deny the credibility of what people say it is, while avioding such facts as its mention of other people.
Genesis 4:13-14: 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
Much like an episode of Lost I must ask, "Who are these others?" Later Cain finds a wife. Where did she come from? Genesis only mentions Adam and Eve having two sons, no one else.
My theory is that as the Bible is an account of God's relationship with man it does leave out much of what happened around those interactions and that other humans may have existed outside of the story of Adam and Eve.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,961
- Mile High City
Interesting theory. It's the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone interpret the bible in this way. What you propose is almost impossible to provide convincing evidence for or against. It has the benefit of not denying evolution, but it requires some fudging in Genesis (ie: the whole 1 day isn't really a day thing). My question to you is, what in your mind, lends the bible any credibility at all?
- 29,148
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Again, interesting theory, and an interesting post in general 👍
Even though I personally don't believe that Adam and Eve were actually real, I agree with your notion that they were symbols of religious allegory, if nothing more. However, it is interesting to note that the whole idea behind this allegory, that all humans share a common descent, actually turned out to be true...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You must realize my theory is not discrediting the Bible in anyway. No, it discredits the notions and presumptions that men have given to it. Does it make me less Christian to think that Adam and Eve may not have been the first humans? No. Does it shake my faith that I found my children's bible stories don't read the same when you actually read the Bible? No. Does it mean that I have a more objective point of view than many Christians? Possibly. Does it mean that my wife will regret making me do a bible study at her church with her? Definitely.
Then, as I mentioned earlier, some events are based around historical events that can be used as markers. These at least give credence to their timeframe.
The rest is based on faith due to personal feelings and experiences, which may be a concept hard to explain.
