22 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombI thought my rebuke was simpler and better! :'(
How DARE you make such a claim when you have never met me! Your religion doesn't give you a blue paper to go around accusing people of such stuff. I don't believe in your God, if he exists then he will be my judge, NOT you!
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, first of all, there no point in scientifically trying to prove that God exists, because I don't believe that God can be seen or even picked up with any of our 5 senses used in the scientific method - however, I do believe that Jesus' existence can be historically proven whereas fairies have absolutely no historical proof as to their existence. Second of all - the fact that we developed a conscience and an inner desire for meaning and purpose beyond our animal instincts has no evolutionary benefit whatsoever. Think about it - how could a conscience be developed by way of natural selection?
And the same is true of the FLying Spaghetti Monster, the Giant Celestial Teapot, invisible pink flying unicorns, leprechauns and pixies.
Perhaps you feel we should also believe in them, since the evidence, or lack thereof, is equally compelling.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by WhompingNomadTheory regarding evolution is completely substantiated and accepted by all credible scientists (by DNA evidence, the fossil record, etc.) whereas any theory regarding the supernatural cannot be substantiated as one cannot detect the supernatural.
Think about it - how could a conscience be developed by way of natural selection?
I cannot answer how consciousness develops (consciousness correlates with brain activity), but I would think that being conscious of others is often in our own self-interest.
22 Jun 07
5 edits
Originally posted by WhompingNomadOh bravo!! You have managed to find a facet of the human condition that (may) not yet have been explained by science. It must mean that God did it!! Actually no, this no more proves the existence of God than me telling you that it was Mr.Whippy the ice cream man.
Well, first of all, there no point in scientifically trying to prove that God exists, because I don't believe that God can be seen or even picked up with any of our 5 senses used in the scientific method - however, I do believe that Jesus' existence can be historically proven whereas fairies have absolutely no historical proof as to their existence. S ...[text shortened]... whatsoever. Think about it - how could a conscience be developed by way of natural selection?
Now to address your first point about God not being percievable by the five sense.
1) Science is capable of predicting and 'seeing' things that are not perceivable by the senses. X-rays, radiation, ultrasonic sound, need i go on. If God does exist in our reality, then his presence, in whatever form that would take, would have an effect on the physical state of other things in this reality. Even if it was not possible to detect him directly, his mere presence would have an effect on other things, which therefore mean he would be detectable.
2) The bible says we are made in Gods image, so therefore, we also should be 'invisible' to each other.
3) I don't believe anyone suggested Jesus didn't exist. People here are only calling into question that he was the son of God as, is generally accepted by atheists, God does not exist. Therefore Jesus could not be the son of God.
Having made a cursory investigation of the Internet, i see that 'conscience' is the fashionable theist 'refutation' to natural selection at the moment. I suggest you take your opinions on natural selection from a scientist who believes in it rather than an institution that is hell bent on dis'proving' it. I don't know were you read this idea (or if you indeed have read anything about it at all) but the Church will offer one solution for everything, God. There is little point in embarking into a discussion on natural selection if you are completely unfamiliar with what it is, as you clearly are...
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by WhompingNomadPeople have thought about it. There are several theories (maybe they are only at the level of hypotheses) for how conscience evolved, mainly it seems as a side effect of reciprocal altruism. Look it up in Wikipedea for a quick overview.
Well, first of all, there no point in scientifically trying to prove that God exists, because I don't believe that God can be seen or even picked up with any of our 5 senses used in the scientific method - however, I do believe that Jesus' existence can be historically proven whereas fairies have absolutely no historical proof as to their existence. S ...[text shortened]... whatsoever. Think about it - how could a conscience be developed by way of natural selection?
--- Penguin.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombI never said that natural selection was to be questioned - as a matter of fact, the Bible does not in the least refute natural selection. I find it foolish that the Christian Church tries to fight science on the issue of evolution, when there is so much evidence to support it. However, the question is - how did the first cell develop? The initial step of evolution is what doesn't make sense - the rest I have no argument against, and I don't feel I need one. From what I recall, there is no scientific consensus on how life began. The best guess that I've heard science make is that when lightening hit the primordial soup it somehow brought about light - that in itself seems supernatural to me.
Oh bravo!! You have managed to find a facet of the human condition that (may) not yet have been explained by science. It must mean that God did it!! Actually no, this no more proves the existence of God than me telling you that it was Mr.Whippy the ice cream man.
Now to address your first point about God not being percievable by the five sense. ...[text shortened]... l selection if you are completely unfamiliar with what it is, as you clearly are...
22 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WhompingNomadYou are correct, this first 'cell' as you put it is a contentious issue. I have seen a number of hypothetical ideas, but as yet no proof. The main problem (it seems to me) is that we don't have the original starting point to observe. We're talking about something that happened Millions of years ago. If we could somehow look at this first living thing, understanding it would become much easier (obviously). As this is unfortunately not the case, science is pocking around in the dark. However, that just means it will take longer, it doesn't mean it won't happen.
I never said that natural selection was to be questioned - as a matter of fact, the Bible does not in the least refute natural selection. I find it foolish that the Christian Church tries to fight science on the issue of evolution, when there is so much evidence to support it. However, the question is - how did the first cell develop? The initial step the primordial soup it somehow brought about light - that in itself seems supernatural to me.
EDIT: Actually, hoooold on a minute. You are a christian but you believe in evolution? Isn't that a contradiction? It is a contradiction i myself have held for some years now, so i'm not really one to talk, but out of interest, how do you justify the two?
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombWell until then I'll hold my beliefs and you'll hold yours. That is, if it ever comes about that we can see the first living thing. Well, I'm very glad to have participated in this then. Its nice to have sensible dicussion without people getting their undies in a bunch and getting all offended. I find it very unwise of people to believe things without researching and really understanding what they believe. That seems to be the problem with a lot of people today, a lack of having an open mind to explore the world. Cheers to you. 🙂
You are correct, this first 'cell' as you put it is a contentious issue. I have seen a number of hypothetical ideas, but as yet no proof. The main problem (it seems to me) is that we don't have the original starting point to observe. We're talking about something that happened Millions of years ago. If we could somehow look at this first living thing, un ...[text shortened]... n the dark. However, that just means it will take longer, it doesn't mean it won't happen.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by WhompingNomadYou actually said
I never said that natural selection was to be questioned - as a matter of fact, the Bible does not in the least refute natural selection. I find it foolish that the Christian Church tries to fight science on the issue of evolution, when there is so much evidence to support it. However, the question is - how did the first cell develop? The initial step ...[text shortened]... the primordial soup it somehow brought about light - that in itself seems supernatural to me.
the fact that we developed a conscience and an inner desire for meaning and purpose beyond our animal instincts has no evolutionary benefit whatsoever. Think about it - how could a conscience be developed by way of natural selection?
So you don't think a conscience could develop naturally and you also don't think a replicator can develop naturally (note that it does not need to be as complex as a cell, a much simpler replicating molecule would be enough for evolution to start). There's a thread called "What's Wrong with Evolution" where all this stuff is discussed at great length.
There are reasonable hypotheses for both of these but rather than starting with an assumption that it probably happened naturally the same as everything else but we just haven't figured out how yet, you would rather invoke your particular religion's deity at those two points? I think you'd be hard pushed to interpret the text of Genesis to agree with that.
--- Penguin.
22 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WhompingNomadBuddy, you missed the point completely. How do you know God did it? I am looking at this from a scientific perspective (scoff), if you have no reason to believe something, you don't believe it. Science has not come up with a provable hypothesis to how life started on Earth, therefore science says 'We don't know yet.' Don't you think it's just a little weak to say 'Oh look, science can't answer this question, therefore there is a God.'
Well until then I'll hold my beliefs and you'll hold yours. That is, if it ever comes about that we can see the first living thing. Well, I'm very glad to have participated in this then. Its nice to have sensible dicussion without people getting their undies in a bunch and getting all offended. I find it very unwise of people to believe things without ...[text shortened]... a lot of people today, a lack of having an open mind to explore the world. Cheers to you. 🙂
?
EDIT: Also, why doesn't the creation story go more like this...
'...And on the 5th day, God created the single celled organism. And on the 6th day, he created evolution, so this cell could evolve into man...'
You can't have it both ways man. If God started evolution, then why is evolution not specified in the creation story? If you believe that it began as a single cell, then you can't believe in God, the two are incompatible.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombI think the majority of Christians believe in evolution. Quite how they reconcile that with the bible and the fundamental teachings of their faith is beyond me. The Vatican has stated that there is no conflict between Catholicism and evolution:
EDIT: Actually, hoooold on a minute. You are a christian but you believe in evolution? Isn't that a contradiction? It is a contradiction i myself have held for some years now, so i'm not really one to talk, but out of interest, how do you justify the two?[/b]
from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)
--- Penguin.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by PenguinI believe in evolution to a certain extent. Or a version of it at least. I believe God created organisms, and after the fall evolution did occur, or adaptation and such. I also don't believe that Adam and Eve were the only people God made. I was just stating that if you believe in the single cell organism and evolution from there by natural selection that it still doesn't explain where it came from.
I think the majority of Christians believe in evolution. Quite how they reconcile that with the bible and the fundamental teachings of their faith is beyond me. The Vatican has stated that there is no conflict between Catholicism and evolution:
from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
Evolution, a doctrine that Piu ...[text shortened]... ul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)
--- Penguin.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by WhompingNomad...and i said that us not knowing how it started does not mean you can by proxy attribute this to God. You still have no reason to believe in God, other than scripture, which makes no reference at all to evolution.
...if you believe in the single cell organism and evolution from there by natural selection that it still doesn't explain where it came from.
You can't deny it, that is one whopping contradiction.
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by WhompingNomadSo you are happy that evolution is perfectly capable of going from single cells (actually, it can work long before you get to that level of complexity) through to us but you don't think that's what happened? You think instead that the God of your particular religion created all organisms, including man and evolution only started after we were kicked out of the garden of Eden. Is that right?
I believe in evolution to a certain extent. Or a version of it at least. I believe God created organisms, and after the fall evolution did occur, or adaptation and such. I also don't believe that Adam and Eve were the only people God made. I was just stating that if you believe in the single cell organism and evolution from there by natural selection that it still doesn't explain where it came from.
I thought you were of the opinion that God created the first replicators, then went away for a few hundred million years before coming back and throwing souls at the most upright apes he found (which is my interpretation of the Vatican's position) but it sounds to me as though you are far more of a literalist.
There are plenty of other religions with their own creation stories, all of which have the same amount of evidence for them as yours. With the amount of evidence they have, I really do think they are as likely as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
--- Penguin.