|
Post by AREA666 on Sept 21, 2006 14:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hallelujah on Sept 26, 2006 10:25:58 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see how evolution explains everything... too many gaps that are unexplained. Perhaps we just don't have enough knowledge or evidence. Creationism does not explain it all either, though. So, perhaps the truth is a combination of these? Or perhaps there is just more that we do not know about yet. We cannot possibly know all there is to know about the universe and how things work.
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Sept 26, 2006 20:03:57 GMT -5
Yes, both theories seem to be rather lacking, but for me personally if I had to choose I would choose evolution since it requires me to give only a little faith in it since there appears to be more facts to back it up. Of course though I always thought there was a balance between the two such as I say a god or gods at one point in time created Earth as a science experiment in their equivalent of a elementary school class and all that was created was the basic building blocks of life, and from there evolution occured. This way the experiement would not require their intervention since it seems to not occur to often and we could possibly be a failed experiment due to how crappy the world seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by Hallelujah on Sept 26, 2006 20:45:24 GMT -5
Your theory makes sense, but still doesn't explain some of the evolutionary leaps unless the creator(s) decided to intervene for some reason. There is also the possibility that the experiments are ongoing, hence the destruction and rise of civilizations, species, etc. Perhaps the dinosaurs were one of these failed experiments. I also don't understand why creationism and evolution can't work together. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn't, as you said, the creator(s) have created the building blocks or set things in motion and let nature take care of the rest?
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Sept 26, 2006 22:11:49 GMT -5
Well for the gaps we can just give a 50/50 split to them. So one half would be divine intervention, and the other would be evolution that we have not found fossile records of yet, maybe because the divine intervention destroyed most or all of them.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver on Sept 27, 2006 8:39:29 GMT -5
I rarely involve myself in religeous discussions, as most people are happy in thier ignorance and short-sightedness, but as most people here seem to be fairly open-minded, I thought I'd give it a go.
I was raised Christian, and have read several interpretations of the bible, including the Catholic bible, which has six more books than the standard bible. I've also read the Apocrypha, which is frowned upon by most churches.
Let me digress by saying that I do believe in ONE supreme and almighty God, but that I don't totally believe in the bible. Here's why: the King James version was given to us by people who had - at best - a rudimentary understanding of the original Greek and Hebrew in which it was written; there are too many possibilities for mistakes. Add to this that Constantine, in the 5th century, had much of the original bible destroyed because he, or his wife, disliked what it said, parts that were never recovered. Add also the fact that much of what was left was destroyed in the crusades, and again, never recovered. What we have left is - at best - a very incomplete picture of what the original was meant to convey.
Messed up translations, poeple adding or subtracting bits and pieces here & there, churches and sects fighting over which is right, and condemming all other beliefs; it's no wonder people are confused.
I still believe in one God, but how we went from a pin-point of matter in the center of a universal black hole to what we - and the universe - are today, is a question that may never be asswered. But I'm sure the George Bushes in the future will still use religeon as an excuse to wage war.
|
|
|
Post by alyabass on Sept 27, 2006 11:52:31 GMT -5
Yes quite agree with the messed up bible theory, more dis-information than information. I also read a few and attended a few churchies too, not only christian types but mosques and temples too, very curious bloke I am. Seems to me that everyone had thier own opinion, and that's just how it should be according to the book of me. Evolution is a fact not a theory, we can see it in the beef we eat the plants we eat and the pets we keep. We as a race evolved these things over thousands of years to be the way we wanted them to be. Long before genetic minipulation in a test tube. But then, that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Hallelujah on Sept 27, 2006 13:26:20 GMT -5
OK, Area. I'll go along with the 50/50 split. I just never understood why evolution and creationism must be mutually exclusive. What's wrong with being right?
Wordweaver and Alyabass, in a word... agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on the Supreme Being part though. At one time, noone could have convinced me there wasn't a single supreme god, but over the years through study of differing viewpoints and personal experiences, now I'm not so sure. It is the nature of such a "being" that I can't seem to get past. I find it difficult to believe that a creator would be a single being or even a being as we would understand it. I tend to think of creation as an ongoing process, not necessarily controlled by any single being or thing. Therefore, to me "God" is more of a process than a being of any sort.
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Sept 27, 2006 16:39:42 GMT -5
While I do agree that evolution is seen around us I do not know if it is enough to convince me totally of its validity. The reason for it not is because I want to believe in a god or gods simply because it fits for things that I like, such as the existance of ghosts, or wanting to be reincarnated. But for me I tend to think the gods of old are more interesting like Thor or the ancient Greek gods. I am, however, really ignorant on the religious front since I had only gone to church when I was to young to remember it so anything that I decide I like or not is based off of what other people tell me. Someday we should know which, if either, of the ideas on how we came to be happened or maybe it will be something different like every religion is correct since each one was started by alien races that had their own god or gods and they put people here as part of an experiment to see if we would all get along, or destory ourselves as it seems we like to do.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver on Sept 27, 2006 23:31:04 GMT -5
I don't know for sure what I believe that God is. I agree that God isn't likely to be a "being" as we know the term, but I do believe that He/She is a sentient, thinking, and knowing entity.
I can't say that I really believe in evolution; I'd call it more an adaptation. We, as humans, have adapted ourselves, with considerable help from nature, to our current environs. Our body types, skin color, and mind-sets adapt to better fit our surroundings, yes, but evolution, as I understand it, is a complete alteration of species.
I find the idea that all life evolved from a single-celled amoeba absurd. Equally absurd (to me), is the idea that such a complex organism as the human body (or the complexity of any living organism) could be only an accident of nature. If that were the case, then can we look to a future where hamsters rule the world?
At the same time, I find it preposterous and amazingly arrogant to think that our planet- with myriad suns filling the universe, each with it's own solar system - is the only one capable of sustaining intelligent life.
I'm no great scientific mind; I operate more on instincts and feeling, rather than calculations and hypotheses, but to me, the idea of evolution just doesn't "feel" right.
But hey, if everyone shared my opinion, there'd be no reason for debate. And debate is one of the things that keeps life interesting. So long as, in the end, everyone realizes that I couldn't possibly be wrong. :laugh:
|
|
|
Post by Hallelujah on Sept 28, 2006 10:55:06 GMT -5
Well, Wordweaver, it seems as if we think along the same lines. I also find it absurd that all life evolved from some kind of single-celled amoeba or ooze. Adaptation is a much better term than evolution. I also feel that it's very arrogant to assume that the only intelligent sentient life in the entire universe in on this little insignificant planet. Arrogant and absurd.
Area, I will have to agree that the gods of old are very interesting. The idea that the ancient gods were actually alien races and we the experiments could be closer to the truth than we know.
I, too, tend to go by what feels right to me and not what is generally held to be the truth. Besides the truth is a matter of perception. As our perceptions change, so does what we hold to be true.
|
|
|
Post by dragonsmith0 on Dec 3, 2006 2:32:38 GMT -5
My 2 cents based on what I feel to have pieced together: All religions and cultures including their histories are fragments of what really happened. Civilization has been "utterly destroyed" and "blown back to the stone ages" before. But lets start at my perception of the beginning... Quantum physics and string theory have just begun to acknowledge that there are other dimensions. They say there are at least twelve ( on a side note let me be the first to say there are actually 14). We are in the 3rd dimension and with each progression things get geometrically stranger and more complex. Physical 'laws' vary from one to the other radically yet each of them is connected and functions as part of the other. Sentience exists on a level that we cannot comprehend in many of these other planes of existence. Our universe is influenced by this sentient force as are many other realms as part of a greater whole. The reason evolution has been given the upper hand is because they have something 'real' to point to. The simple fact is the evidence they point to is just a symptom without a cause. Animals do change and adapt or evolve. Sometimes over millions of years, sometimes in the span of one lifetime. But the cause is something that no one can agree on. Animals evolving or being custom fitted to environments does not exclude external influence but rather confirms it. The key is that all life to a molecular level can and does respond to stimulus. It is a feedback loop that is more that biological. Stimulus extends to the other dimensions and is responded to. The response sometimes results in evolution while others result in extinction. Man has blinded himself to this. Even now accepted scientific institutions are confirming that the thoughts and emotions of man and all living things affect their surroundings. I will go on further another time as I don't want to ruin my entire audience all at once.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Dec 3, 2006 10:16:31 GMT -5
Let me start by saying this, Evolution cannot be debated against faith. They are far too different. It would be like trying to debate apples vs oranges. It is also very similar when you try to debate which religion is better. There is no debate between the two, they aren't comparable at all. I might write you guys an essay later on, but for now I have to write a history essay, then I'll probably watch the Buc's game. It might not be until tomorrow to hear my points, if anyone even cares to hear them
|
|
|
Post by Hallelujah on Dec 3, 2006 12:52:28 GMT -5
Well, I would like to hear them griffman. Dragonsmith0, just out of curiosity, where did you get the 14 dimensions from? Not very many people that I know have even heard of 12 let alone the 14 that actually exist. Also, it's nice to meet someone who can put the concepts that I hold to be true into words. Sometimes I have difficuly putting my beliefs into words. As for your audience, well you have an audience of at least one!
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Dec 5, 2006 13:46:09 GMT -5
I think that it is acceptable to compare faith and evolution because parts of them both try to explain our existance, while an apple and an orange dont really try to explain anything because they are both a food that do the same thing, or something like that is what I am trying to get at. Anyway though I hope there is not only a small 14 other dimensions since that would not allow my infinity ideas to be true, or maybe they can still fit in since I really have no idea what the other ones deal with yet.
|
|