Genesis and The Big Bang

[Blutters]

You know what's funny? Nuking the Middle East. A single nuke will never blew up the entire place, not even Iraq. The number of nukes able to destroy even 1 country would make all Americans die of the radioactive waste going through the winds.

 

Yeah! Lets nuke the Middle East!

Dunno why I feel the need to respond to your overly literal and likely unfounded comment but one coordinating such a strike would obviously focus on the areas of densest population.

[spoiler=Look, I went and got a map for you.]

 

One would target the places of deepest red and let the fall-out take care of the rest.

There you go. I hope you learned something about the economics of nuclear annihilation.

 

Actual topic:

Gorgoroth pretty much summed it up. Darn. And still no one explained to me how come we got to be the only planet with life on it...

[Wisp]

 

And still no one explained to me how come we got to be the only planet with life on it...

Ok. I don't see why this is such a hard concept.

 

Let's say there's a type of bug that only lives under a certain type of rock in a certain place.

That rock isn't there because the bug is, the bug is there because the rock is.

 

Earth just happened to have all the right qualities for life. If it didn't, we would be on a different planet that could, arguing about why Planet Ragnart is the only planet with life on it.

[Perakp]

 

In some ways it does. As a christian i am not allowed to do anything that may change my body. Therefor drinking which affects my liver and Smoking which affects my lungs are a no no. Also pre-maritial sex is another no no. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why though.

This is totally offtopic but I thought of this a few weeks back, and now after reading that ^ I thought of it again.

 

There was this Finnish priest (a man) that got his gender changed (was it last year?) Ofcourse it caused distress in the church, because it is viewed unnatural and against-gods-will to change one's gender. She still works as a priest(ess?), good for her.

 

But now to the point: if you (not especially you, gorgoroth, but any "you" out there) aren't allowed to change your physical attributes (because they are holy, created by God and therefore perfect etc etc), then christians shouldn't take the swineflu vaccine either? amirite?

 

 

To me, as a whole, science/(atheism) just makes more sense than any religion.

 

(I got my first quran from the library this week, it was interesting for the first 20 pages but then it got repetetive. Don't know if it's worth the time reading it..)

[gorgoroth]

Taking somethat that cures you is not against the will of God. He Himself at some point in his life must have been ill, and surely He took some form of medication to prevent it. I am unaware of the side affects of the vaccine so my answer might seem stupd to you. Howeer, if it cures something that might have killed you then i say again, God is just.

 

Also as i have heard it from many of my Muslim friends, the Quran is more like a Steven King book than a bible. I think even Islam explains the Big Bang theory, although i am not 100% sure. But i would say i is worth the read. If not for religion, atleast for a better understanding.

[i_love_burritos]

This last page kind of makes me feel amused and sad at the same time.

 

Yes, I've created a monster.

 

Fetch me my gun.

[billybob323]

Alright, that's my mistake. I won't be written off as someone who would misrepresent an argument, so I apologise for misreading.

That's fine. Apology accepted.

 

My point stands, however. A god of the gaps argument just doesn't fly. If god can't be disproven, then he can't be proven to exist either - Falsifiability is key.

I've read about the god of the gaps argument, and I agree it just doesn't fly. But in my opinion it's because it implies that the gaps should get smaller as our scientific understanding increases, thus giving us less and less need for a god. What I have found through some research is that the gaps are actually getting bigger. So my God can't be just a "god of the gaps" but must be God of everything. True, science will never be able to prove God 100%, but that's where faith comes in.

 

Trust stemming from what? Why believe what you believe other than because it feels right? If someone wants to believe in god because it feels right to them - fine, that is absolutely their right. The problem is that people don't just say that this is the case and instead try to pervert science to give themselves some credibility.

Trust stemming from knowledge/evidence that you have gained. Like I said later in that post, my faith/belief in God is supported by evidence that I have found, but not dependent on it. I will say right now that, yes, I believe in God because it feels right to me. I have done, and continue to do, quite a bit of research and have gained what I feel is evidence in favor of God (that's the 'supported by evidence' part), and I also believe that I will never find substantial evidence to disprove God (that's the faith part). If you look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion, that's fine, that's your right, that's just how God created our universe- that we can have a choice. I'm not trying to force this on you or "pervert science", I'm just trying to explain my view and why I believe it.

 

As for the quote, it's a juvenille analogy at best, and it fails to mention that sometimes chairs break when you sit in them.

I don't see how it's a juvenile analogy. It shows that you examine the chair for signs that it can support your weight. If you find substantial evidence that it can support you, that's belief. Faith is trusting that it won't break when you sit on it. If you just believe that the chair can support you but never actually try to sit on it, then you have no faith in the chair. Yes, sometimes a chair will break when you sit on it even though you believed it wouldn't. That just means the chair was not worthy of your faith. But that doesn't fit into the analogy because God is worthy of our faith. He will never fail when we rely on Him.

[Saru Inc]

Its better to see the hypocracy than to explain it. I live in a Muslim country so i witness the hypocracy every day. I see Arabs drinking alcohol and smoking, i see them breaking their "dress code" i see them preaching in churches about "how USA deserves their current state and how they deserve 9/11 and tornados because they believe in a false god". And then i see them go out and break their own rules, i see them suicide bombing.

I'm in a christian country. I see Christians drinking, smoking, having pre-marital sex, selling drugs, killing people, and so on. I've heard Christians say that we should just nuke the middle east and be done with it.

If we nuked the middle east, where would we get our oil from? Better yet we should send in a million more troops, massacre every Iraqi, and then steal all of their oil.

 

 

Wow.

 

 

 

Anyways, to answer Jaekerdoods question is God selfish? I could give the hallmark-esque answer "God is wise" but you also have to remember the prhase which applies to relgious people and Atheists. Good things happen to bad people; bad things happen to good people. Thats basically it. And yea Jaekerdood, I have a couple mental disorders which require medication, along with diagnosed ADHD. My mom refuses to let me get medicine, and I'm not about to spend 80$ on my own.

 

 

And to the comment about those [developmentally delayed]ed Christians who want to nuke the Middle East. There are [developmentally delayed]s in every sect; cult; religion; government, and country. Just because there are a hugemajority of [developmentally delayed]s in Christianity, does not mean all are. And I compeltely agree with whomever made the comment about Hypocrites in Christianity (pre-marital sex etc.) thats why I hate the Christian Church. All the Christians I've ever met were self-righteous douchebags. And all the Atheists I've ever met were open, kind, caring people. I posed this question to my mom, and she said "well everyone has problems." I replied "so why do they act like they don't have any" -Christians = They.

 

 

But for some reason, I just know God exists. Everywhere I see him; in Psych class we were going over how the brain works etc. It's simply fascinating, and I don't see how this could come from Evolution.

[gorgoroth]

Its better to see the hypocracy than to explain it. I live in a Muslim country so i witness the hypocracy every day. I see Arabs drinking alcohol and smoking, i see them breaking their "dress code" i see them preaching in churches about "how USA deserves their current state and how they deserve 9/11 and tornados because they believe in a false god". And then i see them go out and break their own rules, i see them suicide bombing.

I'm in a christian country. I see Christians drinking, smoking, having pre-marital sex, selling drugs, killing people, and so on. I've heard Christians say that we should just nuke the middle east and be done with it.

If we nuked the middle east, where would we get our oil from? Better yet we should send in a million more troops, massacre every Iraqi, and then steal all of their oil.

 

 

Wow.

 

 

 

Anyways, to answer Jaekerdoods question is God selfish? I could give the hallmark-esque answer "God is wise" but you also have to remember the prhase which applies to relgious people and Atheists. Good things happen to bad people; bad things happen to good people. Thats basically it. And yea Jaekerdood, I have a couple mental disorders which require medication, along with diagnosed ADHD. My mom refuses to let me get medicine, and I'm not about to spend 80$ on my own.

 

 

And to the comment about those [developmentally delayed]ed Christians who want to nuke the Middle East. There are [developmentally delayed]s in every sect; cult; religion; government, and country. Just because there are a hugemajority of [developmentally delayed]s in Christianity, does not mean all are. And I compeltely agree with whomever made the comment about Hypocrites in Christianity (pre-marital sex etc.) thats why I hate the Christian Church. All the Christians I've ever met were self-righteous douchebags. And all the Atheists I've ever met were open, kind, caring people. I posed this question to my mom, and she said "well everyone has problems." I replied "so why do they act like they don't have any" -Christians = They.

 

 

But for some reason, I just know God exists. Everywhere I see him; in Psych class we were going over how the brain works etc. It's simply fascinating, and I don't see how this could come from Evolution.

Having said all of this i forgot to mention the most important thing. I am South African. It has just occured to me that even though a Christian in the UK and a Christian in South Africa pray to the same God, our methods and morals are very different. I go to a Dutch reformed church. In South Africa we are known for being conservative. This means we wear suits every Sunday, we act all posh, etc. We had a great community. Caring, loving. We were a family. If someone in our Church got cancer we would pray as if it were our own brother, mother, sister, etc. Also with out conservative nature came a very respective outlook on life. We were a community that was stict about pre-maritial sex, eccesive drinking, drugs, etc. Sure here and ther we would get the odd ball, but that was very rare. We were passionate about God and we could see that our church, and the rest of the Dutch reformed churches in the area, were all loving, caring people. We hed this Egyptian guy named Tess in our church. He did not understand a word of our language yet he was there EVERY Sunday because he told us that he could feel God when he was there. He had to take a bus 50km every Sunday morning to get there. This already should tell you something.

But back to my actuall point. Me and my dad had a talk earlier about Christianity in UK, USA and SA. I asked my dad why so many people in UK and USA were athiest. He told me that because so many of your churches are scams. In South Africa in all my 16/17 Years of living there i have only ever heard of 1 scam. A scam were the pastol would steal the collection money. I have however heard of many stories where something like this would happen in the UK and USA. In all honesty i do not blame people living in the UK or USA for being Athiest. I guess if i had to grow up with churches scamming me out of my money i would have thought Christianity a scam aswell. You guys need to keep that in mind aswell. South Africa (even though it is Africa and you would assume more crime, etc) has very very very few (if any) cases where a Chistian church scams you.

[Saru Inc]

My grandma traveled 400 miles to come to the Edgar Casey (sp) center near my house.

[gorgoroth]

My grandma traveled 400 miles to come to the Edgar Casey (sp) center near my house.

I don't see how this is aplicable?

[Zierro]

Scientists don't know how life formed, but they know many ways life could have formed.

 

We're in agreement then.

 

You claimed there were good arguments against it, let's hear some.

 

1. Mutations have been observed, but an animal turning into a whole different kind of animal has not. (Just so we're on the same page, I'm not disputing microevolution.) The lack of evidence alone is reason enough not to believe that evolution is a proven fact.

 

2. The transition from asexual creatures to creatures who need both a male and female in order to reproduce makes very little sense at all. There had to be two animals that randomly generated these "opposite gender genes" from asexual parents in the same lifespan as each other, they had to find each other on this huge planet earth, and have intercourse in order to pass the gender genes down (and the genes had to be successfully carried down into the offspring and so forth). It's also pretty hard to believe that wings randomly and successfully came to be, given all the complications to aerodynamics.

 

3. There is a lack of transitional creatures in our fossil records. Why don't we see species of animals all with "half-wings" or other useless body parts? Even Darwin himself said, several generations ago, that if we don't find enough inter-species fossils then his theory would collapse. It's 2009 now and we're still searching. I have every right to be skeptical, especially when the person who proposed the theory even agrees with me.

 

4. The Law of Biogenesis VS The Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Biogenesis - every living creature we have observed had parents. As for evolution, the only things we have to work with are conjectures about "patterns of progression".

 

5. Humans look for patterns where they do not exist. For example: the Mother Mary on someone's toast and seeing pictures in the clouds. Evolution sounds exactly like this. People putting skeletons next to each other, seeing some similarities, and then inferring that there is a pattern showing some sort of "progression".

 

6. Evolution proposes that my great-great-great etc. grandfather was a single cell. My body is composed of millions. Where did all the millions of extra cells come from? What about the DNA?

 

7. There is no need for evolution to exist. It is not the only possible explanation for why our bodies are so fine-tuned for survival, if you would even call it that.

 

Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect.

[brunokiller]

You claimed there were good arguments against it, let's hear some.

 

1. Mutations have been observed, but an animal turning into a whole different kind of animal has not. (Just so we're on the same page, I'm not disputing microevolution.) The lack of evidence alone is reason enough not to believe that evolution is a proven fact.

Macro evolution takes thousands of years.

 

2. The transition from asexual creatures to creatures who need both a male and female in order to reproduce makes very little sense at all. There had to be two animals that randomly generated these "opposite gender genes" from asexual parents in the same lifespan as each other, they had to find each other on this huge planet earth, and have intercourse in order to pass the gender genes down (and the genes had to be successfully carried down into the offspring and so forth).

 

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? If half of the population slowly preferences the female and the other half male, I don't see how this can slowly turn into a two-gender system.

 

It's also pretty hard to believe that wings randomly and successfully came to be, given all the complications to aerodynamics.

 

Perhaps they were initially used to create more air resistance(i.e., longer fall and lower landing speed, and developed up from there.

 

 

3. There is a lack of transitional creatures in our fossil records. Why don't we see species of animals all with "half-wings" or other useless body parts? Even Darwin himself said, several generations ago, that if we don't find enough inter-species fossils then his theory would collapse. It's 2009 now and we're still searching. I have every right to be skeptical, especially when the person who proposed the theory even agrees with me.

Just to name two useless organs in your body: Tail bone and cecum.

 

4. The Law of Biogenesis VS The Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Biogenesis - every living creature we have observed had parents. As for evolution, the only things we have to work with are conjectures about "patterns of progression".

 

How do biogenesis and evolution conflict?

 

5. Humans look for patterns where they do not exist. For example: the Mother Mary on someone's toast and seeing pictures in the clouds. Evolution sounds exactly like this. People putting skeletons next to each other, seeing some similarities, and then inferring that there is a pattern showing some sort of "progression".

 

The equalities by humans and monkeys are overwhelming, with about every bone being in humans as well as monkeys. With the observation that our tail bone looks like a toned down version compared to that of a monkey with a tail we can easily conclude that humans and monkeys are related. Did you know about 95% of our genes are equal?

 

6. Evolution proposes that my great-great-great etc. grandfather was a single cell. My body is composed of millions. Where did all the millions of extra cells come from? What about the DNA?

 

They parted and both grew to the size of the original cell. Repeat this about 30 times and you have a human. The DNA also makes a copy of itself so both cells have the same DNA(with exception of reproduction cells where the DNA multiplication goes a bit different.

 

 

7. There is no need for evolution to exist. It is not the only possible explanation for why our bodies are so fine-tuned for survival, if you would even call it that.

 

With evolution every organism stays the same(i.e. we would still be bacteria eating methane), and if you imply that god dumped us on this planet as we are now, one ice age would kill nearly all the living things as they cannot adapt.

 

Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect.

 

Evolution has been proved countless times(and it allows falsifiability whereas god-ism does not(hence that you cannot prove that god does not exist). Scientists have released equal lizards on two different islands, and after a few dozen years both have independently changed to better suit their environment.

 

You can show it with micro organism, to give an example consider the need for a new flu vaccine every year.

[Zierro]

Macro evolution takes thousands of years.

 

Yes, but it cannot be observed, which is an important element amongst the scientific community. I used this argument because of the common usage of it against theism. "You cannot observe God, so why believe?" Saying that evolution takes a very long time is just as much of an "excuse" as saying god wants to be unseen.

 

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? If half of the population slowly preferences the female and the other half male, I don't see how this can slowly turn into a two-gender system.

 

I don't quite get where you're going with this. Can you please clarify?

 

Just to name two useless organs in your body: Tail bone and cecum.

 

They're not useless. The tailbone is used to keep many muscles and ligaments in place, and the cecum stores liquid waste. And even if it seemed that there is a useless organ, it could just simply be that we have not discovered the use yet.

 

That wasn't really what I was getting at though. I meant why is there such a great lack of mongrel-like species?

 

How do biogenesis and evolution conflict?

 

Evolution asserts abiogenesis - that we all came from one single cell that arose from inorganic material - that somewhere down the line there existed a cell without a parent.

 

The equalities by humans and monkeys are overwhelming, with about every bone being in humans as well as monkeys. With the observation that our tail bone looks like a toned down version compared to that of a monkey with a tail we can easily conclude that humans and monkeys are related. Did you know about 95% of our genes are equal?

 

We're both living creatures. Of course you're going to see similarities. There is no doubt that monkeys and humans share some of the same genetic traits. The doubt comes into play when you conclude that they must be related.

 

If aliens existed, there is a fair chance that they would have some similarities to us. If they walk upright, have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, 10 fingers, and 10 toes, that doesn't necessarily mean we're related to them. It's completely possible that humans looking like aliens is a coincidence, as it is completely possible that humans looking like monkeys is a coincidence.

 

I don't see why it's so easy to believe in the coincidence that life arose from nothing and that genders popped into existence, but it's hard to believe it's a coincidence that animals kinda look like other animals.

 

With evolution every organism stays the same(i.e. we would still be bacteria eating methane), and if you imply that god dumped us on this planet as we are now, one ice age would kill nearly all the living things as they cannot adapt.

 

I didn't mean to bring god into this point, so I'm sorry if it came out that way. My point here is that it's an argument from incredulity - evolution might be the only thing we can think of, but that doesn't mean someone with a greater imagination can't think of something more logically sound in the future. And it doesn't have to deal with god. It can be a whole new scientific theory.

 

Evolution has been proved countless times(and it allows falsifiability whereas god-ism does not(hence that you cannot prove that god does not exist). Scientists have released equal lizards on two different islands, and after a few dozen years both have independently changed to better suit their environment.

 

You can show it with micro organism, to give an example consider the need for a new flu vaccine every year.

 

But isn't that microevolution? The lizards have never turned into a different creature, just lizards with random growths or body parts that have a chance of being beneficial for their survival.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

When you accept "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" what you're really doing is claiming that 2 and 2 will always be 2 and 2 and never add up to 4.

[Jes]

How is a tailbone useless? I screwed mine up really bad when I was younger and it still hurts. You can't sit without one.

[brunokiller]

How is a tailbone useless? I screwed mine up really bad when I was younger and it still hurts. You can't sit without one.

 

Well since it does not support a tail anymore it is widely regarded as useless, but if it helps you to sit it found a new purpose (which is also evolution).

 

Macro evolution takes thousands of years.

 

Yes, but it cannot be observed, which is an important element amongst the scientific community. I used this argument because of the common usage of it against theism. "You cannot observe God, so why believe?" Saying that evolution takes a very long time is just as much of an "excuse" as saying god wants to be unseen.

 

It left trails behind(otherwise known as fossiles and apparent useless remains of organs).

 

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? If half of the population slowly preferences the female and the other half male, I don't see how this can slowly turn into a two-gender system.

 

I don't quite get where you're going with this. Can you please clarify?

 

A two gender system is a system where animals have both male and female organs. It could be that some had a mutation that benefitted one of them, making them favour one gender.

 

Two gender systems are much more efficient evolution wise because of the constant recombination of genes that does not occur with asexual reproduction.

 

Just to name two useless organs in your body: Tail bone and cecum.

 

They're not useless. The tailbone is used to keep many muscles and ligaments in place, and the cecum stores liquid waste. And even if it seemed that there is a useless organ, it could just simply be that we have not discovered the use yet.

 

That wasn't really what I was getting at though. I meant why is there such a great lack of mongrel-like species?

 

Have you ever seen the anatonomy of a human? The cecum is miles away from the anus. And pretty much zero mucles are attacked to the tail bone because

a. it's an unmovable piece of bone and

b. humans dont have tails

How do biogenesis and evolution conflict?

 

Evolution asserts abiogenesis - that we all came from one single cell that arose from inorganic material - that somewhere down the line there existed a cell without a parent.

 

Evolution says nothing about how it started (no one knows how, but that's no excuse to pull a god-ism), but rather how it progresses and adapts.

 

The equalities by humans and monkeys are overwhelming, with about every bone being in humans as well as monkeys. With the observation that our tail bone looks like a toned down version compared to that of a monkey with a tail we can easily conclude that humans and monkeys are related. Did you know about 95% of our genes are equal?

 

We're both living creatures. Of course you're going to see similarities. There is no doubt that monkeys and humans share some of the same genetic traits. The doubt comes into play when you conclude that they must be related. If you see two people walking next to each other, who only appear to have a 5% difference in their appearance, it's still completely possible that they're just friends instead of brothers. It's completely possible that humans looking like monkeys is a coincidence.

 

How do you explain that fossiles with both human and monkey properties were found? The chance of us and monkeys not being relatives is zero. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

I don't see why it's so easy to believe in the coincidence that life arose from nothing and that genders popped into existence, but it's hard to believe it's a coincidence that animals kinda look like other animals.

 

With the following assumptions

a. In the beginning there was nothing else than a singularity

b. Life exists as of today.

 

it becomes logically that life spawned from lifeless molecules(and how, well if you want to win a nobel prize...).

 

I think you're overestimating the complexity of basic lifeforms that are not much more than methane reduction factories.

 

With evolution every organism stays the same(i.e. we would still be bacteria eating methane), and if you imply that god dumped us on this planet as we are now, one ice age would kill nearly all the living things as they cannot adapt.

 

I didn't mean to bring god into this point, so I'm sorry if it came out that way. My point here is that it's an argument from incredulity - evolution might be the only thing we can think of, but that doesn't mean someone with a greater imagination can't think of something more logically sound in the future. And it doesn't have to deal with god. It can be a whole new scientific theory.

 

Evolution is the only plausible theory about the gradual changing and adapting of organisms. And it has been proven countless times.

 

Evolution has been proved countless times(and it allows falsifiability whereas god-ism does not(hence that you cannot prove that god does not exist). Scientists have released equal lizards on two different islands, and after a few dozen years both have independently changed to better suit their environment.

 

You can show it with micro organism, to give an example consider the need for a new flu vaccine every year.

 

But isn't that microevolution? The lizards have never turned into a different creature, just lizards with random growths or body parts that have a chance of being beneficial for their survival.

 

Following the above has proved that organisms change according to their environment in just 10 years. Scale this up to hundred thousand years and the differences must be even greater. Darwin saw this when he visited the Galápagos Islands. A long time ago, birds from the mainlands visited the islands. Some islands only had insects, other berries etc. They adapted to that, and now they cannot reproduce between; they have become different species.

 

Micro evolution over long times-> new species.

[gorgoroth]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love? Why havent animals learn to love? And why are we able to think? Why can we make our own choices? Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct? Why don't we still evolve? Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans? Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet? Did evolutions just stop?

 

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love? Why havent animals learn to love? And why are we able to think? Why can we make our own choices? Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct? Why don't we still evolve? Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans? Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet? Did evolutions just stop?

 

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

 

Love and compassion can be easily explained as an evolved behavior to help assist in the survival of the species. If we love we are more likely to look out for and help our fellow humans, which makes the species more survivable.

Animals do love, just not on the same level we do. Haven't you ever owned a dog?

We are able to think because we have a brain, like all animals. Our brain is just more complex than other animals.

 

We do still evolve. As a population we've been growing taller, for instance.

A: Monkeys did not evolve into humans in the first place. We evolved from the common ancestor of all apes.

B: Monkeys are still evolving.

C: I think you're still not understanding the time-scale involved. It took millions of years for us to evolve from the primitive ape-like creature to what you see today.

 

Everything is still evolving, it's just that evolution takes a very long time to happen. Look at oak trees. They start from an acorn but over the course of 30 years they can reach dozens of feet in height. Your perception of time is such that you can't watch it and see it grow, but every time you look at it it's a little bit larger than the last time you saw it.

Furthermore, if you plant an oak tree sapling, then don't see it again for 30 years, when you come back there will have been a dramatic change. You know that it's the same oak tree for various reasons, but you didn't actually witness it grow, did you?

 

That's partially how our understanding of evoulution works. We see a creature in the fossil record and due to many lines of evidence we can say that this creature is a transitional or primitive form of this other creature.

We didn't actually witness it evolve but it's evolution is the best explanation for those many pieces of evidence.

[gorgoroth]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love? Why havent animals learn to love? And why are we able to think? Why can we make our own choices? Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct? Why don't we still evolve? Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans? Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet? Did evolutions just stop?

 

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

 

Love and compassion can be easily explained as an evolved behavior to help assist in the survival of the species. If we love we are more likely to look out for and help our fellow humans, which makes the species more survivable.

Animals do love, just not on the same level we do. Haven't you ever owned a dog?

We are able to think because we have a brain, like all animals. Our brain is just more complex than other animals.

 

We do still evolve. As a population we've been growing taller, for instance.

A: Monkeys did not evolve into humans in the first place. We evolved from the common ancestor of all apes.

B: Monkeys are still evolving.

C: I think you're still not understanding the time-scale involved. It took millions of years for us to evolve from the primitive ape-like creature to what you see today.

 

Everything is still evolving, it's just that evolution takes a very long time to happen. Look at oak trees. They start from an acorn but over the course of 30 years they can reach dozens of feet in height. Your perception of time is such that you can't watch it and see it grow, but every time you look at it it's a little bit larger than the last time you saw it.

Furthermore, if you plant an oak tree sapling, then don't see it again for 30 years, when you come back there will have been a dramatic change. You know that it's the same oak tree for various reasons, but you didn't actually witness it grow, did you?

 

That's partially how our understanding of evoulution works. We see a creature in the fossil record and due to many lines of evidence we can say that this creature is a transitional or primitive form of this other creature.

We didn't actually witness it evolve but it's evolution is the best explanation for those many pieces of evidence.

Dogs (and all animals) cannot make their own choices though. I understand that our brain is much more complexed but i still cannot understand why we can make a CHOICE while they only have INSTICT to rely on. Dogs do as they are told, not as they want. And animals do not love. They have a certain affection, but affection is not love. Also animals have loyalty, this also is not love.

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to troll or anything. I'm really just trying to get a better understanding of everything. I never had the chance to learn about the Big Bang and all that goes with it in my school. My knowledge of it is very very limited so thats why my answers and questions might seem really stupid.

[Blutters]

Macro evolution takes thousands of years.

 

Yes, but it cannot be observed, which is an important element amongst the scientific community. I used this argument because of the common usage of it against theism. "You cannot observe God, so why believe?" Saying that evolution takes a very long time is just as much of an "excuse" as saying god wants to be unseen.

 

How do biogenesis and evolution conflict?

 

Evolution asserts abiogenesis - that we all came from one single cell that arose from inorganic material - that somewhere down the line there existed a cell without a parent.

 

Evolution says nothing about how it started (no one knows how, but that's no excuse to pull a god-ism), but rather how it progresses and adapts.

 

I don't see why it's so easy to believe in the coincidence that life arose from nothing and that genders popped into existence, but it's hard to believe it's a coincidence that animals kinda look like other animals.

 

With the following assumptions

a. In the beginning there was nothing else than a singularity

b. Life exists as of today.

 

it becomes logically that life spawned from lifeless molecules(and how, well if you want to win a nobel prize...).

 

I think you're overestimating the complexity of basic lifeforms that are not much more than methane reduction factories.

Okay, I'm not sure how well I quoted that, but one of the most important questions I have was raised or at least hinted to:

How did we rise from dirt?

Even if no one has a real concrete reason, what are some current theories?

 

And secondly...

This is unrelated to the above but also hinted to in the quoted segment:

Faith is abundant in everyone.

Have you been to every country of the world? No? Then how do you know it exists?

If you have not seen it with your own eyes, then you are employing faith when you believe something.

If you wanted to go even further you could say that you have faith that everything around you exists even when you can't see it all...

Take for an extreme example, playing a video game consisting of multiple pieces, like RuneScape, or Grand Theft Auto, or any sandbox style game. Each individual piece of the world has to load as you enter it.

Scientists who believe in evolution are using faith, especially because as has been mentioned on this page, one can hardly stand around and watch the purported changes occur.

So then this leads me to ask why the faith in science is any different from faith in religion...

One should consider the statement, "The victor writes the textbooks". Just because we have historical records written in earlier ages does not mean that what is contained within those records actually happened. It could be just as easily fabricated as what scientists or the government are telling the general public could be.

This leads me to conclude that to say that God, or in fact, anything does not exist, when it is impossible for you yourself to know, is ignorant, despite any amount of evidence you may or may not have. In fact, I don't know if any of you are real living people at the other end, but I'll be faithful enough to believe that I am communicating with others.

^ Not that anyone was disputing that in the first place... :-P

[gorgoroth]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love? Why havent animals learn to love? And why are we able to think? Why can we make our own choices? Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct? Why don't we still evolve? Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans? Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet? Did evolutions just stop?

 

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

 

Love and compassion can be easily explained as an evolved behavior to help assist in the survival of the species. If we love we are more likely to look out for and help our fellow humans, which makes the species more survivable.

Animals do love, just not on the same level we do. Haven't you ever owned a dog?

We are able to think because we have a brain, like all animals. Our brain is just more complex than other animals.

 

We do still evolve. As a population we've been growing taller, for instance.

A: Monkeys did not evolve into humans in the first place. We evolved from the common ancestor of all apes.

B: Monkeys are still evolving.

C: I think you're still not understanding the time-scale involved. It took millions of years for us to evolve from the primitive ape-like creature to what you see today.

 

Everything is still evolving, it's just that evolution takes a very long time to happen. Look at oak trees. They start from an acorn but over the course of 30 years they can reach dozens of feet in height. Your perception of time is such that you can't watch it and see it grow, but every time you look at it it's a little bit larger than the last time you saw it.

Furthermore, if you plant an oak tree sapling, then don't see it again for 30 years, when you come back there will have been a dramatic change. You know that it's the same oak tree for various reasons, but you didn't actually witness it grow, did you?

 

That's partially how our understanding of evoulution works. We see a creature in the fossil record and due to many lines of evidence we can say that this creature is a transitional or primitive form of this other creature.

We didn't actually witness it evolve but it's evolution is the best explanation for those many pieces of evidence.

Dogs (and all animals) cannot make their own choices though. I understand that our brain is much more complexed but i still cannot understand why we can make a CHOICE while they only have INSTICT to rely on. Dogs do as they are told, not as they want. And animals do not love. They have a certain affection, but affection is not love. Also animals have loyalty, this also is not love.

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to troll or anything. I'm really just trying to get a better understanding of everything. I never had the chance to learn about the Big Bang and all that goes with it in my school. My knowledge of it is very very limited so thats why my answers and questions might seem really stupid.

Dogs are animals who were built to survive in the wild, so they rely on instinct. Humans were once animals (built to survive in the wild) but through evolution gradually came to the point we are at now.

 

And I read somewhere that dolphins can have sex for pleasure.

For centuries dogs have been used as pets. Surely they have been able to develop the ability to chose? Some dogs havent seen the wild for thousands of years. Also, dolphins have sex because they have a lust for one-another. Lust is not love. I want to have sex with Megan fox because i have a lust for her, not a love (this is a simple example).

[Jeffwilson99]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love? Why havent animals learn to love? And why are we able to think? Why can we make our own choices? Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct? Why don't we still evolve? Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans? Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet? Did evolutions just stop?

 

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

 

Love and compassion can be easily explained as an evolved behavior to help assist in the survival of the species. If we love we are more likely to look out for and help our fellow humans, which makes the species more survivable.

Animals do love, just not on the same level we do. Haven't you ever owned a dog?

We are able to think because we have a brain, like all animals. Our brain is just more complex than other animals.

 

We do still evolve. As a population we've been growing taller, for instance.

A: Monkeys did not evolve into humans in the first place. We evolved from the common ancestor of all apes.

B: Monkeys are still evolving.

C: I think you're still not understanding the time-scale involved. It took millions of years for us to evolve from the primitive ape-like creature to what you see today.

 

Everything is still evolving, it's just that evolution takes a very long time to happen. Look at oak trees. They start from an acorn but over the course of 30 years they can reach dozens of feet in height. Your perception of time is such that you can't watch it and see it grow, but every time you look at it it's a little bit larger than the last time you saw it.

Furthermore, if you plant an oak tree sapling, then don't see it again for 30 years, when you come back there will have been a dramatic change. You know that it's the same oak tree for various reasons, but you didn't actually witness it grow, did you?

 

That's partially how our understanding of evoulution works. We see a creature in the fossil record and due to many lines of evidence we can say that this creature is a transitional or primitive form of this other creature.

We didn't actually witness it evolve but it's evolution is the best explanation for those many pieces of evidence.

Dogs (and all animals) cannot make their own choices though. I understand that our brain is much more complexed but i still cannot understand why we can make a CHOICE while they only have INSTICT to rely on. Dogs do as they are told, not as they want. And animals do not love. They have a certain affection, but affection is not love. Also animals have loyalty, this also is not love.

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to troll or anything. I'm really just trying to get a better understanding of everything. I never had the chance to learn about the Big Bang and all that goes with it in my school. My knowledge of it is very very limited so thats why my answers and questions might seem really stupid.

 

Are you trying to say Dogs (and all other animals) cannot make choices? This seems like a VERY steep claim. Every creature is largely influenced by instincts, however humans have a different kind of reasoning to animals, which means we take many factors into consideration when making a choice in regards to responding to instinct.

Also we cannot comminicate well with animals, so we have no idea of how their reasoning works, or what they are thinking or feeling. You can't exactly ask a dog if it's in love can you?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Dogs (and all animals) cannot make their own choices though. I understand that our brain is much more complexed but i still cannot understand why we can make a CHOICE while they only have INSTICT to rely on. Dogs do as they are told, not as they want. And animals do not love. They have a certain affection, but affection is not love. Also animals have loyalty, this also is not love.

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to troll or anything. I'm really just trying to get a better understanding of everything. I never had the chance to learn about the Big Bang and all that goes with it in my school. My knowledge of it is very very limited so thats why my answers and questions might seem really stupid.

 

Dogs can make their own choices. Their choices are not as complex as our own but they do make them. When a dog runs and hides under the bed during a thunderstorm, that's a choice that dog is making. It may be one that's influenced mostly by instinct but it's still a choice.

Humans simply have enough brainpower to not be influenced by instinct as much as other animals.

And they can love, again, their love is not as complex as our love, but that is because their brains are not as complex.

[Blutters]

While I haven't been to every country in the world, numerous reliable sources cite their existences. But if you want to parade around denying that Norway is a real place, go right ahead.

You're using faith in believing that it exists and that those sources are true, just as you'd be using faith to believe in evolution and its proof.

Everyone uses faith in practically every situation and to discount religious faith would be ... hypocritical...?

[gorgoroth]

While I haven't been to every country in the world, numerous reliable sources cite their existences. But if you want to parade around denying that Norway is a real place, go right ahead.

You're using faith in believing that it exists and that those sources are true, just as you'd be using faith to believe in evolution and its proof.

Everyone uses faith in practically every situation and to discount religious faith would be ... hypocritical...?

Isn't what youre saying almost the same as saying wind exists? We can't see it nor really feel it, but we know its there?

Same can be said about emotion. Emotion might be a better example.