SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Religion is just the politics of faith, surely? And so, yes... Religion causes war.
Interpretations are half the reason I say none of it can possibly be plausible.
God
- Thread starter danielfitzgerald99
- Start date
Interpretations are half the reason I say none of it can possibly be plausible.
Bitter
Mega Poster
Hmm, I'm unsure how to respond. I think you misunderstood what i was saying when I again suggested to you reading the books or watching the lectures. I was simply saying you're interested in the subject, and so they would be of interest to you by providing a more professional explanation of certain things. You clearly like to argue both sides of things, which is a good thing to do to comprehend both sides of an argument, and is something I like to do myself, but I feel in this case I simply cannot comprehend how someone can have faith in a God, which is presumably why when I argue counter to that, I sometimes may seem like I think my view is superior. When I said you seemed confused I was merely referring to how you liek to argue from both sides, which can sometimes seem like confusion.
It's not that we're trying to disprove God using science, I guess what we're trying to do is prove that there are scientific answers for some of the reasons people believe in God, filling in all the gaps as it were. As you say we will never know everything, no, and so there will always be gaps, but the more you fill in those gaps, the more religious people have to fall back onto another reason for believing in God, until you realise, maybe, there is a scientific answer for everything, we just haven't found it yet.
It's a difficult subject to word to keep everyone happy, in fact I'd go as far as to say you can't discuss it keeping everyone happy, no matter what you say someone will think you're being arrogant or offensive or something else. Sometimes I've thought you sounded a little "know-it-all", but I've tried to look for what I think you're trying to convey rather than dwelling on how you said it.
As for being worse than Sam, hmm, I'm not sure you truely believe that. It's the case of action against no-action, which I believe Christianity itself teaches. I think if you can't question your faith then why have faith in it. I am questioning my "faith" in that I read into the subject to try and garner better understanding of the matters at hand to see how they fit in with the way i think the world works and how they do or don't fit in with other beliefs.
As for the quote "I have VERY rarely put forward my own views here, because they are irrelevant.", I believe this whole topic has been about what we belief actually.
EDIT: Alright, slow posting means more I missed. I think Joey reiterated possibly the most important thing that's been said in this topic, which I've tried to say, and that is the need to question faith, not to destroy it but to get a better understanding of things in which to base your faith on, otherwise all you have is blind faith.
As for Joeys sweeping generalisation that atheists don't understand evolution, I'd obviously say I disagree, being an atheist myself, and personally I believe I have a very good understanding of evolution. I still don't see what you have against natural selection though, nor do I see how evolution fits in with intelligent design in anyway short of the intelligent design merely being the universe being created and life evolved seperately. Evolution is a mindless process which steadily "improves" species to their habitat, involving no intelligence whatsoever.
And finally the religion/war thing is a tough subject to get into. Yes religion has caused many wars, but would there have been less wars without religion? Who knows, people may have found other things to fight over. Religious people often counter the argument by saying that there have been numerous "athiests" in the past who have killed lots of religious people because of their religious believes, and I believe often finger out Stalin, but I don't know enough on the subject to comment, but I don't think it's a very strong argument against religion, as it isn't logically "proving" religions wrong, but merely saying they're bad.
It's not that we're trying to disprove God using science, I guess what we're trying to do is prove that there are scientific answers for some of the reasons people believe in God, filling in all the gaps as it were. As you say we will never know everything, no, and so there will always be gaps, but the more you fill in those gaps, the more religious people have to fall back onto another reason for believing in God, until you realise, maybe, there is a scientific answer for everything, we just haven't found it yet.
It's a difficult subject to word to keep everyone happy, in fact I'd go as far as to say you can't discuss it keeping everyone happy, no matter what you say someone will think you're being arrogant or offensive or something else. Sometimes I've thought you sounded a little "know-it-all", but I've tried to look for what I think you're trying to convey rather than dwelling on how you said it.
As for being worse than Sam, hmm, I'm not sure you truely believe that. It's the case of action against no-action, which I believe Christianity itself teaches. I think if you can't question your faith then why have faith in it. I am questioning my "faith" in that I read into the subject to try and garner better understanding of the matters at hand to see how they fit in with the way i think the world works and how they do or don't fit in with other beliefs.
As for the quote "I have VERY rarely put forward my own views here, because they are irrelevant.", I believe this whole topic has been about what we belief actually.
EDIT: Alright, slow posting means more I missed. I think Joey reiterated possibly the most important thing that's been said in this topic, which I've tried to say, and that is the need to question faith, not to destroy it but to get a better understanding of things in which to base your faith on, otherwise all you have is blind faith.
As for Joeys sweeping generalisation that atheists don't understand evolution, I'd obviously say I disagree, being an atheist myself, and personally I believe I have a very good understanding of evolution. I still don't see what you have against natural selection though, nor do I see how evolution fits in with intelligent design in anyway short of the intelligent design merely being the universe being created and life evolved seperately. Evolution is a mindless process which steadily "improves" species to their habitat, involving no intelligence whatsoever.
And finally the religion/war thing is a tough subject to get into. Yes religion has caused many wars, but would there have been less wars without religion? Who knows, people may have found other things to fight over. Religious people often counter the argument by saying that there have been numerous "athiests" in the past who have killed lots of religious people because of their religious believes, and I believe often finger out Stalin, but I don't know enough on the subject to comment, but I don't think it's a very strong argument against religion, as it isn't logically "proving" religions wrong, but merely saying they're bad.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
My "beliefs" are boring. That's why they are irrelevant. I can argue both ways not out of confusion, but out of not being a twat.
Unless you know the opposing answer, it's hard to argue against it. I've taken the time to listen and learn those answers, not just from Christians... But Muslims, and I would other religions had I access to "normal" everyday people who follow them.
No one wants to listen if all you can do is go "but sciencesciencescience" or "butgodjesusallah". If you bend a little and take notice in what the other is saying, you get a lot better response.
There's some really cool ideas and examples of people not being outrageously fundamentalist. Like Brian's suggestion that Adam and Eve could have been early members of the homo genus. Could be.
There are also examples of sheer stupidity and simple lack of thought. One thing that has always amused me is that God created and separated light and dark on the first day... But the Sun wasn't created until the 4th day... The moon is also described as light giving. And the rest of the stars are described as being lesser than the Sun.
EDIT:
But It doesn't HAVE to be mindless to make some sort of sense.
I'm intelligent (harhar) and I create things. The things I create are the product of intelligent design. If i create something, It's often not perfect. I'm only human. So I need to keep evolving my creation. But even if I was a perfect (God), my perfection would only be suitable for the now. We know that the world and the environment changes. If I changed the environment, I'd need to change what was perfection for it to. A good example of how intelligent design and evolution can co-exist is demonstrated (rather childishly, but it's brilliant!) in the game Spore.
God influenced evolution isn't a very outrageous idea, at all. In fact, it explains the lack of fossil evidence for the "millions of transitional stages" that Darwin himself said would be required to prove evolution. My only argument against it is the world is FAR from perfect... As are the creatures in it. The "delicate balance" doesn't exist. And there's no reason God wouldn't make perfection.
In the Qur'an, however, it's nearly entirely GOD will punish you AFTER you die.
I know what I'd prefer. And what makes more sense.
Unless you know the opposing answer, it's hard to argue against it. I've taken the time to listen and learn those answers, not just from Christians... But Muslims, and I would other religions had I access to "normal" everyday people who follow them.
No one wants to listen if all you can do is go "but sciencesciencescience" or "butgodjesusallah". If you bend a little and take notice in what the other is saying, you get a lot better response.
There's some really cool ideas and examples of people not being outrageously fundamentalist. Like Brian's suggestion that Adam and Eve could have been early members of the homo genus. Could be.
There are also examples of sheer stupidity and simple lack of thought. One thing that has always amused me is that God created and separated light and dark on the first day... But the Sun wasn't created until the 4th day... The moon is also described as light giving. And the rest of the stars are described as being lesser than the Sun.
EDIT:
I have no problem with natural selection. I accept the "mindless process" as you so correctly put it.
But It doesn't HAVE to be mindless to make some sort of sense.
I'm intelligent (harhar) and I create things. The things I create are the product of intelligent design. If i create something, It's often not perfect. I'm only human. So I need to keep evolving my creation. But even if I was a perfect (God), my perfection would only be suitable for the now. We know that the world and the environment changes. If I changed the environment, I'd need to change what was perfection for it to. A good example of how intelligent design and evolution can co-exist is demonstrated (rather childishly, but it's brilliant!) in the game Spore.
God influenced evolution isn't a very outrageous idea, at all. In fact, it explains the lack of fossil evidence for the "millions of transitional stages" that Darwin himself said would be required to prove evolution. My only argument against it is the world is FAR from perfect... As are the creatures in it. The "delicate balance" doesn't exist. And there's no reason God wouldn't make perfection.
It's interesting to point out that in the Bible (primarily Old Testament, but such things are not free from the New Testament) violence is directed at living people very often. There is a a lot of suggestive remarks as if God is asking his people to kill other people (because they are gay, witches, non-believers, etc) and a lot of horrible violent things brought onto his people by God himself. (And before we get into a New/Old Testament debate, Jesus accepted and fully agreed with everything God did/asked of his people in the Old Testament - he even pointed out that the old laws are NOT to be forgotten and he was there to enforce them a couple of times).
In the Qur'an, however, it's nearly entirely GOD will punish you AFTER you die.
I know what I'd prefer. And what makes more sense.
Bitter
Mega Poster
Lol, I hope that's not subtly calling me a twat there 
. Like I say, I completely agree you should know both sides to the argument, and I hope that I haven't come across as completely ignorant to what religious people believe. Having discussed this alot and read a decent amount into it I do know what most of their beliefs are, the only reason I haven't posted arguments from both sides is that's what you're doing.
As for the thought that "Adam" and "eve" could be early members of the homo genus, they can logically trace all the human species back to 2 theoretical ancestors yes, and as a bit of a joke i fear, they labeled these 2 beings as Adam and Eve. The thing most people get confused about in evolution, which I'm not suggesting you are, is the idea of "There have been a finite number of mammals, but also every mammal must have be born of mammal, so how did the first mammal get there?", and the "answer", or as I'm sure you'd prefere the "leading theory", is a process of "gradualism", again a topic discussed by one Dan Dennett.
EDIT: We really need to stop replying in edit form lol.
Yes the old testament is certainly a funny one, and this is a subject Sam Harris explores more fully, especially in THIS debate with Rabbi David Wolpe. Having not read the Qur'an, I can't comment for sure, but I'm not sure it's as innocent as you make it out to be, though this may again be down to people misinterpreting it to justify violence rather than the book itself encouraging it.
Oh yes, also I can't WAIT for Spore! It looks amazing. One thing I'd argue against your idea of intelligent design fitting into evolution is that if god IS perfect, then why didn't he create perfection initially, rather than having to evolve and change the environment and therefore the species too. Plus this suggests that the evolutions which cause animals to evolve are not random, but are encouraged by God. I think to suggest that evolution is moved along by an intelligent being nullifies the whole idea of evolution, and is part of the trickle-down theory of thought that everything must have a maker because everything man-made has a maker.
. Like I say, I completely agree you should know both sides to the argument, and I hope that I haven't come across as completely ignorant to what religious people believe. Having discussed this alot and read a decent amount into it I do know what most of their beliefs are, the only reason I haven't posted arguments from both sides is that's what you're doing.As for the thought that "Adam" and "eve" could be early members of the homo genus, they can logically trace all the human species back to 2 theoretical ancestors yes, and as a bit of a joke i fear, they labeled these 2 beings as Adam and Eve. The thing most people get confused about in evolution, which I'm not suggesting you are, is the idea of "There have been a finite number of mammals, but also every mammal must have be born of mammal, so how did the first mammal get there?", and the "answer", or as I'm sure you'd prefere the "leading theory", is a process of "gradualism", again a topic discussed by one Dan Dennett.
EDIT: We really need to stop replying in edit form lol.
Yes the old testament is certainly a funny one, and this is a subject Sam Harris explores more fully, especially in THIS debate with Rabbi David Wolpe. Having not read the Qur'an, I can't comment for sure, but I'm not sure it's as innocent as you make it out to be, though this may again be down to people misinterpreting it to justify violence rather than the book itself encouraging it.
Oh yes, also I can't WAIT for Spore! It looks amazing. One thing I'd argue against your idea of intelligent design fitting into evolution is that if god IS perfect, then why didn't he create perfection initially, rather than having to evolve and change the environment and therefore the species too. Plus this suggests that the evolutions which cause animals to evolve are not random, but are encouraged by God. I think to suggest that evolution is moved along by an intelligent being nullifies the whole idea of evolution, and is part of the trickle-down theory of thought that everything must have a maker because everything man-made has a maker.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Indeed. There are many animals alive today which are sitting comfortably between definitions of mammal, fish, reptile, bird, etc.
Knuckles says...
"I have the reproductive system that is the cross between that of birds/reptiles and mammals! Yes, I poop, wee and reproduce though the SAME opening like a bird. We lay eggs like a bird, but I'm a mammal! I have no nipples, but my lady friends feed their hatchings milk from modified sweat glans and we have a pouch like a kangaroo!"
Echidnas are part of a group of animals called monotremes, which are a very limited variety of mammal. They are evidence of a link between reptiles and mammals. The left over, modern equivalents, of a way of life that clearly wasn't all that successful. The successful birds, reptiles and mammals are plentiful - but the "transition" clearly was not.
A group of reptiles, which includes the famous Dimetrodon (see below, I'm sure everyone will recognize that "dinosaur"), called pelycosaurs. These reptiles were mammal-like in bone structure. Dimetrodon was not a dinosaur, or even an archosaur.
Also, birds and crocodiles are part of the same group. Called archosaurs. (which is what true dinosaurs were) But EVERYONE knows that, right? ;]
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
No.
Aside the examples I gave, can you provide any which back up the point of;
It's actually irrelevant if we agree or not. My point is you seem like all you do is read what other people think. I can't see any examples of you understanding because you've looked or thought about something for yourself.
Do you see my point?
If I was going to go about "convincing" someone of evolution, I wouldn't refer them to the teachings of other people. Firstly, because I don't give a fart and secondly because I have my own evidence which I have seen and "experienced" myself. I thus understand it better... and have more examples to provide.
Aside the examples I gave, can you provide any which back up the point of;
Because all you seem to be doing, is referring to other people's discussions.
It's actually irrelevant if we agree or not. My point is you seem like all you do is read what other people think. I can't see any examples of you understanding because you've looked or thought about something for yourself.
Do you see my point?
If I was going to go about "convincing" someone of evolution, I wouldn't refer them to the teachings of other people. Firstly, because I don't give a fart and secondly because I have my own evidence which I have seen and "experienced" myself. I thus understand it better... and have more examples to provide.
Bitter
Mega Poster
Erm, no. I think that's a silly point sorry. Of course I'm reffering to other people, as everyone gets their knowledge from somewhere. Yes they put their own spin on it, but often that's not the best way. The best way to learn is through experts in the field of course, and all I'm doing is reffering you to where I get my knowledge from. This isn't to say I haven't thought about what they're saying and digested and understood it, I'm merely pointing people to things I found interesting and learned from.
Have you ever written a professional report in your life? They are full of references to other peoples work, because this is how knowledge is furthered, not through just sitting there and thinking about stuff, by learning from others and expanding what's already known. I dare say these people know far more about this subject than you or I ever will, and that's why it's far better to hear their arguments than ours.
If you don't agree with that then.... ???
Have you ever written a professional report in your life? They are full of references to other peoples work, because this is how knowledge is furthered, not through just sitting there and thinking about stuff, by learning from others and expanding what's already known. I dare say these people know far more about this subject than you or I ever will, and that's why it's far better to hear their arguments than ours.
If you don't agree with that then.... ???
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Of coruse I do.
But unless you're able to demonstrate and show the evidence itself, and not just regurgitate someone else's waffle, then I'm not convinced you have a true, personal and legitimate understanding.
Knowledge, is personal. One should be able to find their own evidence for things. Not be told about it.
I'm not suggesting I've "discovered" things. :lol:
But I'm just curious if you can provide evidence without referring to some old fart's findings. Because I can.
I'm not rendering reading their stuff pointless. Not at all. I'm just saying do you ...know, anything about the world other than what you've read in "science" books? Are you incapable of seeing things and "investigating" them in your own personal way?
With something like evolution, you don't need to even have a grasp on bloody genetics to see it's blinding fact! :lol:
Proving evolution is another thing entirely. But there's plenty of evidence just right there in front of everyone's eyes.
I'm just wondering if you take note of anything that's not written down in a science book.
But unless you're able to demonstrate and show the evidence itself, and not just regurgitate someone else's waffle, then I'm not convinced you have a true, personal and legitimate understanding.
Knowledge, is personal. One should be able to find their own evidence for things. Not be told about it.
I'm not suggesting I've "discovered" things. :lol:
But I'm just curious if you can provide evidence without referring to some old fart's findings. Because I can.
I'm not rendering reading their stuff pointless. Not at all. I'm just saying do you ...know, anything about the world other than what you've read in "science" books? Are you incapable of seeing things and "investigating" them in your own personal way?
With something like evolution, you don't need to even have a grasp on bloody genetics to see it's blinding fact! :lol:
Proving evolution is another thing entirely. But there's plenty of evidence just right there in front of everyone's eyes.
I'm just wondering if you take note of anything that's not written down in a science book.
^You seem like an intelligent person, but I have to say you're coming across as being a bit crackers :lol: Providing evidence of evolution without referring to anyone else's work or ideas is a rather tough ask, and I don't see how that provides understanding. If you read every single available piece of evidence available regarding evolution I'd say you'll have a far better understanding of it than if you conducted your own single piece of isolated research.
Unless I misunderstand you, but you are coming across as a bit scattergun.
Has anyone read Life of Pi by the way? Very good book, and I think it contains a very good point about atheists being believers too, how ever much we might like to think we are super-analytical belief busters. And going back a bit, South Park (of all people) did a good episode illustrating that if people didn't have religion to divide them, they'd just find some other excuse to kill each other. So I don't necessarily buy this 'religion causes war' argument.
Unless I misunderstand you, but you are coming across as a bit scattergun.
Has anyone read Life of Pi by the way? Very good book, and I think it contains a very good point about atheists being believers too, how ever much we might like to think we are super-analytical belief busters. And going back a bit, South Park (of all people) did a good episode illustrating that if people didn't have religion to divide them, they'd just find some other excuse to kill each other. So I don't necessarily buy this 'religion causes war' argument.
Bitter
Mega Poster
I have to somewhat agree with TarkaTrax, in that to be honest I'm not entirely sure what you're even getting at. Yes I make up my mind on things not in science... it's called being alive and making decisions. But very rarely do you just see raw evidence of stuff or stumble across it, short of actually going out into the world and looking for it, which is going to take alot of time and money.
All of your evidence that you've gathered, as you say yourself you haven't discovered, it's been presented to you somewhere along the line and you're simply regurgitating it. Maybe I'm being lazy not presenting the evidence myself, but simply referring you to it's original source, but I also think it has more of an impact coming from a professional in the field.
As for do I know anything about the world I haven't read in a science book. If you extend that to say do I know anything I haven't been taught, then I would honestly say probably not, or at least very little, and I couldn't think of something off the top of my head, because that's how you learn stuff, you get taught it and learn it. The way this knowledge is furthered isn't by people just thinking stuff up out of the blue because of things they've seen, but by furthering and building on top of existing ideas taking into account experience they may have garnered.
I have heard of that book TarkaTrax, but haven't read it nor know what it's really about, I'll look into it, sounds interesting. And while those South Park episodes were hilarious, I personally felt that they were mocking what religious people say too by saying that we will simply fight over atheism, as well as mocking the people that say without religion there'd be no conflict.
All of your evidence that you've gathered, as you say yourself you haven't discovered, it's been presented to you somewhere along the line and you're simply regurgitating it. Maybe I'm being lazy not presenting the evidence myself, but simply referring you to it's original source, but I also think it has more of an impact coming from a professional in the field.
As for do I know anything about the world I haven't read in a science book. If you extend that to say do I know anything I haven't been taught, then I would honestly say probably not, or at least very little, and I couldn't think of something off the top of my head, because that's how you learn stuff, you get taught it and learn it. The way this knowledge is furthered isn't by people just thinking stuff up out of the blue because of things they've seen, but by furthering and building on top of existing ideas taking into account experience they may have garnered.
I have heard of that book TarkaTrax, but haven't read it nor know what it's really about, I'll look into it, sounds interesting. And while those South Park episodes were hilarious, I personally felt that they were mocking what religious people say too by saying that we will simply fight over atheism, as well as mocking the people that say without religion there'd be no conflict.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Maybe I wasn't being clear.
Lets take some examples.
No one had to teach me that...
Because I'm not ...retarded. I was interested enough to see the comparison myself. I don't have a CLUE what any of those bones are called, nor do I really care. I got a C in science. I struggle to retain facts. But it's blindingly obvious that the bones I've coloured accordingly are the same ones just by looking. If somones gone out of their way to prove it, bloody good for them, what a waste of time. And it amuses me to think that when ladies walk around in high heals. They are walking like dogs. HarHarHar.
When somone told me "wow, did you know horses walk on their nails??" I was like. Well, yes, what did you think they were walking on?
Australia is enough evidence for me of evolution.
Australia has got some really weird animals. In fact, I'd go as far to assume that all indigenous animals of Australia are unique to the continent.
Whilst I had to be told that Australia broke off from the supercontinent first, It's obvious to link that with all the strange fauna. These are creatures that have been isolated and evolved down a lonely path with a limited Gene pool. Making them unusual.
and the fauna there which is not unique, can be explained by a 5 year old.
I was looking through a dog breeds book one day and noticed that many breeds of Japanese Dog look like dingos. OH I WONDER WHY. Because people took them there, quite obviously. And they became ferral.
Am I seriously the only person who "notices" stuff like this?
Yes, it's intially allbased on somone else's knowledge. But I went looking for it. I didn't sit there, read a book... and go "oh, so THATS how it happened". :roll:
Lets take some examples.
No one had to teach me that...
Because I'm not ...retarded. I was interested enough to see the comparison myself. I don't have a CLUE what any of those bones are called, nor do I really care. I got a C in science. I struggle to retain facts. But it's blindingly obvious that the bones I've coloured accordingly are the same ones just by looking. If somones gone out of their way to prove it, bloody good for them, what a waste of time. And it amuses me to think that when ladies walk around in high heals. They are walking like dogs. HarHarHar.
When somone told me "wow, did you know horses walk on their nails??" I was like. Well, yes, what did you think they were walking on?
Australia is enough evidence for me of evolution.
Australia has got some really weird animals. In fact, I'd go as far to assume that all indigenous animals of Australia are unique to the continent.
Whilst I had to be told that Australia broke off from the supercontinent first, It's obvious to link that with all the strange fauna. These are creatures that have been isolated and evolved down a lonely path with a limited Gene pool. Making them unusual.
and the fauna there which is not unique, can be explained by a 5 year old.
I was looking through a dog breeds book one day and noticed that many breeds of Japanese Dog look like dingos. OH I WONDER WHY. Because people took them there, quite obviously. And they became ferral.
Am I seriously the only person who "notices" stuff like this?
Yes, it's intially allbased on somone else's knowledge. But I went looking for it. I didn't sit there, read a book... and go "oh, so THATS how it happened". :roll:
Bitter
Mega Poster
You raise an interesting point. Yes of course i believe everyone looks at things and tries to work out why, or what, or how. Again no examples personally come to mind, but I'm not really trying to think of any. I think the big... "problem" as it were, is that you say "Yes... of course i knew that because I can see it and it's obvious" about whatever it is, but you would say the same thing if you had come to a different, and incorrect, conclusion. You may think something is obvious, and many of them may be correct, however evidence and proof are the key things missing before you KNOW them to be correct. Proving our feet are anatomically similar to dogs feet is not a waste of time at all, but is a contribution to the proof of evolution, common ancestry and natural selection. You may have picked out examples of where you've thought about things and later been proven right, can you think of any where you've thought about something and been proven wrong? I'm sure you're not arrogant enough to think everything you've ever thought of and thought of as correct has been proved so?
Yes you're coming up with your own solutions to problems you see, this is what people do naturally, but you then back up and validate those ideas by looking at further evidence presented by other people as well as other ideas presented by other people, and this has been what alot of our discussion has been about already. You may have thought it obvious that our feet are similar to dogs, but until someone proved it and provided evidence, you didn't KNOW, you just assumed. By presenting these "old farts" ideas, and then referring to them to provide the evidence to back up said claims doesn't mean I don't come up with ideas of my own, it just means I've looked into it and found more knowledge than simply my initial thought.
Yes you're coming up with your own solutions to problems you see, this is what people do naturally, but you then back up and validate those ideas by looking at further evidence presented by other people as well as other ideas presented by other people, and this has been what alot of our discussion has been about already. You may have thought it obvious that our feet are similar to dogs, but until someone proved it and provided evidence, you didn't KNOW, you just assumed. By presenting these "old farts" ideas, and then referring to them to provide the evidence to back up said claims doesn't mean I don't come up with ideas of my own, it just means I've looked into it and found more knowledge than simply my initial thought.
^What?! People posting differing opinions and arguing about them?! On Coasterforce?! Surely not...
Seriously, these boards would be dead if everyone took that point of view.
Joey, I see what you mean now, but in a way that's still your interpretation of what you see. A religious person could come up with conclusions that support their idea of a God having designed dogs and humans based on their similarity (or something along those lines). So evolution might seem obvious to you from what you've seen, but not to everyone else. So the old fuddy duddies who spend years proving that the bones in the feet of dogs and humans equate to each other are actually useful and necessary.
I can't remember who it was right now, might have been Hyde, might have been Joey again actually, who said something about evolution being God's work based on creating perfection at the time, for a certain situation, but then having to re-perfect it as time progressed and circumstances changed. I can't see that logic myself - surely if a God is as powerful as one might expect, he can keep circumstances the same? He can design creatures and humans that are perfect now and forever, as he would surely know what the future holds? Doesn't seem (to me) to really live up to the title of being a god otherwise.
Seriously, these boards would be dead if everyone took that point of view.
Joey, I see what you mean now, but in a way that's still your interpretation of what you see. A religious person could come up with conclusions that support their idea of a God having designed dogs and humans based on their similarity (or something along those lines). So evolution might seem obvious to you from what you've seen, but not to everyone else. So the old fuddy duddies who spend years proving that the bones in the feet of dogs and humans equate to each other are actually useful and necessary.
I can't remember who it was right now, might have been Hyde, might have been Joey again actually, who said something about evolution being God's work based on creating perfection at the time, for a certain situation, but then having to re-perfect it as time progressed and circumstances changed. I can't see that logic myself - surely if a God is as powerful as one might expect, he can keep circumstances the same? He can design creatures and humans that are perfect now and forever, as he would surely know what the future holds? Doesn't seem (to me) to really live up to the title of being a god otherwise.
Bitter
Mega Poster
A very valid point, and one I agree with.
It was Joey who said it initially, only offered as a counter suggestion, not something he agrees with, but doesn't mean its not worth rebutting.
Wat you say also ties in with what i said about proving the feet bones not being a "waste of time".
I do agree we've somewhat strayed from the topic a little bit, hijacked it if you will. But then it's an interesting topic, we're not flaming and are having an intelligent discussion roughly related to the topic at hand, and there's no where else for it, so I don't really see the problem.
Bitter said:
It was Joey who said it initially, only offered as a counter suggestion, not something he agrees with, but doesn't mean its not worth rebutting.
Wat you say also ties in with what i said about proving the feet bones not being a "waste of time".
I do agree we've somewhat strayed from the topic a little bit, hijacked it if you will. But then it's an interesting topic, we're not flaming and are having an intelligent discussion roughly related to the topic at hand, and there's no where else for it, so I don't really see the problem.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
I explained how intellegent design and evolution work alongside seamlessly with art and Spore. But I'll go on to explain further...
God's creatures aren't perfect. He didn't make them perfect. If they were perfect they could cope with ANYthing he threw at them. We can't! Not us, not the ant, not a blue whale. We're all mortal, all imperfect. Unlike God. Even Angels aren't perfect.
As we know from looking at the world and it's many inhabitants, different things live in different places. This is because their attributes suite their enviroment. If a Christian dismisses 24 literal days, in favour of the seemingly more logical "periods of time", or simply takes it as metaphorical to fit millions of years into creation, then one assumes they will take the seperation of the supercontinent as fact (because if you cannot see that we all fit together like a giant jigsaw, then there is no hope for you left - although since some hardcore creationists dismiss millions of years through the great flood, etc, even if they thought the world was 6000MYO I don't think it excludes the movement of the continents? I should see what the guys behind the creationist museum have to say.).
If God made everything, he tipped the earth just how he wanted and placed the sun just far enough away to produce a world with variety. That's some sort of logic, surely?
As he moved everything around over the generally accepted millions of years, he would have changed the animals to suite.
Evidence of such? The extinction of species long before humans came along. Why did the dinosaurs die out, for example? God must have chosen to change the environment, for whatever reason. Maybe God was testing his lifeforms? Maybe God was killing them off because out of free will they weren't suitable? I don't know, because I'm not God. It doesn't matter anyway. But if God has changed the environment, constantly, throughout history - whys it so hard to see he'd have to change creatures too?
Oh hell yeah, :lol: there are tonnes of those! But In this day and age, when Google knows everything any man has ever even thought (or ****ed) about - I can have a thought and go "check" it.
For example - races of people, how the hell did we end up with (at one point) such distinctive separation of appearances!? I can't think of any other creatures which show this sort of "natural" divide.
Although I think it's NO coincidence that, again back to Australia, the aboriginal people look the most "strange" compared to the rest of man kind. They look the most distinctively different.
It's also no coincidence that the people native to the Americas look very East Asian.
But race is a very tippy toe, poncy round the edges, scared to say anything, subject. And I can't find anything conclusive to suggest why we all look so distinctive.
My conclusion, off my own back, has been that because we are so successful... Taking over most of the planet and setting up home there. We've isolated ourselves more distinctly than most, if not all, other creatures. And we've done it over a very tight period of time. Such an act would, in theory, over MOA produce evolution - but because we're not much into breeding super people because it's offencive, we just mate with whatever we can get. :lol: Then it begs the question - are "races" similar to "breeds". But I can't find an answer anywhere.
It's important to point out that not only beneficial attributes get passed on via the process of evolution. Hindering characteristics go along too. There are many species who "rape" females that do not "belong" to them. Weaklings who, behind an alpha males back, get in there and try their luck. There are also examples of when hindering attributes get passed along with beneficial ones. The best example is how ridiculous humans are because of our huge brain. We've made childbirth a, more than usual with other mammals, painful experience. If hindering characteristics are REALLY badly hindering, it's unlikely the species will thrive... Entire groups of animals, throughout history at different times, have had different levels of success. Mammals weren't doing too well at the time of the dinosaurs, but something changed, yet now we REIGN SUPERIOOOOR!
Did you have the initial thought? Or did you just come across it because you read something authorative? Becasuse, that's what it looks like.
Bitter
Mega Poster
I'm not saying I came up with the same ideas these guys came up with no. Im saying I might've had an initial thought on the subject which prompted me to explore the subject more, and upon seeing the evidence presented by people far more knowledgeable on the subject than me, and after listening to their explanations and reasonings maybe agree with them.
I'm not even really sure of your point anymore. There's nothing wrong with referring people to experts on the subject. Even if I didn't know anything about it, it's still worth mentioning where people can find people that do know something about it.
And the reason we don't think that God story is logical is because if God is perfect and almighty there's no need for him to change the surroundings as he could have created them perfectly in the first place for all eternity. I think the fact that the environment does change, and that we know the Earth will eventually be consumed by the Sun is somewhat evidence to the contrary. Either God isn't perfect, or he's a fickle bastard.
I'm not even really sure of your point anymore. There's nothing wrong with referring people to experts on the subject. Even if I didn't know anything about it, it's still worth mentioning where people can find people that do know something about it.
And the reason we don't think that God story is logical is because if God is perfect and almighty there's no need for him to change the surroundings as he could have created them perfectly in the first place for all eternity. I think the fact that the environment does change, and that we know the Earth will eventually be consumed by the Sun is somewhat evidence to the contrary. Either God isn't perfect, or he's a fickle bastard.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
If, as the Bible suggests, we were created in his image - one has to question what "image" means.
Physical description(unlikley!), ability (obvious not)... or mental abilities?
I'd say the last is the most logical out of the illogical options, wouldn't you? Because his love and hate is described in the bible and it is generally accepted that we stand apart from animals because of our... erm, expression, I guess? because God put something special into us. Even in Islam, which does not accept that God made man in his image (because Allah is almighty and there is nothing even comparable to him), It's noted that he has feeling and expression. Whatever the case, humans DO experience something more than most (if not all) other life forms (that we know about) on a cognitive level of intelligence. (Although it's obvious there are and have been other animals with comparable ability in this department to our own, which is evidence of evolution... Or that God made all creatures in his image.)
And God being a almighty creator, can do however he pleases! God is seen as a decision making being and is a creator. If he feels love, hate and other emotions... S'only logical to assume he gets bored and "changes" his mind about things he's created.
In short, God is an artist.
Oh as if I even have one. I'm being a right arty twat and "getting you to think about things" with little purpose for doing so.