[gristle]

If you claim you are hungry, how would I actually know this for sure? I'm not you, so the best I can do is to simply believe what you say. Otherwise I have no direct knowledge of either your hunger, your personal sensation of hunger, or if you are deceiving me.

If I say I am enjoying this thread, you can either take my word for it or not. You will never know my exact feelings - as I am experiencing them - on this subject.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't see why it can't be both. A divine being creating the universe, and then natural selection and evolution taking over from there. As a religious person myself, I like the idea of a divine being, and have a degree of faith, but that doesn't mean I reject evolution. Indeed, we see evolution all around us in humanity, weaker humans die off from cancers and other disease, in many cases before having children, while those of us that are more robustly built live on to breed and continue humanity. I see no reason why it can't be both divine and evolution.

 

[wonderboy416]

I don't see why it can't be both. A divine being creating the universe, and then natural selection and evolution taking over from there. As a religious person myself, I like the idea of a divine being, and have a degree of faith, but that doesn't mean I reject evolution. Indeed, we see evolution all around us in humanity, weaker humans die off from cancers and other disease, in many cases before having children, while those of us that are more robustly built live on to breed and continue humanity. I see no reason why it can't be both divine and evolution.

Do you believe that humans were the intended outcome of evolution then? Do you believe that this divine being "planted a few seeds" in the form of simple structures which would then evolve into all of the life we have today?
This idea is grossly incompatible with the evolutionary process. Evolution is blind, it does not work towards any specific features, it is simply driven by genetic variance which aids the survival of a species. It's not like the first bird had a small bump where the feathers would grow, and then over the course of thousands of generations it turned into a feather as if that was the intended outcome. The fact that natural selection is driven by genetic variance which occurs by chance rules out any possibility of design.

It seems as if it's a comforting thought to accept evolution (as it's fact) and a divine being (something people are usually indoctrinated into believing into as a small child).
If you think about it rationally, no creator could have planned our very existence. That's not to say there isn't a divine being, but it is incredibly naive to think that this huge, expansive universe was created just for us, or that we're even important to such a creator who obviously only thought so much of us as to make a simple organisms and let things happen as they may.

 

[GenerationW]

Evolution is blind, it does not work towards any specific features, it is simply driven by genetic variance which aids the survival of a species.

Of course it works towards specific features -- those which tend to lead to survival. Evolution cannot be blind, or at least totally blind. There's more to it than chance or blind luck.

Granted, there are some extremely optimistic astronomers out there who I used as the basis of my 99% figure. Every time we peer into a star closely enough we see a wobble which symbolizes the gravitational pull of surrounding planets. With our limited technology, when given a closer look we've detected planets at almost every star where the conditions are present for us to detect them. That's not to say that there aren't false positives or planet-less stars... If you calculate the probability of billions of stars with each one surrounded by at least a couple of planets... you'd be hard pressed not to think there'd be something, even if it's just a single cell structure out there. Oil companies are willing to invest millions on large oil rigs going on far shakier data and assumptions in some instances (not all).

Whether billions, trillions, or gazillions of stars, it remains that there is no widely accepted scientific evidence. Until there is more than just pollyanna speculations, I see a bigger chance of building large cities on Antarctica.

I find it hard to believe oil companies spend millions on oil rigs if there is only a minuscule chance of finding oil.

Sure, and there's tons of people that read their horoscopes, seek homepathic based cures, have their fortune told etc etc... that doesn't make it legitimate.

Not to me, but it's legitimate to those who believe. And those who have very deeply held views may have the same opinion about you as you have about them. One man's ridicule can be another man's reason.

But can you prove that atheism was a motivating cause? It's yet to be done.
One only needs to open up a newspaper to see the travesty that religion is still causing on a daily basis

I'm not sure what would prove an A to B connection, except to say that explicit atheism was a major tenet of communism, and that communists almost consistently committed mass atrocities. Communism posited that man was perfectible by his fellow man, and when one was not deemed perfectible, or refused to live in the new eden under communist ideals, one was judged to be worthless and thus became expendable. Atheism, under the communist system at least, was certainly at complete odds with the views on the individual espoused by the Orthodox Christianity that communism replaced in the Soviet world.

Then again, after reading the last few pages of this thread I'm not sure anyone can prove anything.

And I can't prove the last sentence.

And I can't prove the last sentence, etc., etc. etc.

 

[wonderboy416]

Of course it works towards specific features -- those which tend to lead to survival. Evolution cannot be blind, or at least totally blind. There's more to it than chance or blind luck.

Evolution is totally blind, that's not to say it doesn't have a purpose, it does as I have outlined many times in this thread, survival. However the process itself is completely blind. Genetic variance occurs out of pure chance, when such variations aid the survival of the species they are retained. It's that simple, perhaps you should read Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Creationists will often argue that something as complex as a watch could not have come about by chance, there for humans could not have either. Dawkins demonstrates why that is a flawed argument in his book. Your own ideas about evolution seem to be confused.

Whether billions, trillions, or gazillions of stars, it remains that there is no widely accepted scientific evidence. Until there is more than just pollyanna speculations, I see a bigger chance of building large cities on Antarctica.

I find it hard to believe oil companies spend millions on oil rigs if there is only a minuscule chance of finding oil.

That's fair, your values would lead me to believe that you're completely agnostic, as there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports any of the various religions being true either... there's far more evidence to suggest that life outside of earth is possible. As for the oil rigs, yes oil companies have been burned massively by speculative drilling, they've also been rewarded as well.

Not to me, but it's legitimate to those who believe. And those who have very deeply held views may have the same opinion about you as you have about them. One man's ridicule can be another man's reason.

How can pseudo science be reasoned other than the obvious placebo/comforting elements?
Like religion, most pseudo science preys on the vulnerability of its clients.

I'm not sure what would prove an A to B connection, except to say that explicit atheism was a major tenet of communism, and that communists almost consistently committed mass atrocities. Communism posited that man was perfectible by his fellow man, and when one was not deemed perfectible, or refused to live in the new eden under communist ideals, one was judged to be worthless and thus became expendable. Atheism, under the communist system at least, was certainly at complete odds with the views on the individual espoused by the Orthodox Christianity that communism replaced in the Soviet world.

You've proven nothing with your statement.
Atheism cannot be directly attributed to any massacre...
Religion can be connected to numerous killings on a daily basis all throughout history.

It's ironic how Christains use the term evil to often describe those who do not believe what they do, the term should apply to their god (and thus them) if any of their rubbish is to be taken as true. God encourages slavery, selling daughters, stoning neighbours (and children) to death, killing non-believers, demanding an intense amount of worship... If this guy were real he'd be burned at the stake... oh wait.

 

[ganjavih]

It's kind of silly that you guys are having such a vigorous argument over two things, neither of which can be proven entirely: evolution and creation. A couple of comments, evolution is theory, not fact. Defending it as an infallible truth is misguided, even if it is the best scientific theory we have so far. Secondly, insulting the beliefs of others should not be tolerated on this forum. There are people here who have religious beliefs, and they don't need to be exposed to ridicule for believing their "rubbish".

 

[cacruden]

^ Well said.... I agree....

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

It's kind of silly that you guys are having such a vigorous argument over two things, neither of which can be proven entirely: evolution and creation. A couple of comments, evolution is theory, not fact. Defending it as an infallible truth is misguided, even if it is the best scientific theory we have so far. Secondly, insulting the beliefs of others should not be tolerated on this forum. There are people here who have religious beliefs, and they don't need to be exposed to ridicule for believing their "rubbish".

in a scientific sense, a theory is an explanation. a theory can never be a fact because a theory is made up of facts. facts alone don't do anything. facts are just pieces of evidence like a fossil and where it was found for example.

we should also be careful about the insulting beliefs part. we might not be able to comment on anything because anyone can be insulted or offended by something. religion is a big part of our society and is responsible for many decisions within it that impact everyone. it should never be above criticism. we criticize all kinds of people's beliefs on this forum, be it political, architectural, etc.

 

[wonderboy416]

It's kind of silly that you guys are having such a vigorous argument over two things, neither of which can be proven entirely: evolution and creation. A couple of comments, evolution is theory, not fact. Defending it as an infallible truth is misguided, even if it is the best scientific theory we have so far. Secondly, insulting the beliefs of others should not be tolerated on this forum. There are people here who have religious beliefs, and they don't need to be exposed to ridicule for believing their "rubbish".

The theory of evolution is in actuality, a fact. It's ignorant to state otherwise. What is debated is the mechanisms of evolution. Almost every piece of literature I have read on the subject goes into detail explaining how most people misunderstand the use of the word theory in science. Evolution can and has been proven, creation is unlikely to ever be proven or entirely dis proven. While aspects of evolution can be considered theoretical in that they have not been directly observed, the process itself has been proven indisputable. Gene pools in populations change over time, this has been directly observed and can be demonstrated using the fossil record as well. Evolution does not disagree with creation, it does however make the idea of species-specific creation seem to be an almost absurd impossibility considering the number of random variations (and outside variables) which must occur to arrive at any given modern species. There's really nothing silly about it.

As for your second comment, I'm entitled to my opinion that stories about talking snakes and mystical beings are rubbish. If you're offended by that I'm sorry... but I've had enough people tell me I'm going to hell when I don't donate to their christain charities to see that it goes both ways. Religion in itself endorses ridicule of non-believers and it is done so openly... why does society accept that but not the other way around?

 

[ganjavih]

If you're offended by that I'm sorry... but I've had enough people tell me I'm going to hell when I don't donate to their christain charities to see that it goes both ways. Religion in itself endorses ridicule of non-believers and it is done so openly... why does society accept that but not the other way around?

As I am not religious myself, I am personally not offended by your statements, but your statements are offensive.

Justifying your right to mock all religious people because some have told you that you're going to hell is misguided as is your generalisation that religion endorses ridicule of non-believers.

 

[MisterF]

Science might have something close to a monopoly explaining the physical aspect of life but there is tons of competition trying to account for the spiritual/emotional aspect.

Such as? You're making it sound like scientific feilds haven't made progress in understanding emotions and consciousness. There's a huge amount of scientific work going into understanding the human mind, ranging from chemistry to computer science to neurobiology to sociology. What competition do these fields have and what contributions has this competition made to our understanding of these things?

 

[wonderboy416]

As I am not religious myself, I am personally not offended by your statements, but your statements are offensive.

Justifying your right to mock all religious people because some have told you that you're going to hell is misguided as is your generalisation that religion endorses ridicule of non-believers.

I guess you won't address your incorrect assessment of evolution as a "theory" and not a fact?

As for your other comments, I am not attacking anyone individually, I'm just expressing an opinion. I could care less whether or you not you feel it's offensive. I read about people dying, children being indoctrinated without getting the chance to think for themselves (kids will believe ANYTHING they're told at a young age), people who can barely afford their bills each month donating massive amounts of money etc etc all in the name of religion. All over something so utterly ridiculous. I'm entitled to express my opinion in this country. I think religion is stupid, so why shouldn't I be able to say as much? So many people have been blind sided by what I think it's mankind's single greatest failing...

 

[GenerationW]

Such as? You're making it sound like scientific feilds haven't made progress in understanding emotions and consciousness. There's a huge amount of scientific work going into understanding the human mind, ranging from chemistry to computer science to neurobiology to sociology. What competition do these fields have and what contributions has this competition made to our understanding of these things?

I still see that as an attempt to physically explain what we are, not how we should conduct ourselves day-to-day emotionally/spiritually (morals, ethics, codes of conduct, etc.). You generally don't see science competing in that area with things like religion, transcendental meditation, self-help/motivational speakers, classical, modern and new age philosophies, etc.

 

[gristle]

I guess you won't address your incorrect assessment of evolution as a "theory" and not a fact.

You are assuming incorrectly.

As employed in the sciences, a scientific theory is an empirical theory. Ganjavih's usage is quite correct.

 

[GenerationW]

Evolution is totally blind, that's not to say it doesn't have a purpose, it does as I have outlined many times in this thread, survival. However the process itself is completely blind. Genetic variance occurs out of pure chance, when such variations aid the survival of the species they are retained. It's that simple, perhaps you should read Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Creationists will often argue that something as complex as a watch could not have come about by chance, there for humans could not have either. Dawkins demonstrates why that is a flawed argument in his book. Your own ideas about evolution seem to be confused.

Google "is evolution random", and you'll see a difference of opinion.

I've read Dawkins as well as an interesting refutation of him (forget the authour). I suspect they accomplished their true motive of getting me to empty my wallet. Woe is me.

How can pseudo science be reasoned other than the obvious placebo/comforting elements?
Like religion, most pseudo science preys on the vulnerability of its clients.

We're all vulnerable to some degree. Better get used to it.

You've proven nothing with your statement.
Atheism cannot be directly attributed to any massacre...
Religion can be connected to numerous killings on a daily basis all throughout history.

I think that no mass killing can be attributed to any one lone factor, religion or otherwise. That would be absurd in a world as complex and interconnected as it is. Political and/or social factors are usually involved.