Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[NickNitro]

I have no doubt that its conceivably possible that in millions of years we came from another species. But I also believe there is a higher power who created existence.

Ever see Prometheus people? Jeeeeze.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

As a Christian, I can comfortably accept the theory of evolution. Let me explain.

Many agree that the Big Bang was, in essence, the "let there be light!" moment, when the universe was given material form. This tells me that while God is all-powerful, He chooses to use the natural processes (ie "laws," be they of physics, motion, time, nature, etc.) in order to create.

In regards to evolution, one can conceive of it as though God is an artist, continually refining, correcting, perfecting, and yes, sometimes erasing His work. I'm not asking everyone to believe as I do, but I believe that God utilizes evolution as a means for us as humans to easily recognize and comprehend His work.

 

[Doctor Evo]

2. The "missing link" has yet to be discovered to scientifically link all ape/humans together.

Two things:

1) There are MANY transitional forms which have been found. You're parroting a flat-out myth which borders on a lie (and that's putting it mildly).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

This argument usually indicates intellectual dishonesty and/or willful ignorance. The information on this topic is readily available.


2) The very concept of a single "missing link" violates some very basic evolutionary principles. It is largely incongruent with modern evolutionary theory.

 

[grout]

Damn dirty Apes!

 

[Piper Maru]

 

[redhawk23]

I have no doubt that its conceivably possible that in millions of years we came from another species. But I also believe there is a higher power who created existence.

Ever see Prometheus people? Jeeeeze.

Are you really going to use Prometheus as support on this?

 

[redhawk23]

As a Christian, I can comfortably accept the theory of evolution. Let me explain.

Many agree that the Big Bang was, in essence, the "let there be light!" moment, when the universe was given material form. This tells me that while God is all-powerful, He chooses to use the natural processes (ie "laws," be they of physics, motion, time, nature, etc.) in order to create.

In regards to evolution, one can conceive of it as though God is an artist, continually refining, correcting, perfecting, and yes, sometimes erasing His work. I'm not asking everyone to believe as I do, but I believe that God utilizes evolution as a means for us as humans to easily recognize and comprehend His work.

Does this imply that God can make a mistake?

 

[Dark Sentinel]

Does this imply that God can make a mistake?

No. As a writer I'm always finding things in my work to improve. It doesn't make what I changed or erased a mistake. It's an evolutionary process

 

[grout]

No. As a writer I'm always finding things in my work to improve. It doesn't make what I changed or erased a mistake. It's an evolutionary process

I see what you did there

 

[KalMart]

As a Christian, I can comfortably accept the theory of evolution. Let me explain.

Many agree that the Big Bang was, in essence, the "let there be light!" moment, when the universe was given material form. This tells me that while God is all-powerful, He chooses to use the natural processes (ie "laws," be they of physics, motion, time, nature, etc.) in order to create.

In regards to evolution, one can conceive of it as though God is an artist, continually refining, correcting, perfecting, and yes, sometimes erasing His work. I'm not asking everyone to believe as I do, but I believe that God utilizes evolution as a means for us as humans to easily recognize and comprehend His work.

This is not accepting it...to understand it in its base innate concept, you cannot credit any sort of 'designer' to it. It is by nature the opposite of any supernatural involvement whatsoever. Otherwise you're fictionalizing it....which is what religion, by concept, does.

Not saying that you shouldn't believe in God...but you should know that if there is one, he's not involved with evolution or anything that has to do with how the universe and ourselves came about.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

This is not accepting it...to understand it in its base innate concept, you cannot credit any sort of 'designer' to it. It is by nature the opposite of any supernatural involvement whatsoever. Otherwise you're fictionalizing it....which is what religion, by concept, does.

Not saying that you shouldn't believe in God...but you should know that if there is one, he's not involved with evolution or anything that has to do with how the universe and ourselves came about.

God is responsible for creation of the universe and world, but he allows the laws that He put in place at its creation to act accordingly. Therefore, He does not directly involve Himself in evolution but He is responsible for it. At times He may add some divine intervention in the form of genetic mutation, but that's as far as it goes. It's a way for us to more easily understand God's creation.

I've got a lot of respect for you Kal, you're a good poster and an intelligent one. I hope we can have a civilized debate

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have no doubt that its conceivably possible that in millions of years we came from another species. But I also believe there is a higher power who created existence.

Ever see Prometheus people? Jeeeeze.

Conceivably?

Putting that aside for a moment, why do you believe there is a high power who created existence? And a follow up question, how did that higher power come into existence?

 

[Thundercrack85]

God is responsible for creation of the universe and world, but he allows the laws that He put in place at its creation to act accordingly. Therefore, He does not directly involve Himself in evolution but He is responsible for it. At times He may add some divine intervention in the form of genetic mutation, but that's as far as it goes. It's a way for us to more easily understand God's creation.

I've got a lot of respect for you Kal, you're a good poster and an intelligent one. I hope we can have a civilized debate

What makes you think there is a supernatural being behind any of these processes?

That's the part where this debate always falls apart.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

What makes you think there is a supernatural being behind any of these processes?

That's the part where this debate always falls apart.

Agreed. It requires a certain perspective that not everyone has. But the way I see it, there's so much beauty in the universe that it's impossible for me to not believe that someone is responsible for it. Just my perspective.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Agreed. It requires a certain perspective that not everyone has. But the way I see it, there's so much beauty in the universe that it's impossible for me to not believe that someone is responsible for it. Just my perspective.

It's instilled. Usually at a very young age.

I'm willing to bet that somewhere in this universe, there are aliens who attribute the creation of the universe to their own deities.

 

[KalMart]

God is responsible for creation of the universe and world, but he allows the laws that He put in place at its creation to act accordingly. Therefore, He does not directly involve Himself in evolution but He is responsible for it. At times He may add some divine intervention in the form of genetic mutation, but that's as far as it goes. It's a way for us to more easily understand God's creation.

No he isn't, or anything else. That's a core error in religious belief that needs to change with the times because we know better now. No god or anything of the sort is involved with that, or anything connected to that, in any way.

I've got a lot of respect for you Kal, you're a good poster and an intelligent one. I hope we can have a civilized debate

Agreed, I respect people's right to religion. But again, the idea of 'creation' by some sort of being is not rational, despite how poetic it is, or how much the human condition needed to believe that in our past. The idea of a God should not hinge upon that...it's a self-defeating concept. We should be able to find appreciation in the natural world being solely natural, just as much as the aesthetic narrative of divine involvement. I truly believe that it's regressive and hurtful to us a humans to cling to that antiquated view of creation...even by a thread. It's the quintessential flat-earth outlook.

I know it must be difficult for a deist to suddenly revise that part of their belief, but I do feel it's ultimately healthy to do so for everyone, religious or not. I also believe that it's wrong to point at evolution as an proof of no god, even if it's not god's doing.

 

[KalMart]

Agreed. It requires a certain perspective that not everyone has. But the way I see it, there's so much beauty in the universe that it's impossible for me to not believe that someone is responsible for it. Just my perspective.

But why must beauty be associated to a god, though? It always strikes me as incredibly myopic to somehow imagine beauty and aesthetics as a credit to something other than our innate and self-evolved ability to appreciate it. If you find something beautiful, it's beautiful to you whether there's a god or not.

 

[dodgers2213]

That's the part where this debate always falls apart.

I always felt it's the unfalsifiable position the religious assert from. It's a game of "winning" and God is the win button.

How can you possibly argue any subject with someone who can assert something beyond anyone's imagination is responsible for whatever it is you happen to be talking about? At the same time, depending on the person, they know it's divine plan and not know the divine plan?

The discussion is not honest to begin with

 

[Thundercrack85]

I always felt it's the unfalsifiable position the religious assert from. It's a game of "winning" and God is the win button.

How can you possibly argue any subject with someone who can assert something beyond anyone's imagination is responsible for whatever it is you happen to be talking about? At the same time, depending on the person, they know it's divine plan and not know the divine plan?

The discussion is not honest to begin with

Well I don't think it's going anywhere anyway. You can't win (or for that matter lose) an argument if both sides don't agree on basic facts. Like you know, what is real and what is not.

 

[KalMart]

I've got a lot of respect for you Kal, you're a good poster and an intelligent one. I hope we can have a civilized debate

And really when it coms down to it, I don't want to tell you that you're wrong to find beauty or personal joy in something. And not that there's anything I find particularly harmful in your outlook, I just think it's not accurate and shouldn't be taught to children as fact. I think it could be known not to be real or actual, but still hold value as a way of thinking....as if through an artist's eye. But still important to distinguish it as art or representation, not actual.

 

[Marvolo]

So let me get this straight.

Kal, you are saying that there is no way whatsoever that a higher being/possibly a highly evolved being could not have been responsible for the Big Bang? I'm not talking God or gods. I am talking about a highly evolved or natural force.

If someone wants to call that force a god or belive it was a god that did it how can you say they are wrong? We have only specualtion as to what caused the Big Bang. Sentinel, is simply filling in the X in the equation. An X that cosmologist still don't have an answer for. He isn't saying that evolution didn't happen or is negated by the presence of a god. Evolution works just fine whether it was began by a god or a completely natural force. It still functions under the same laws of the universe that were put in place by either a natural force or a supernatural force.

Me personally I accept evolution, but I'm not going to attempt to say what caused the big bang. We just don't know and our species will most likely be extinct before we have the pleasure of finding that ouyt. If someone wants to attribute it to a higher power that is perfectly fine. It doesn't take anything away from evolution.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's no evidence for it.

In my opinion they very concept is rather childish.

It's become a little more sophisticated. It's no longer a bearded man, but a vague "higher power". But to me at least, it remains a childish notion.

 

[Marvolo]

There's no evidence for it.

In my opinion they very concept is rather childish.

It's become a little more sophisticated. It's no longer a bearded man, but a vague "higher power". But to me at least, it remains a childish notion.

There is no evidence for anything pre-big bang. Pure speculation. We know the oldest written symbol for gods is a star. Early mankind looked at the heavens and they saw something bigger than themselves. If someone wants to see the divine in the universe it isn't childish.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is no evidence for anything pre-big bang. Pure speculation.

I'm just tired of the "God of the gaps". It's like deists, even ones who acknowledge things like evolution and the modern cosmological model, just can't part with the ancient creator mythology.

Let it go. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, give it up.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm just tired of the "God of the gaps". It's like deists, even ones who acknowledge things like evolution and the modern cosmological model, just can't part with the ancient creator mythology.

Let it go. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, give it up.

No one here is saying give up and just accept God did it. Until they fill that gap and we have a name for the catalyst call it whatever you want. If I want to say gogogambushu caused the big bang there is nothing wqrong with that. What harm does it do.

Right now we have an equation.

X=Big Bang Dark Sentinel is just giving X a name.

And like I said, you nor any scientist has a clue what lies outside our universe nor what was pre-big bang. Saying that some beings or natural force existed or played a part in all that stuff is not saying it was a magical god. I don't really like god of the gaps but I equally dislike the way some sieze up at the mention of anything resembling a god.