Do You Believe In Evolution?

[TLH]

So - God KNEW (being omnipotent and all) that Adam and Eve would disobey him, KNEW what horrible things would result from it, yet did nothing. Oh - and he says he's going to "make everything better" at some time or another; basically - having let everything come to pass - dangles this "salvation" in front of us like a twinkie at the end of a stick just barely out of reach...

...and you worship this guy?



Um - okay...

I think the word you're looking for is omniscience (all-knowing) opposed to omnipotence (all-powerful).

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I think the word you're looking for is omniscience (all-knowing) opposed to omnipotence (all-powerful).

Technically, if one is all-powerful, then they have the power to also know all. So, really, his choice of words is acceptable.

 

[The Battousai]

^ Indeed

 

[TLH]

Technically, if one is all-powerful, then they have the power to also know all. So, really, his choice of words is acceptable.

Not at all. Take a few University level courses in the Philosophy of Religion and then get back to me. Omniscience is not a necessary condition of omnipotence.

 

[citizenpain]

I think the most intriguing thing would be to see what type of life developed elsewhere. Not only how it changed over time, but its composition as well.

It would be incredible if life elsewhere was based on an element other than carbon, for instance.

I doubt we'd see any complex organisms that exists here, but if we did, then that would throw our perception of evolution in a whole new direction, to be sure.

it certainly would be interesting to see how life develops on other planets. the vastness of the universe makes me think that it's entirely possible that there actually are complex organisms out there. i always thought it was funny how people believe aliens are going to be these lil green men, but they'd probably be insanely different due to their environments. like beings made out of water? or a gaseous entity? or a giant floating eyeball? t:

such a discovery would indeed throw our perception of evolution in a new direction, but just imagine what it would do to religion.

 

[The Battousai]

Not at all. Take a few University level courses in the Philosophy of Religion and then get back to me. Omniscience is not a necessary condition of omnipotence.

Whether or not it's a necessary condition is moot - it still could be applied.

it certainly would be interesting to see how life develops on other planets. the vastness of the universe makes me think that it's entirely possible that there actually are complex organisms out there. i always thought it was funny how people believe aliens are going to be these lil green men, but they'd probably be insanely different due to their environments. like beings made out of water? or a gaseous entity? or a giant floating eyeball? t:

such a discovery would indeed throw our perception of evolution in a new direction, but just imagine what it would do to religion.

Indeed

I'd love for such discoveries to be made during my lifetime...

 

[TLH]

Whether or not it's a necessary condition is moot - it still could be applied.

All I'm saying is that omniscience is the term for all-knowing, not omnipotence.

 

[The Battousai]

All I'm saying is that omniscience is the term for all-knowing, not omnipotence.

I know that - I simply mis-stated what I was trying to say in that earlier post.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Well, this isn't about vocabulary, so...

 

[TLH]

I know that - I simply mis-stated what I was trying to say in that earlier post.

Fair enough.

So - God KNEW (being omnipotent and all) that Adam and Eve would disobey him, KNEW what horrible things would result from it, yet did nothing. Oh - and he says he's going to "make everything better" at some time or another; basically - having let everything come to pass - dangles this "salvation" in front of us like a twinkie at the end of a stick just barely out of reach...

...and you worship this guy?



Um - okay...

This stems a lot deeper than you'd think. A lot of Philosophers and Theologians hold that the evils that resulted from creation are a result of God giving us free will -- evils stem from our freely chosen actions. For a lot of these Philosophers our free will is what justifies/explains the existence of evil and that (without free will) the purpose of life/creation is pointless.

However, there's an inherent problem with this line of reasoning. If we have free will, then God can't be omniscient, because if he knew everything (i.e., what we were going to do) then we wouldn't be able to do otherwise and we couldn't have free will. Therefore, divine foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. There's a deadlock over this. Some people accept that we don't have free will while others abandon the notion that God is in fact omniscient.

Either way, God can't be held wholly responsible for evils -- evil is either a result of our free will or God's lacking omniscience (i.e., he didn't know what would happen if he created the universe).

 

[TLH]

Well, this isn't about vocabulary, so...

I'm allowed to offer a correction.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I'm allowed to offer a correction.

Do you believe in evolution?

 

[TLH]

Do you believe in evolution?

I believe in divine intervention -- the notion that we evolved but that something guided that evolutionary process along and allowed it to occur to put it very simplistically.

I don't believe in the creation myths as fact because they are just that -- myths. They're allegorical; metaphoric; symbolic. They aren't meant to be taken literally. Very few hold that they are factual. Even fewer believe that Adam and Eve actually existed.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I believe in divine intervention -- the notion that we evolved but that something guided that evolutionary process along and allowed it to occur to put it very simplistically.

I don't believe in the creation myths as fact because they are just that -- myths. They're allegorical; metaphoric; symbolic. They aren't meant to be taken literally. Very few hold that they are factual. Even fewer believe that Adam and Eve actually existed.

I know what divine intervention is. But, thanks.

 

[TLH]

I know what divine intervention is. But, thanks.

I'm sure you do.

 

[The Battousai]

I believe in divine intervention -- the notion that we evolved but that something guided that evolutionary process along and allowed it to occur to put it very simplistically.

Do you think that the changes in gene frequencies in a population over time are caused by a supernatural being?

 

[HulkofSteel]

"Do you believe in Evolution?"

Assuming by evolution it is meant the origins of life, that is quite the interesting question. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Belief in evolution implies that evolution has not been proven. What has been proven does not require faith.

Can anyone prove evolution to be true? Has anyone witnessed the beginnings of life according to evolution? Can an event said to have occurred billions of years ago ever be fully proven without a reliable witness? These questions, to my knowledge, have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

If it is true that the origin of life according to evolution cannot be proven, does not evolution require belief? And if it requires belief, is it not then a religion?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

If it is true that the origin of life according to evolution cannot be proven, does not evolution require belief? And if it requires belief, is it not then a religion?

Excellent point.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Excellent point.

except for the fact there 2 different things... Religion is classified as belief, but a belief is not a religion. Look at it as this Beliefs < Religion < Christianity That is the tree of how it works. Religion, Morals, Science, etc would belong in the same group, there all beliefs, but one is not the other, they're seperate subcategories within one category.

 

[The Battousai]

"Do you believe in Evolution?"

Assuming by evolution it is meant the origins of life, that is quite the interesting question. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Belief in evolution implies that evolution has not been proven. What has been proven does not require faith.

Can anyone prove evolution to be true? Has anyone witnessed the beginnings of life according to evolution? Can an event said to have occurred billions of years ago ever be fully proven without a reliable witness? These questions, to my knowledge, have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

If it is true that the origin of life according to evolution cannot be proven, does not evolution require belief? And if it requires belief, is it not then a religion?

Evolution doesn't have a SINGLE THING to do with the origins of life

 

[The Battousai]

Can an event said to have occurred billions of years ago ever be fully proven without a reliable witness? These questions, to my knowledge, have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

First of all, no reputable scientist will claim that something is 100% proven unless it has a sound mathematical basis (scientific laws).

Secondly, evidence can be gathered without direct observation (i.e. historical geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc.).

How Science Works

 

[Bill]

You know this kind of illustrates a common theme I've been noticing with a few people in this thread who don't believe in evolution. There seems to be at the best a great deal of ignorance as to what it is and at the worst a huge amount of the straw man fallacy going on. It really makes me wonder what the results of a study done on actual knowledge of what evolution is would show.

I maintain that the ignorance of evolution is a defense mechanism. If they actually learned what it is and the evidence behind it, then they'd have to accept it. Therefore, they will avoid doing so at all costs.

 

[Bill]

"Do you believe in Evolution?"

Assuming by evolution it is meant the origins of life, that is quite the interesting question. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Belief in evolution implies that evolution has not been proven. What has been proven does not require faith.

Can anyone prove evolution to be true? Has anyone witnessed the beginnings of life according to evolution? Can an event said to have occurred billions of years ago ever be fully proven without a reliable witness? These questions, to my knowledge, have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

If it is true that the origin of life according to evolution cannot be proven, does not evolution require belief? And if it requires belief, is it not then a religion?

Well, since your assumption is wrong, the rest of your post is meaningless.

 

[Bill]

First of all, no reputable scientist will claim that something is 100% proven unless it has a sound mathematical basis (scientific laws).

Secondly, evidence can be gathered without direct observation (i.e. historical geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc.).

How Science Works

No one's gonna read that.




They might learn sumthin'.

 

[Danalys]

First of all, no reputable scientist will claim that something is 100% proven unless it has a sound mathematical basis (scientific laws).

Secondly, evidence can be gathered without direct observation (i.e. historical geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc.).

How Science Works

laws are not better than theories. and mathermatical proofs are the realm of mathematicians unsurprisingly. for instance newton's laws of motions are superseeded by the theory of general relativity. which is far more acurate.