Do You Believe In Evolution?

[spideyboy_1111]

Are you trying to mock me?

And just to let you guys know, I don't debate with atheists a lot, so it's kinda new to me. I'd much rather do it in real life anyway.

hey, most of us i don't think are atheists... and just because we don't consider ourselves "Christians" (if anything, im agnostic) doesn't mean were atheists. Nothing in life is black and white to me. there's all kinds of color and different shades of grey in my beliefs. And that very same "god" you worship... is the same person (though maybe not in the same view or practices) that i like to believe in and be the true force of good in the world.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think they glorify anything. "To glorify" to me implies a conscious action, like me trying to behave well to glorify God and provide a good example. Most of the atheists I know simply live their lives, not trying to present any particular example of anything but a regular human life.

exactly... why does one need to glorify anything anyway? If i was going to glorify anything, it'd be morals.

 

[Oddzball]

The word "kind" in the Biblical context refers to all animals which are clearly of the same type. For example, we have birds, dogs, cats, fish, whales, sharks, horses, etc....but each of these kinds is divided into multiple species. Here's just a few examples, from the modern-day world...

Birds: sparrows, robins, canaries, parrots
Dogs: domestic canines, wolves, coyotes
Cats: housecats, tigers, panthers, bobcats, lions
Fish: trout, bass, catfish, salmon, carp, tuna
Whales: humpback, blue, dolphin, porpoise
Sharks: hammerhead, "great white", tiger, white-tip
Horses: mustangs, zebras, donkeys, mules

Each of these individual groups contains types of animals which share an overwhelming amount of common attributes (even more than the supposed 98.6% match attributed to apes and man). Now, these differences may indicate a common purpose, designer, or even ancestor...but the latter would be bound within each set kind. Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

Mules hurt that. You're using the codewords of microevolution and macroevolution (invented words of creationists btw, not actual scientific terms) to mean 'in species mutant traits' and 'the species barrier being crossed.

The basic high school definition of species (I'll keep this down to a level you should be able to understand) is viable reproduction if two animals mate and produce offspring that can reproduce, the parent creatures are the same species.

That two animals can breed, but consistently breed offspring that have NEVER been documented to be able to reproduce, with thousands of years of documentation no less, shows species separation. Close enough to let sperm and egg combine and grow into offspring, but too distant a relation now to truly reproduce.

 

[Oddzball]

Yeah, but even with atheism, you're still glorifying something, so it could be considered a religion by some. I didn't necessarily say it is.

Glorifying what? Rational thought? Evidentialism?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Moviefan is right, you know. Evolution and atheism kinda go hand in hand and anything that ends in "ism" could be considered a religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is more than a religion -- it's a relationship with God.

Thank you; someone finally "gets it". It boggles my mind why so many people automatically assume "religion" and God to be the same thing.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

10 commandments vs. the book of Leviticus. More specifically, the, "Thou shalt not kill" verus all the thing Leviticus lists that someone should be put to death for.

In the original Hebrew, there's two words which would be closest to our modern English "kill"...ratsach and nakah.

Nakah is used over 500 times in the Old Testament alone; it's seen in such verses as David slaying Goliath, or the righteous conquering of armies. It does not translate literally to "kill", but is often given that definition by context. More accurately, the term would mean "to strike, defeat, or conquer".

Ratsach is the word used in the Fifth Commandment, and its meaning can be discerned by studying passages like this...

In Judges 20:4, it describes the killing of a woman who was in a house that was beset upon by night by a gang of evil men.

In 1 Kings 21:19, the Lord rhetorically asks Ahab if he has ratsached. This is after Ahab has concluded a plot to do away with Naboth by having two fellows say they have heard Naboth blaspheme. (This word also describes Ahab in 2 Kings 6:32.)

In Job 24:14, it describes one who in the light sets upon the poor and the needy, and is a thief at night.

In Psalms 62:3, it describes the fate of someone who is not prepared for what will happen to them, for they have no foundation in God. In Psalms 94:6, it describes the wicked who kill the widow and the stranger -- those who are helpless and disoriented.

In Proverbs 22:13, it describes something a lion will do to the slothful man.

In Hosea 6:9, it is applied to priests who commit iniquity, with a comparison to a troop of robbers waiting for someone.

Taken together, a simple definition of ratsach can be inferred: It refers to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal -- which means either 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as one waits for prey.

So, the more accurate English term for the Fifth Commandment would be "Do not commit murder."

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Thank you; someone finally "gets it". It boggles my mind why so many people automatically assume "religion" and God to be the same thing.

one getting it vs 100 not, doesn't make your side right either...

 

[Majic Walrus]

Thank you; someone finally "gets it". It boggles my mind why so many people automatically assume "religion" and God to be the same thing.

Every religion thinks itself to be higher or greater in some regard than all the other religions. Still by definition, Christianity is a religion.

Yeah, but even with atheism, you're still glorifying something, so it could be considered a religion by some. I didn't necessarily say it is.

You were pretty thoroughly reamed for this earlier, to which you replied:

Are you trying to mock me?

And just to let you guys know, I don't debate with atheists a lot, so it's kinda new to me. I'd much rather do it in real life anyway.

If you don't know what atheists believe or don't believe how do you intend to debate well?

You literally have no idea what you're up against, if you want to practice apologetics you have to know what you're talking about.

 

[Danalys]

it's harder to fact check in a real life conversation so i guess that would be preferable for his side.

 

[The Dark Defender]

No, I don't believe in it since the Bible already predicted thousands of years prior to the birth of the man that people credit with the idea that men would come to believe that they came from animals, and even predicted that they would see God's creation as "evidence" of the lie that those chose to believe rather than what it was.

I don't believe that a painting, or a car, which is obviously far too complex to have simply got there by random chance with no creator didn't have one simply because I can not currently see that creator, hence it'd be even less rational to think that something infinitely more complex, such as the human circulatory system, or the planet, or the universe...did.

"Glorifying what? Rational thought? Evidentialism?"

Not really, it's more of mankinds way of glorifying itself. It's easier for many to believe that there isn't a higher power that they should humble themselves to so that they can just do whatever they feel like doing. Evolution is mankinds way of denying its creator and saying that it doesn't need a higher power to get here, and to grow into a stronger, better organism, we can do it all by ourselves, in other words, mankinds way of glorifying...makind. It's a way for people to deny what their creator has done for them and be deemed by society as "rational" for it.
It's glorifying something alright, but not rational thought and evidentialism nearly to the extent that those subscribe to the idea would like to think. It's a far better example of the arrogance of mankind than its brilliance.

 

[Majic Walrus]

No, I don't believe in it since the Bible already predicted thousands of years prior to the birth of the man that people credit with the idea that men would come to believe that they came from animals, and even predicted that they would see God's creation as "evidence" of the lie that those chose to believe rather than what it was.

I don't believe that a painting, or a car, which is obviously far too complex to have simply got there by random chance with no creator didn't have one simply because I can not currently see that creator, hence it'd be even less rational to think that something infinitely more complex, such as the human circulatory system, or the planet, or the universe...did.

"Glorifying what? Rational thought? Evidentialism?"

Not really, it's more of mankinds way of glorifying itself. It's easier for many to believe that there isn't a higher power that they should humble themselves to so that they can just do whatever they feel like doing. Evolution is mankinds way of denying its creator and saying that it doesn't need a higher power to get here, and to grow into a stronger, better organism, we can do it all by ourselves, in other words, mankinds way of glorifying...makind. It's a way for people to deny what their creator has done for them and be deemed by society as "rational" for it.
It's glorifying something alright, but not rational thought and evidentialism nearly to the extent that those subscribe to the idea would like to think. It's a far better example of the arrogance of mankind than its brilliance.

It's arrogant to believe that years of study by learned scholars is absolute non-sense and that you have had the answer all along due to you advanced connection to God. That is arrogant.

It is not arrogant however to believe that you do not know the truth but wish to seek out evidence of the truth. It is not arrogant to participate in the discovery and science.

I will never understand how anyone can think that the Christian "always right because God said so" mentality isn't completely and absolutely arrogant. When non-Christians who make no claim of advanced knowledge are being self-glorifying.

EDIT: Also in regards to your examples of paintings and cars, you already know that those things are man-made. You cannot work to discover the truth from the assumption that you already know it. If you had never seen or heard of a car before you would have NO idea that it was a man-made device.

 

[chaseter]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_re_as/as_new_zealand_rare_reptile

I cannot believe that so many people do not believe in evolution on here...it is mind boggling. I would also bet a fare wager that most of the people that don't believe in it do not have a degree from an accredited university or have not taken any collegiate life science classes.

 

[bgates87]

Mules hurt that. You're using the codewords of microevolution and macroevolution (invented words of creationists btw, not actual scientific terms) to mean 'in species mutant traits' and 'the species barrier being crossed.

The basic high school definition of species (I'll keep this down to a level you should be able to understand) is viable reproduction if two animals mate and produce offspring that can reproduce, the parent creatures are the same species.

That two animals can breed, but consistently breed offspring that have NEVER been documented to be able to reproduce, with thousands of years of documentation no less, shows species separation. Close enough to let sperm and egg combine and grow into offspring, but too distant a relation now to truly reproduce.

Actually the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution were first used by
Yuri Filipchenko, a Russian entomologist, in 1927.

 

[The Lizard]

I cannot believe that so many people do not believe in evolution on here...it is mind boggling. I would also bet a fare wager that most of the people that don't believe in it do not have a degree from an accredited university or have not taken any collegiate life science classes.

You're forgetting that Baylor and BYU are accredited universities.


But seriously -- while the evidence supporting human evolution (which is the heart of the evolution debate) is overwhelming, I can still understand why people might have a philosophical or ethical problem with accepting it.

The idea that humans are just another form of evolved animal opens up doors that many people don't like to deal with, particularly conflict with the concept of some kind of divine "soul" that puts humanity above the animals.

If man is just another ape descendant who through some evolutionary fluke just happened to develop the ability for rational thought and an awareness of his own mortality, it kind of sets the bar lower in the minds of some with regards to man's potential morality and "goodness". After all, why deny yourself any pleasure in life if you're just an animal doing what comes naturally, right?

Now, I'm obviously not saying that non-religious pro-evolution people lack morality or self-control. But there is a perceived underlying philosophy to evolution that some of its opponents honestly see as selling mankind short.

Thus, the two competing philosophies that are seen can be summarized as follows:

1. A divinely-created Humanity seeks to escape an exterior force of "evil" or "sin" to reach a more perfect divine goal, which is eternal.

versus

2. A randomly-created and evolved Humanity moves toward a higher level of intellectual accomplishments, but still contains the interior remaining influences and weaknesses of the animals it evolved from.

While there is no true evidence or support at all for # 1, I admit that I can understand why many seek to find understanding of their existence by clinging to that view.

 

[Danalys]

i'd class original sin as interior

 

[Alex The Great]

I beleive in Scienece, so Big Bang, microbes evolving into animals after millions of years, all that stuff, I Beleive that.

 

[The Lizard]

i'd class original sin as interior

Maybe so. Not all (Christian) religions believe in original sin, however. Plus, Satan's role is arguably an exterior force in this particular dogma.

 

[squeekness]

i'd class original sin as interior

Well think about it, most of those things classified as "sins" are little more than fighting against our inner "animal" -- greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, ect. The human side of us always has to vie for control, to be more "civilized". It makes sense that we are trying to be better than our animal selves. We are still stiving to "evolve" into something better.

 

[The Lizard]

Well think about it, most of those things classified as "sins" are little more than fighting against our inner "animal" -- greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, ect. The human side of us always has to vie for control, to be more "civilized". It makes sense that we are trying to be better than our animal selves. We are still stiving to "evolve" into something better.

And squeekness is once again a notable exception to the more typical religious attitudes discussed here.

 

[squeekness]

And squeekness is once again a notable exception to the more typical religious attitudes discussed here.

Thanks. Just trying to compromise between the obvious scientific data we have while still keeping the faith. It's done easily enough if you can be a bit flexible and willing to listen.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The idea that humans are just another form of evolved animal opens up doors that many people don't like to deal with, particularly conflict with the concept of some kind of divine "soul" that puts humanity above the animals.

If man is just another ape descendant who through some evolutionary fluke just happened to develop the ability for rational thought and an awareness of his own mortality, it kind of sets the bar lower in the minds of some with regards to man's potential morality and "goodness". After all, why deny yourself any pleasure in life if you're just an animal doing what comes naturally, right?

For thousands of years, people everywhere have had many questions on their minds. One of the biggest has always been, "What is my purpose? Do I have a role to serve, in the greater scheme of things?" Some people find meaning in helping the poor (which all who can should), expressing love to friends and family...but in the end, we're faced with the fact that our lives are temporary.

Many people (myself included) often wonder, "Is this all there is? Am I meant for nothing beyond this life? What will happen to me when my time is done here?" Folks want to know if there's any real reason to hope for something better than our mortal lives...and the underlying answer provided by evolution is, "No, there isn't. When you die, you'll simply be replaced, and the universe will continue indefinitely." That kind of thing devalues each and every human life drastically, and many choose to resist it.

By comparison, the answer provided by Christianity is, "Yes, you have a unique purpose to serve. You were created by God to bring glory and honor to His kingdom. If you'll repent of your sin, and accept Christ's payment in your stead, you'll have nothing to fear in God's judgment. You'll be saved for your faith in Christ, and you'll live forever with God for eternity."

 

[Darren Daring]

What are you trying to argue? All that suggest is that christianity is easier.

 

[squeekness]

What are you trying to argue? All that suggest is that christianity is easier.

Actually, it's not easier, it's harder because it requires restraint and consciously changing how you see and treat other people. That is not as easy as it sounds.

 

[Darren Daring]

That's nice.

 

[squeekness]

Sometimes, doing the harder thing can be more rewarding in the long run.