Do You Believe In Evolution?

[psychocheeseman]

Im currently reading a book called The Stairway to Heaven. Its interesting. I just went through Chapter 1: The Search for Paradise... meaning the search for the Fountain of Eternal Youth and in the book it mentions how the Fountain is actually within the Garden of Eden. Its part of a series. I read the 12th Planet, which is book 1 in the series.
Do you believe in such a Fountain?

no, Do you believe in fairies? or Vampires? or Bunyips?

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

yeah. It goes way back in historical and ancient times. Mentions known explorers such as Columbus, Ponce de Leon who went out in search of the Fountain. As well as Alexander the Great... too bad his cook friend came across it and never said a word to Alex. In the end, he did, but it cost him... although he didn't die. After being tossed into the sea with a stone around his neck, the cook didn't drown, he became the sea-demon Andrentic.

But um it mentions Moses going to face God... and the Crusades... So far this book is a great read if you wanna brush up on those times. hehe.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

no, Do you believe in fairies? or Vampires? or Bunyips?

I dunno. I won't believe unless I see one to believe it...

 

[Bill]

In the interests of re igniting this thread - and getting it back onto topic:
It appears no one has come up with anything to dispute the theory of evolution yet!

Here's a question for religious people who believe fossil evidence etc was put there by God- why would god do that unless he either only wanted deliberately ignorant followers, or wanted us to live as atheists.

why would a god only want ignorant followers? Is he really that worried about intellectual competition? That would make sense in a way because from the old testament he really doesn't seem that bright himself...

I have read many Creationists sites that are very prolific with articles about how evolution fails, but not so good at writing about how creationism succeeds.

I don't think it's a matter of the evidence or what it says. Most Creationists believe that the evidence can be twisted and interpreted, much like the Bible, to fit whatever worldview you wish. Most Creation "scientists" know their audience is about as dumb as nails when it comes to science and present their articles accordingly. They know that fundies aren't looking for knowledge. They're looking for reassurance that what they believe is safe and sound, and they get that from PHd's in a variety of disciplines rarely related to the field in which they comment.

I would much rather hear a fundie simply come right out and say that they will not accept evolution regardless of the evidence than attempt to rationalize their denial with poorly constructed arguments and profound ignorance. It's much easier to accept that they have their head in the sand as opposed to up their ass.

And I think you're in the wrong forum to see arguments disputing the theory of evolution. First we have to get them to understand what it is, then they can attempt to form arguments against it.

 

[Danalys]

No, you would be rewarded for not believing anything based on a god that rewards not believing anything.

but you are not believing because you belive not believing will benefit you rather than it just being your position on the issue.

it works along the lines of "this sentence is false"

 

[Steve Rogers]

I have read many Creationists sites that are very prolific with articles about how evolution fails, but not so good at writing about how creationism succeeds.

I hate those "arguments". Not to bring up bad blood with any republicans but a lot of McCain supporters couldn't tell me why they liked McCain, only why they disliked Obama. I'm like WTF?? That's not answering the question.

But in the end, isn't creationism about faith and not proof?

 

[Gilpesh]

I hate those "arguments". Not to bring up bad blood with any republicans but a lot of McCain supporters couldn't tell me why they liked McCain, only why they disliked Obama. I'm like WTF?? That's not answering the question.

But in the end, isn't creationism about faith and not proof?

Which is hilariously unscientific...

 

[Steve Rogers]

Which is hilariously unscientific...

Yes, but its aim isn't to be scientific. It's a leap of faith to believe. That's why heaven is open to believers. It doesn't take any faith to believe in something that's been proven. Proving faith counters the point.

If tomorrow there was concrete proof of God, Jesus, creationism and everything else, then believing in it ceases to be an act of faith.

 

[Gilpesh]

Steve... the point is that they try to make creationism into a science. And it is completely backwards and not based on science at all.

 

[Bill]

but you are not believing because you belive not believing will benefit you rather than it just being your position on the issue.

it works along the lines of "this sentence is false"

You're making the erroneous assumption that I know, or are even aware, of a god that rewards one for not believing before I decided to follow that line of reasoning. And you're attempting to turn it into a religion in and of itself. I presented it as a hypothetical possibility, but it is actually a result of the default state of a reasoning human being. And by accepting this particular line of reasoning, we have no presuppositions of a god or gods that will, in fact, reward us for not believing.

In other words, I lack a belief as a result of logic and reason. There happens to be a god that rewards such reasoning, but we don't follow this line of reasoning as a result of there being a god that rewards such thinking. This particular god has no doctrine written or evidence of his existence so there would be no logical reasoning that would lead one to believe he exists at all.

 

[Steve Rogers]

Steve... the point is that they try to make creationism into a science. And it is completely backwards and not based on science at all.

Oh.
Well, they shouldn't be making it into a science. They'll just look silly if they try.

 

[Gilpesh]

Oh.
Well, they shouldn't be making it into a science. They'll just look silly if they try.

Problem is, they have tried and you can't just call them silly.... because in some ******ed logic that makes them stronger.

 

[Bill]

I hate those "arguments". Not to bring up bad blood with any republicans but a lot of McCain supporters couldn't tell me why they liked McCain, only why they disliked Obama. I'm like WTF?? That's not answering the question.

But in the end, isn't creationism about faith and not proof?

Yes, it is. And that would be perfectly acceptable were creationism to stay completely in the church. But a lot of Creationists want creationism to have equal time with evolution in the classroom. And that is where the line must be drawn unless Creationists can come up with evidence that supports creationism as a scientifically testable model that adequately explains the evidence.

Thus far, that has not been done. Creationists have renamed and retooled creationism into Intelligent Design Theory for just that purpose, but I have yet to hear what the theory of intelligent design entails. The Creationists had the opportunity to present evidence for the theory or even the theory itself in the Kansas trials, but could not do so in a legal court of law. How do they expect to do so in the world of science?

 

[Danalys]

You're making the erroneous assumption that I know, or are even aware, of a god that rewards one for not believing before I decided to follow that line of reasoning. And you're attempting to turn it into a religion in and of itself. I presented it as a hypothetical possibility, but it is actually a result of the default state of a reasoning human being. And by accepting this particular line of reasoning, we have no presuppositions of a god or gods that will, in fact, reward us for not believing.

In other words, I lack a belief as a result of logic and reason. There happens to be a god that rewards such reasoning, but we don't follow this line of reasoning as a result of there being a god that rewards such thinking. This particular god has no doctrine written or evidence of his existence so there would be no logical reasoning that would lead one to believe he exists at all.

i am not. that was my whole arguement to begin with. now i'm going into a hypothetical place where someone actually believes in a god that rewards you for not believing.

do you just forget every single thing i say or something. i mean you quite often reiterate my points as if you're being original so i guess you do.

 

[Bill]

i am not. that was my whole arguement to begin with. now i'm going into a hypothetical place where someone actually believes in a god that rewards you for not believing.

do you just forget every single thing i say or something. i mean you quite often reiterate my points as if you're being orginal so i guess you do.

I wasn't presenting it as that type of argument. I'm getting the impression that you are acting as though I am. If I'm mistaken, then just say so. I said it would be interesting if there was such a god, but I did not do so with the idea that people who follow that type of reasoning do so with the idea of such a god existing. I wasn't initially responding to a post made by you(in fact, I hadn't read any of your posts at all), so I don't know how what you said before has any bearing at all.

 

[Danalys]

well i was replying to oddzball initially. and that was another case of someone bringing up my initial point again. hell it's like replying to myself here.

 

[Bill]

well i was replying to oddzball initially. and that was another case of someone bringing up my intial point again. hell it's like replying to myself here.

I did too. And now I see where the confusion came about. I should have read more before his post, but his stood out so I just started there and didn't think about how it got to that point in the posts before. Sorry if I stepped on your turf a little bit.

 

[Danalys]

he did start off the new wave. so don't feel too bad.

 

[squeekness]

In the interests of re igniting this thread - and getting it back onto topic:
It appears no one has come up with anything to dispute the theory of evolution yet!

Here's a question for religious people who believe fossil evidence etc was put there by God- why would god do that unless he either only wanted deliberately ignorant followers, or wanted us to live as atheists.

why would a god only want ignorant followers? Is he really that worried about intellectual competition? That would make sense in a way because from the old testament he really doesn't seem that bright himself...

Well for me, the fact that the fossil evidence exists doesn't refute God's existance, it only calls into question certain things int the Bible, a book I think can be unreliable at times. The fact that the fossils exist to me doesn't mean that God wants us to be atheists, he could instead be saying, "Here, look what I made a long time ago. Wasn't it cool?"

I also don't think he is worried about intellectual competition... but some churches might be.

 

[Bill]

he did start off the new wave. so don't feel too bad.

It seems(correct me if I'm mistaken) you were presenting it as the person was aware of such a god and assuming a state of non-belief to appeal to that god. I was presenting it as a god that rewards non-belief unbeknownst to the non-believer because the state of non-belief doesn't allow for the presupposition of the existence of a god. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical of both the believer and the god (which I think was your point in the original argument).

 

[Danalys]

they don't have to be aware of the god they have to believe as people who believe believe in any god.

so lets say it's a convincing arguement to those inclined to believe in a god, that a god wouldn't want them to believe. how do they stand? anyway it was all mostly a joke based on being trapped in a logical dialema.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Yes, it is. And that would be perfectly acceptable were creationism to stay completely in the church. But a lot of Creationists want creationism to have equal time with evolution in the classroom. And that is where the line must be drawn unless Creationists can come up with evidence that supports creationism as a scientifically testable model that adequately explains the evidence.

Thus far, that has not been done. Creationists have renamed and retooled creationism into Intelligent Design Theory for just that purpose, but I have yet to hear what the theory of intelligent design entails. The Creationists had the opportunity to present evidence for the theory or even the theory itself in the Kansas trials, but could not do so in a legal court of law. How do they expect to do so in the world of science?

 

[Bill]

Well for me, the fact that the fossil evidence exists doesn't refute God's existance, it only calls into question certain things int the Bible, a book I think can be unreliable at times. The fact that the fossils exist to me doesn't mean that God wants us to be atheists, he could instead be saying, "Here, look what I made a long time ago. Wasn't it cool?"

I also don't think he is worried about intellectual competition... but some churches might be.

I think that the reason why Christians call such thinking into question is apparent with scriptures like 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(Emphasis mine)

If you are going to appoint to God certain characteristics like omnipotence, omniscience or perfection, then you can't very well go around doubting his word when it becomes too troublesome to accept. I understand that it is archaic and quite unfit for modern society in terms of science and history. I understand that it was written by man and translated, copied and recopied and translated numerous times. But it would make sense, in a weird way, to assume that if God is truly all-powerful and his word is truly for the ages and perfect in it's conception, then it would survive such conditions with it's message intact and wholly accurate. To pick and choose denotes a cookie cutter approach to scripture and a distrust in God's word and instead place a trust in your ability, a mere human, to know the mind of God and pick and choose what you think would be acceptable to him when in fact, since all scripture is God-breathed, then all scripture is deemed acceptable.

I was playing devil's advocate here, but I do respect the fundie's because they don't wince at all the bad in the Bible and they place more trust in God than the Christian who decides that all the bad stuff in the Bible was placed there by men and only the good stuff must be there according to God's will.

I think that either the Bible was written by men and the errors and inconsistencies are due to the fallibility of the ancient culture that spawned it and it should be treated as insight into an ancient culture and not much else or you accept the conditions of the religion as it is stated and the Bible is the word of god and should be treated as such.

I think the former is true, but the latter gives the proper treatment of the material according to the religion itself instead of attempting to fit it into a hundred different world-views to allow it to conform to each passing society's rules and technological advances. I don't think it was written for the modern western world, but the modern western world constantly attempts to shape it as though it was. There are far more consistent and benevolent philosophies out there that are resistant to such varying interpretations that it's a wonder why the thinking person would bother with this one at all.

 

[Danalys]

okay he goes on about this plastercine ball saying that we don't know who made it. that's unimportant because the science is in how it was made. i'd wager some one rolled up some plastercine. just like i can wager gravity brought together the elements of the earth because the processes are repeatable. balls of plastercine not naturally rolling them selves up implies a maker but planets whose parts gravitate toward each other are naturally rolled up. and the rest of his logic falls apart from that mistake.

 

[Danalys]

16 All Scripture is God-breathed

and this is why there is such disagreement about what is scripture and of that that is scripture, how a god actually ment it, as a literal story or a metaphorical tale.