Thoughts on Evolution?

[Colossal Spoons]

That would make him a dick.

Which Old Testament God kinda was

That's what I'm guessing, but just wanted to make sure.

Yeah, like Chase said. I was raised Catholic and though Idk if I'd even call myself a Christian, that's the God I think exists.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

There is no creationism because there is no god. Evolution is the only truth. That's my thoughts on the matter. Thanks to everyone for not attempting to go after people or judge people based on their beliefs as many people do.

 

[Quasimod0]

So in the beginning there was nothing.. and then from nothing over billions of years we all came to be? How does nothing become something?

 

[Galactus123]

Which Old Testament God kinda was

So God is a dick. Old Testament is part of the Bible so it must be truth.

 

[Galactus123]

So in the beginning there was nothing.. and then from nothing over billions of years we all came to be? How does nothing become something?

There was something of course but not God. It can be scientifically explained someday... or not.

 

[SuperFerret]

How can you say it's not God for sure?

 

[Quasimod0]

Where did the something come from?

 

[WildcatNC]

I believe evolution occurs but i'm not sure about "spontaneous life".

I just don't know and neither does anyone else for that matter, we all just have opinions. Some more informed than others.

 

[Quasimod0]

When i go outside and look at the trees and the intricate design of the leaves and then think about all that goes on inside of us and how complicated and amazing it is, i just cant accept that its all an accident

 

[Anubis]

I don't give s**t either way.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

How can you say it's not God for sure?

That's what cracks me up. The people who don't believe God exists are so sure! I could never be an Evangelist cuz I'd pull my hair out trying to convert stubborn people.

 

[WildcatNC]

That's what cracks me up. The people who don't believe God exists are so sure! I could never be an Evangelist cuz I'd pull my hair out trying to convert stubborn people.

Yep.

The fact is that no one KNOWS either way. Some just convince themselves they do because it makes them feel better.

 

[Galactus123]

How can you say it's not God for sure?

Why it would be God? There is no proof that even God exist. Bible won't convince me at all. There is no reasonable evidence. This is my opinion.

 

[SuperFerret]

Why couldn't it be God? Don't let the JudeoChristian-centric viewpoint of the Western world sway you, there are many, many possibilities for what "God" is.

And there's no evidence that God doesn't exist, we're all equally in the dark, all trying to figure it out for ourselves.

 

[Anubis]

De adviezen zijn als de gaten van het Uiteinde, heeft iedereen één, en zij allen stinken.

This was supposed to be "Opinions are like butts, everybody has one and they all stink." But I suspect it is probably gibberish. So much for being a bilingual dick.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

So in the beginning there was nothing.. and then from nothing over billions of years we all came to be? How does nothing become something?

Something from nothing literally happens in every second in every place in the universe. Vacuum particles burst into the universe from nothing, but have to pay their energy back quickly, so the vacuum particle and anti-particle annihilate each other. In that form they are pretty much impossible to detect. However when they appear at the event horizon of a black hole the anti-particle falls in and instead anihilates a part of the black hole giving off Hawking Radiation while the positive particle stays safely on the event horizon without falling in.

 

[SuperFerret]

And yet, you only know about it because you read it or heard it and you trusted the source.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

They were a great group. I read a WWE travel book yesterday and Orton talked a bit about being on the road with Flair and HHH. Nice little read.

 

[Bill]

And yet, you only know about it because you read it or heard it and you trusted the source.

But he, or you, have the option of studying the related science and verifying the evidence of their existence for yourselves. You do not have that option with the existence of a god based on a holy text.

couldn't it be God? Don't let the JudeoChristian-centric viewpoint of the Western world sway you, there are many, many possibilities for what "God" is.

And there's no evidence that God doesn't exist, we're all equally in the dark, all trying to figure it out for ourselves

If he referring to the Judeo-Christian God, then he could very well have sound reasoning as to why that particular god doesn't exist. He fails under the weight of his own description. The Bible is all one has that references God, and those who are allowing their reasoning brains to creep in and dismiss as much of it as possible to continue believing such a god exists. The Christian God becomes a "personal" god, even though he's outlined very well in the Christian Bible as to who and what he is and does. People will tend to ignore the parts that are problematic and forge on ahead.

If something from nothing presents a problem, and you must have a god invoke everything to understand it, why not invoke an idea of god that is not hindered by Middle-Eastern culture and thousands of years of translations and interpretations? That might be more acceptable to those who are proclaiming that "God" doesn't exist, not the idea of one beyond what we can describe.

 

[SuperFerret]

But he, or you, have the option of studying the related science and verifying the evidence of their existence for yourselves. You do not have that option with the existence of a god based on a holy text.

Yet we also have the option of fully dedicating ourselves to faith, and who knows? Maybe that path does lead to some form of enlightenment that many of us haven't experienced.

If he referring to the Judeo-Christian God, then he could very well have sound reasoning as to why that particular god doesn't exist. He fails under the weight of his own description. The Bible is all one has that references God, and those who are allowing their reasoning brains to creep in and dismiss as much of it as possible to continue believing such a god exists. The Christian God becomes a "personal" god, even though he's outlined very well in the Christian Bible as to who and what he is and does. People will tend to ignore the parts that are problematic and forge on ahead.

Well, let's be honest, the New Testament itself says that it's a bunch of stories. Christ teaches almost exclusively through parables and it's his friends that write the book supposedly, so the real message there is look for the morals not the details. People forget or ignore that though.

If something from nothing presents a problem, and you must have a god invoke everything to understand it, why not invoke an idea of god that is not hindered by Middle-Eastern culture and thousands of years of translations and interpretations? That might be more acceptable to those who are proclaiming that "God" doesn't exist, not the idea of one beyond what we can describe.

As far as I'm concerned God could be anything. I don't know for sure, though I do rather like the idea that God is everything and literally exists as the "fabric of reality", but even that could be wrong.

The thing I've always found funny is that, at my core, I'm a biologist, and I find that I feel more religious in a "closer to god" kind of way when I'm engaging in scientific activities. And there are those who still strive to separate the two.

 

[papie]

Most people who have doubts about evolution just don't know enough about it.

The more I've learnt about evolution and its mechanics like natural selection, DNA, regulator genes, the more I thought that it is undeniable.

 

[Dr.]

No individuals don't evolve over time but that individual is the start of that species' evolution. I am not saying one person can evolve over and over again but that one individual through mutation has evolved beyond what their parents were and what their species is and they will either pass that trait on or not. Mutation is instant that affects an individual. Adaptation is over time that affects the species. Both evolve the species.

Well, roughly speaking... that’s correct.

Analogous to researching someone’s family tree… given a perfect historical record, we could trace the beginning of a species to a specific individual who sits at an evolutionary branching point. Such an individual would be “Eve” to new species A – but not to new species B (which has its own “Eve”).

That said, a new species isn’t automatically created with the appearance of a mutation. Speciation is a very gradual process that takes many generations and has no clearly defined boundary. Typically, it begins as geographical isolation which, in turn, encourages genetic isolation. Once the two populations have separated, two different lines of evolution (fueled by a series of rare but beneficial mutations exploiting different environments) can take hold. Given enough change, if the two populations happen to cross paths in the future, they will no longer be able to interbreed (which is the definition of species).

However, you wouldn’t be able to actually pinpoint speciation as occurring in a specific individual or generation – along the lines of “Mom was species A but daughter was species B.” That’s not how evolution works.

 

[Dr.]

That's what cracks me up. The people who don't believe God exists are so sure!

Yep.

The fact is that no one KNOWS either way. Some just convince themselves they do because it makes them feel better.

Well… compelling lack of evidence is a type of knowledge.

It’s sometimes said, “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” But if that’s true, it’s only so in a technical, philosophical sense. Generally speaking, a claim should have specificity. So if I say I have a zebra in my basement, this statement has real meaning. And if you inspect all areas of my basement and fail to find a striped equine then absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

By the same token, if god is defined with certain attributes (creator, prayer-answerer, etc.) and there’s no evidence for those attributes… then this counts as knowledge – evidence of absence.

 

[papie]

Well… compelling lack of evidence is a type of knowledge.

It’s sometimes said, “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” But if that’s true, it’s only so in a technical, philosophical sense. Generally speaking, a claim should have specificity. So if I say I have a zebra in my basement, this statement has real meaning. And if you inspect all areas of my basement and fail to find a striped equine then absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

By the same token, if god is defined with certain attributes (creator, prayer-answerer, etc.) and there’s no evidence for those attributes… then this counts as knowledge – evidence of absence.

There either is a God, and he is unable to act. Or there is no God.

There is evidence that this statement is correct.

 

[SuperFerret]

Why would God be unable to act?