Thoughts on Evolution?

[Majmun]

I just wanted to be a dick and point out that Allah and the Christian God are the same guy.

This is my just being a dick face.

That can be argued. Christians will say it is not, but muslims may agree that it is. Some will say that Allah is a moon god, and others will say that Yahweh was a storm god.

 

[Anubis]

I'm just going by that whole, one of Abraham's kids is the ancestor of Muhammad thing. That's all I'm going by.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I think their all fake Gods.

 

[rodhulk]

When does a fox change so much that the fox isn't a fox? The only "kind" that is of concern is life, as life cannot change into anything but life.



That's a common misconception though. Not every view of "God" involves anthropomorphism.

Actually, there is a concern in the Bible about "kind" as I can say God's reputation depends on it.

 

[8wid]

Ghosts are products of the imagination, but in a few cases, the physical manifestation of beings in another universe that can barely perceive their surroundings. Imagine how we might appear to them and not even know it.

 

[rodhulk]

Ghosts are products of the imagination, but in a few cases, the physical manifestation of beings in another universe that can barely perceive their surroundings. Imagine how we might appear to them and not even know it.

Did you ever see the movie THE OTHERS? It kinda deals with what you said.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I think their all fake Gods.

Truth be told, I trade 'em all for the Greek pantheon anyway


j/k

 

[Bubonic]

Marvel Asgardians!

 

[Lighthouse]

Truth be told, I trade 'em all for the Greek pantheon anyway


j/k

I'd go with the Norse Gods. At least they gave a crap about humanity.

Also........Ragnorok>Rapture

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I'd go with the Norse Gods. At least they gave a crap about humanity.

Also........Ragnorok>Rapture

And rarely interfere with the affairs of Midgard(from what I know of them)

 

[Lighthouse]

And rarely interfere with the affairs of Midgard(from what I know of them)

Considering how the Greek Gods "interfere" with mankind, that's a good thing.

 

[Galactus123]

Maybe God is measurable, but not by what we can do now. It wouldn't be the first time humans knew about something before they could explain it.

But there is no real reason to believe that God exists. Does one old book proof that God exist? No. Faith is not enough. There is no reason to even believe that God exist.

 

[rodhulk]

But there is no real reason to believe that God exists. Does one old book proof that God exist? No. Faith is not enough. There is no reason to even believe that God exist.

That's only your opinion, though. There could be many types of proof that give evidence that God exists. This could be anything from personal experience to Bible prophecy. Sure you can throw arguments against these just like one can throw arguments against most to everything else that we believe in, but those arguments do not "prove" God doesn't exist (and that these personal experiences or Biblical prophecy aren't true).

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I suppose my main and only problem with evolution is if we evolved from apes then why are they still there?

I agree with you here

We didn't really evolve from apes. The theory is we have a common ancestor with apes.

One section of the theory is:
Germs -> primitives/apes -> humans
And the primitives to humans went through many levels, so why do germs hurt us since they're family?

Spoiler

Somehow, I expect to get an answer involving the Yin/Yang nature theory

 

[Dr.]

The shifting of the goal posts are on the side of the people requiring the copius amounts of proof to satisfy their own needs. Take ghosts/spirits for example. The scientific community largely believes that ghosts/spirits do not exist because they do not believe in an afterlife. When someone has proof, they deny it and come up with x number of reasons. They will never believe in ghosts/spirits until one appears right in front of them and slaps them on the face and then when that Scientists believes in it, they either keep quiet or are shunned by the Scientific community.

When someone says something DOES NOT EXIST, it's the SAME THING as saying SOMETHING DOES EXIST. It's a definitive. It is a statement of fact that needs backing up. People that say God exists have just as much burden of proof as someone who says God doesn't exist.

The bulk of religion is stubborn. But they aren't Science based so it should be no surprise to anyone. It's shocking to see Scientists saying that something cannot exist even though they can't say for certain whether it does or doesn't. Hell, the Giant Squid didn't exist 50 years ago and some in the Scientific community thought it was just a tall tale or mythology and flicked their nose at it. Then one is caught and slaps them in the face and they give credence to it. Just bite your tongue and say, it's a possibility but I would need proof. That's it. No badass Scientists riding in with Oakleys on Segways. It's possible but not probable. THE END.

Admittedly, science is imperfectly communicated. But because of this, I think you are somewhat mischaracterizing what “official” science does and what it has to say.

There isn’t actually an Official Science Bureau that issues dogmatic proclamations along the lines of: “there is no such thing as ghosts (or gods).” To the extent that research has been done in this area, it’s usually expressed in typically narrow and cautious scientific terms. To wit: “upon investigation of the allegedly haunted house, we find no evidence… etc.” This is quite similar to the language used to debunk, say, a crackpot cancer cure. Formally, these are statements about evidence (or lack thereof); they are not categorical declarations of logic. Again, science doesn’t deal with logical proofs.

That said, an individual scientist may express an opinion that sounds categorical: “there is no such thing as ghosts (or gods).” But you read that, I submit, as colloquial language – a figure of speech that denotes a strong conviction based on the evidence (and which may be right or wrong). You shouldn’t mistake this for the “official version” that’s actually been written up in a science publication. And you shouldn’t assume that the scientist has suddenly put on a philosopher’s hat and is pronouncing upon a proof in logic. That, it seems to me, is the mischaracterization – a “straw man.”

 

[chaseter]

No there is no Bureau of Science...don't be silly. Eliminating what you think is impossible is not any true form of discovery. Something can be improbable but still be possible. Science isn't close minded, there is almost always a possibility. Imagine if the great thinkers of our time had such closed minds and decided only upon what was impossible or possible.

 

[Dr.]

One section of the theory is:
Germs -> primitives/apes -> humans
And the primitives to humans went through many levels, so why do germs hurt us since they're family?

Say what? Forget about germs and humans. Lions and antelopes are much closer cousins. And yet, lions hurt antelopes. Astonishing!

Please point out where the theory of evolution rests upon the notion of living things not preying upon/consuming other living things.

 

[redhawk23]

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Say what? Forget about germs and humans. Lions and antelopes are much closer cousins. And yet, lions hurt antelopes. Astonishing!

Please point out where the theory of evolution rests upon the notion of living things not preying upon/consuming other living things.

Not what I anticipated for a reply, but it is something to come nonetheless

 

[Sentinel X]

That would make him a dick.

To us, yes but in all honesty (assuming God is real) its like we are living in a giant game of sims. When I was younger and used to play the sims sometimes I'd kill them off in a fire, have them drown, or even starve to death...why? Because to me they're insignificant creations that are completely replaceable. If I killed off a sim I could create another one instantly at my will. I wouldn't be surprised if God saw things that way either.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

That can be argued. Christians will say it is not, but muslims may agree that it is. Some will say that Allah is a moon god, and others will say that Yahweh was a storm god.

Honestly, I have no idea what the whole moon/storm thing is. But God told Abraham to send Ishmael away as he would found his own city, and would be as great as Isaac. Isaac began what is now Judaism/Christianity and Ishmael began what is now Islam/Chrsitianity. All three religions are started by Abraham, which is why it is actually incorrect to refer to them as Judeo-Christian, you should actually say Abrahamic religions, as they all believe in the same singular God, just different details. The biggest belief is the belief of the Messiah:

Jews believe- He has yet to come. Jesus was not the Messiah, just a man. But he will return the Earth to God.

Christians believe- He was Jesus of Nazareth, The Son of God and will return at the end of all, and defeat Lucifer, Antichrist, and the Beast. Redeeming all.

Muslims believe- He was Jesus Christ, the greatest of all prophets and will return at the end of all to defeat the Antichrist.

 

[JAK®]

It doesn't matter what my thoughts are. Evolution is a fact, and it can be observed. Some people need to look up the definition of Scientific Theory.

 

[Calvin]

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.

The sky is not blue. It's up to you to prove to me why it is blue. See how stupid that is? I make an assertion but it's up to you to prove me wrong. Wonderful logic.

If I make the claim that there is a blue sky, and you don't believe me, then the burden of proof is indeed on me, and that's how it should be. I would either show you a blue sky in person, or show you scientifically documented and confirmed photos of a blue sky. Now my theory is plausible. What would be stupid is if I said "there's a blue sky" and you said "I don't believe you, show me proof" and I said "well prove there's NOT one!" That's what you're advocating.

I make an assertion but it's up to you to prove me wrong. Wonderful logic.

With this sentence you're essentially agreeing with me. You just said it would be stupid to ask the other person for proof if you're making an assertion. If you make the assertion that there's a god, then it's stupid to ask the other person to prove that there isn't.

 

[chaseter]

No, it's the exact opposite. You are hiding being an assertion but then saying that the other side should prove to you why you are wrong. That is stupid. You are essentially being a hypocrite.

If someone says x exists, then say prove it. That's fine. They made the assertion and the burden of proof falls onto them. When you say x doesn't exist so prove to me how x exists then that is completely backwards. The burden of proof falls onto you because you made the assertion. So now prove to me why x doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy and it's hypocritical to use that tactic. You see how all of this is a colossal waste of time and why religion and science shouldn't be mixed?

 

[JAK®]

There is no proof God doesn't exist, but there is no proof that he does either. But why are we talking about God? This thread is supposed to be about evolution.