Topic: CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION MADE CLEAR !!! | |
---|---|
Is a cat related to a tiger?
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 03/04/09 09:26 PM
|
|
so where did the monkey man theory came from? There has never been any such 'theory'. It's an ancient urban legend spread by fundamentalist/apologists. If it is a theory at all, it is a theory of deceit, aimed at filling fundamentalist church pews. OK AGAIN.....THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION newsflash....not all Christians are the fundamentalists that get lumped in with them and bashed right along with them i haven't bashed other peoples beliefs and i would expect the same courtesy. all of this bashing from any side is insane Are you replying to my post 'yellow'??? If so, I wrote 'fundamentalists', NOT CHRISTIANS!!! How can christians be 'lumped in and bashed' when they are not even mentioned??? I denounce the ways of Fundamentalism. IMO, it is deceitful, and I believe it gives christians a bad name. If you remember the 'monkey trial', the coined statement came from 'fundamentalists', deforming and ridiculizing Darwin's theory. '... I ain't got no monkey brothers, no sirry bob!!! ...' was a favorite saying of the day, ... way back then!!! Now I will keep denouncing fundamentalist abuse whenever I see it 'yellowrose'. To refer to it as 'bashing' is most inaccurate. If that were the case, then everyone here is 'bashing' everyone else the moment they voice a divergence of opinion. |
|
|
|
If all creatures were created in the forms we know all at once then how do you account for the varieties of canines? How can different breeds of dogs mix if they are different creatures all created at the same time? i didn't say they are now as they were. i said i believe they can evolve due to many reasons |
|
|
|
If all creatures were created in the forms we know all at once then how do you account for the varieties of canines? How can different breeds of dogs mix if they are different creatures all created at the same time? i didn't say they are now as they were. i said i believe they can evolve due to many reasons bingo So you accept the varieties of canines are related and they came from a common source? They must have if the different types can reproduce with each other.Isnt this true and self evident? |
|
|
|
If all creatures were created in the forms we know all at once then how do you account for the varieties of canines? How can different breeds of dogs mix if they are different creatures all created at the same time? i didn't say they are now as they were. i said i believe they can evolve due to many reasons bingo So you accept the varieties of canines are related and they came from a common source? They must have if the different types can reproduce with each other.Isnt this true and self evident? how they became what they are today...dunno lol but sure...it's possible the one thing that someone (from the other side lol) answered me about how does science explain how it all started from the word go the answer was that he didn't know. science can't prove how it all started any more than beliefs can. no one can prove it from either side |
|
|
|
If all creatures were created in the forms we know all at once then how do you account for the varieties of canines? How can different breeds of dogs mix if they are different creatures all created at the same time? i didn't say they are now as they were. i said i believe they can evolve due to many reasons bingo So you accept the varieties of canines are related and they came from a common source? They must have if the different types can reproduce with each other.Isnt this true and self evident? how they became what they are today...dunno lol but sure...it's possible the one thing that someone (from the other side lol) answered me about how does science explain how it all started from the word go the answer was that he didn't know. science can't prove how it all started any more than beliefs can. no one can prove it from either side Do you believe in the scientific method? |
|
|
|
which method???? if you are referring to how science says it all got started then i haven't heard of it because no one can explain it
as far as things evolving....yes. i believe they could have evolved from the originals to adapt |
|
|
|
which method???? if you are referring to how science says it all got started then i haven't heard of it because no one can explain it No, I am refering to the scientific method of gathering and processing information. as far as things evolving....yes. i believe they could have evolved from the originals to adapt Then you agree with Charles Darwin. |
|
|
|
which method???? if you are referring to how science says it all got started then i haven't heard of it because no one can explain it No, I am refering to the scientific method of gathering and processing information. as far as things evolving....yes. i believe they could have evolved from the originals to adapt Then you agree with Charles Darwin. nope...he agrees with me then lol. i don't care that he came first...it's MY belief...MINE MINE MINE LOL |
|
|
|
which method???? if you are referring to how science says it all got started then i haven't heard of it because no one can explain it No, I am refering to the scientific method of gathering and processing information. as far as things evolving....yes. i believe they could have evolved from the originals to adapt Then you agree with Charles Darwin. nope...he agrees with me then lol. i don't care that he came first...it's MY belief...MINE MINE MINE LOL |
|
|
|
Just because I may not have all the answers and even have to ask others about things i'm confused on....doesn't make me less of Christian or lessen my beliefs.
I am human...I have doubts and questions especially with what i'm going through. i will be the first to say i don't know or i'm not perfect but i won't bash someone because they believe different than me. |
|
|
|
Just because I may not have all the answers and even have to ask others about things i'm confused on....doesn't make me less of Christian or lessen my beliefs. I am human...I have doubts and questions especially with what i'm going through. i will be the first to say i don't know or i'm not perfect but i won't bash someone because they believe different than me. Do you believe in cause and effect? |
|
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Great discovery, Evolution is action. Well it's a done deal now. There can be no more complaints from religious people claiming that evolution is 'just a theory'. Clearly it's a proven fact now, and will only continue to be more firmly proven as time goes on. This is kind of like Galileo looking at the phases of Venus, the Moons of Jupiter and the imperfection of sun spots on the sun. The religious zealots refused to believe him initially too. Evolution is in the bag. Religion must now assimilate it, there's nothing left for them to do. So - are you saying that this observation that this observation stems the tide of the religious objections to the "man and Ape share common ancesters" conjecture? I'm selling stars Abra. Wanna buy one? It'll be your very own. I promise. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Wed 03/04/09 10:00 PM
|
|
Every cause becomes an effect, which becomes another cause, which becomes another effect,and on and on and on into infinity.
Therefore, there is no "first cause" and no "last effect". Therefore there is no "beginning" and there is no "end". Evidently time is not linear. We only percieve it that way Therefore,there is no point in time where "it all began". |
|
|
|
I do. to me it falls in line with Karma....the Golden Rule...what goes around, comes around (or the other way can't remember) etc
you may not get the effect for good deeds right away but for me the knowing i did something good is enough for me. |
|
|
|
Hmmm... my sense is that we are in agreement on the destructive abilities of religion - but we differ greatly on understanding what christainity is. None of the atrocities you have names - or will name are representative of christainity - for they defy the very nature of christianity and how it is defined by the book where the term originated. Unfortunately - man has re-interpreted the bible to serve his own needs - rather than Christs, and this is where christainity and religion part. However - for those who do not see the christianity of the scriptures for lack of investigation - anyone's interpretation of it suffices. That is why peole look at the Crusades and think that it was "Christains" who did it - yet any christain knows that here is nothing in the bible that supports this behavior through understanding context - only through pretext. And through Pretext - anyone can make anything say what they want it to.
You are seriously kidding yourself if you believe this Eljay. To begin with there is no single accepted interpretation of the Bible. Clearly the Jews and the Muslims veered off when Christianity was born with their versions which actually were so drastically different they earned their own names (i.e. the Torah and the Quran). However, even if we ignore that, just looking at the Christian Sect we see Christianity fall into a myriad of conflicting and opposing views. The Catholics had the right idea to preserve a religion. Give one person supreme authority to interpret the scripture and everyone else must accept his interpretation. However, many people protested against this and thus Protestantism was born. Protestantism has truly become the biggest joke on Earth. And I’m not saying that with intent to belittle it but simply because it is truly the epitome of hypocrisy. Protestantism was originally based on the “protest” or rejection of the idea that any mortal man should interpret the Holy Scriptures for other people”. No mortal man speaks for god! That was the protest that created Protestantism in the first place. But now look at what Protestantism has become today. Protestant fundamentalists are the most arrogant by far of all the Christians. They are the one’s who demand that only their interpretation is acceptable as the word of god! They reverted back to precisely that the Protestants originally protested against! Instead of sticking with the idea that no mortal man can speak for God they simply reject the Pope as the ultimate interpreter of scripture and becomeself-appointed paper popes! And that’s what makes fundamental Protestantism so dangerous, any random idiot can claim to be the Pope! Here is a direct quote from a Fundamental Protestant Paper Pope that was posted on this very forum: You can not ever ever ever BE A RIGHTEOUS MAN/WOMAN AND NOT BELIEVE IN GOD'S SON.......
Clearly she is very passionate about this being the “Word of God” because she repeated the word “ever” three times, and then made her major point in ALL CAPS like it should be CARVED IN STONE as the WORD OF GOD! Now you come along as yet another Paper Pope and you attempt to declare that you can’t blame Christianity for the Paper Popes who don’t agree with your interepretation of the scriptures, you seem to even be suggesting that there exist some actual correct interpretation, but thus far no one has been able to agree on what that is, including any two Christians!. The bottom line is that no one agrees on what the Bible is saying, especially the Christians! It’s totally ambiguous, clearly self-contradictive and inconsistent, and it doesn’t even contain a single solitarily word that was actually written by the man who was supposed to be the mortal incarnation of God. It entirely a book of hearsay that was clearly written at least a half a century after the man who was supposed to be the incarnation of God had died. The idea that any ‘Protester’ of Catholicism should have a better interpretation of this book than the original Catholic Pope is truly ludicrous. Either the Pope had it correct, or there’s nothing to it! That should be obvious to anyone. Either Catholicism is true, or Christianity is false. This crap of having radical self-appointed Paper Popes claiming to speak for Jesus is truly the epitome of insanity! How do you deal with a Paper Pope who claims, “You can not ever ever ever BE A RIGHTEOUS MAN/WOMAN AND NOT BELIEVE IN GOD'S SON.......” All they are saying to you is that you don’t convert to their interpretation of the scriptures they can never respect you as being a ‘righteous’ person (or ‘righteous nation’) whatever the case may be. All they are saying to people is, “If you don’t interpret this ancient book they way I do I will forever view you as being an evil person who had no moral values at all , and you are also clearly rejecting our creator and siding as his enemy! That’s basically what they are saying. How can you live side-by-side with people who have so vehemently voiced the fact that they have absolutely no respect for you! To claim that someone is an unrighteous and ungodly person is to reject their voice and opinions as being ‘ungodly’. It’s basically an ultimatum. They are basically saying, “Either convert to my religious beliefs or I will forever view your opinions and actions as being unrighteous, ungodly, and therefore unworthy of consideration!” Is that Christianity Eljay? Do you agree with this rejection of non-Christians as being unrighteous and ungodly? If you do then you are basically saying that non-Christians are unworthy of respect. After all, how could anyone respect someone whom they view as being unrighteous and willfully rejecting the creator of humanity? That’s an extremely dangerous view. That’s precisely the kind of view that drove the Crusades, the mass murdering of the Cathers, the Torturing and Burning of innocent midwives, and even contributed to the anti-Semitic views that gave the Catholic Church and German Christians divine permission to go along with an ungodly holocaust. This religion has to be exposed for the ungodly mythology that it truly is. It just makes no sense to continue to defend it in the face of the atrocities that it supports whether on a national scale, or even on a personal scale of having one person belittling another person for being ‘unrighteous’ in the eyes of “God” simply because they don’t view the “scriptures” through the egotistical lens of a Paper Pope. All the religion does is create Paper Pope who become deluded into believing that their views are God’s views. That’s what makes the religion so dangerous Eljay. It’s just makes no sense to support a religion that denounces the righteousness of anyone based on how they might view our creator, or even perhaps because they are an atheist. The religion just breeds prejudice and judgment the very things that Jesus himself denounced! It’s an oxymoronic religion! Jesus taught not to judge others, yet this is all that Christianity is ever used for! All the Christians do is continually tell people that if they don’t believe that Jesus was God they are unrighteous and rejecting God! They are using Jesus as an EXCUSE to judge others. It’s an oxymoronic religion! It just makes no sense to claim that non-Christians are unrighteous. That just spits in the very face of Jesus! This crap has got to stop. And that includes denouncing evolution in the name of God, and same-gender love in the name of God, and rejecting non-Christians as heathens in the name of God. All Christianity does is allow people to become bigots in the name of Jesus Christ. That clearly was never the man’s intent, whether he was mortal or divine. Christianity is the antithesis of Jesus whether he was divine or not. The religion is a slap in the face to Jesus no matter who he was. As a “Christian” I denounce the religion! In fact, that’s precisely what I did! It’s ungodly and it spits in the face of what the Bible even claims that Jesus supposedly taught. People who use Jesus to denounce the righteousness of non-believers are committing blaspheme of the highest order. True believers in Jesus need to start denouncing this formal religion that stole his name because it’s truly the antithesis of Jesus. It’s a train-wrecked religion. Let it die. Help it die! For Jesus’ sake! Abra; We've gone over this so many times before. It matters not what any group of people interpret what or how the bible says on any given matter when it comes down to the absolutes of the intent of scripture. How can you not know this - being a self professed former Christain. That tells me you once knew the basic tennets of Christainity - but continuously, your posts show you do not. You blame on religion the attrocities of those using it as an end to their own means. And more often than not - I have to agree with you. I do not think that the Christain Scientists who refuse to see doctors because of their religius interpretation of the bible are doing themselves any favors, and generally, their blind belief in how Mary Baker Eddy interpreted scripture leads to their committing severe atrocities on either themselves - or heir children. Do you want me to blame God for their blind obedience to a religious mandate? Where would I fnd that as context in scripture? Oh sure - I could use the Abra method of examining the bible and find a passage that appears to point to this as being a "biblically verifyable" interpretation of the bible, but that is going about it all the wrong way, and not demonstratable to having any better understanding of God's intent of the bible than were one to read the first sentnce of a Calculous book and then claiming to have "read the book" - now having a clear understanding of the topic. We would call that person "delusional". Why? Because they would certainly fall short of our lowest expectations of what would qualify one as understanding the concepts to which they are claiming knowledge. To qualify one as a Mathematician, we would expect them to have a more extensive knowledge than the simple properties of Algebra I. Those of us who have ventured off into Linear Algebra and Advanced Calculous have little reguard for the mathematical opinions of someone with a background of nothing more than basic mathematics. So it is with any topic really. I've studied Christainity - and numerous religions for that matter - rather extensively. When you engage me in discussion about how people who claim to be adherants of a religion, but through their actions exhibit no more than a pretextual remedial understanding of said religion, and then try to use that as evidence that the religion is wrong - what are you expecting to get for an answer? You constantly try to use those who abuse a philosophy as evidence the philosophy is wrong. I just can't see that as viable reasoning. The worst evidence for the viability of any philosophy is the many ways that it may be interpreted. Charles Manson saw a select few passages in Revelations as justification of overthrowing the black race - and set about putting that interpretation into actions of atrocities. You would have me think that Revelations is there-by wrong because of Manson's actions. To you, I guess, that's proof enough. If I say that Hitlers "master plan" of exterminating the Jewish race was based on his interpretation of Darwin's survival of the fittest, and thereby - Evolution is false based on how Hitler interpretated it, you'd be all over me with the same logic I am presenting to you. I think it's all fine and well that your position on the bible and it infuences are what it is. I can reason out your position based on how you build your argument. But to try and justify your belief that the religion is false based upon the actions of those who abuse it does not demonstrate to me that you've thought this out very well. It's a weak argument with no solid premise to support it. I expect more from you. Another former Christian here and I agree with Abra most of the time. The problem you have with your narrative here is that ALL religions who claim to be based on the bible are using THEIR INTERPRETATION of what the bible says or is intended to be used for. So no religion is based on the bible at its bare naked face. Why is this? Because no religion could keep parishioners if they followed the bible at face value. This religion would be dictatorial, tyrannic and inhumane just to start and then it would implode from the hypocrisy of the beliefs. If people would put the bible back in context, a compilation of old stories which have been edited and reformulated to fit a certain agenda of the men of that time. It is not timeless, it is not all knowing, it is a prediction for the future. It was men who decided they were the moral judgement of the people and intended to comform the world to fit this "morality". Not defending anyone here just noticed something and called it. As always this is my opinion and observation. So - what you are saying is that religion takes the bible and interprets it for it's own purpose - am I correct? |
|
|
|
If I say that Hitlers "master plan" of exterminating the Jewish race was based on his interpretation of Darwin's survival of the fittest, and thereby - Evolution is false based on how Hitler interpretated it, you'd be all over me with the same logic I am presenting to you. Eljay, you're not even being reasonable at all. If someone uses Evolution as inspiration to commit atrocities that wouldn't make evolution false, because evolution isn't a doctrine handed to use by an all-poweful intervening God as a set of moral codes to follow. With all due respect you don't seem to be able to following any kind of actual reasoning. If an all-wise, all-powerful, intervening God] made a RULE BOOK that is so ambigous that not even two devout Christains can agree on what it says, and HIS BOOK is being used to commit atrocities IN HIS NAME, then that intervening God has every responsiblity to make sure that HIS DEVOUT FOLLOWERS are clearly understanding his works. How can you even compare that with a natural process of evolution that has absolutely NO RESPONSIBLITY at all! An intervening God who just sits by for 300 YEARS while tens of thousands of innocent midwives are being TORTURED and BURNED ALIVE in His Name and inspired by His Book and does NOTHING ABOUT IT, is no God at all Eljay! How can you compare a natural process of evolution with a supposedly all-knowing God who can intervene at his whim? You make absolutely no sense at all. My conclusion STANDS FIRM. Am intervening meddling God has full responsibilty for anyone who does anything in his name believing that they are serving his will. If we can't trust God to let us know in no uncertain terms when we are serving him and when we are doing wrong thing in his name, then guess what that means Ejay? That means that God is untrustworthy! We can't have an untrustworthy God. Either we can trust God, or we can't. That just can't be a wishy washy issue. You're telling me that I can't trust God to tell me when I'm doing right or wrong. I totally denounce the Bible as being the ungodly work of mankind Eljay. If that were wrong to do that then God should make sure that I know it in no uncertain terms. But the truth of the matter is that I feel totally good about rejecting the Bible as the word of God because I genuinely feel that it's been proven to be ungodly. If it turns out to be true and God allowed me to believe that I was doing the right thing by denouncing it then that God has FAILED ME! God was not trustworthy. I could not rely on God to guide me! It can't be true. Period. Because if it is true then God has failed me and turned his back on me and allowed me to fall without ever reaching out to tell me that I'm wrong. And don't give me that crap that fundamentalists are reaching out because THEY AREN'T GOD. Either I can trust God or I can't. If I have to put my trust in every fruitcake who claims to speak for God I might end up following someone like Charlie Manson! Trust MUST BE PLACED IN GOD, and not some evangelists or Jehovah witnesses, or any other fruitcake humans. If I can't trust God directly, then there is no God. Period. And I think that history has shown us point blank that God is untrustworthy because even people who clearly believed that they were serving God CLEARLY WEREN'T. As far as I'm concerend that PROOF POSITIVE that no intervening trustworthy God exists. Your comparison of that with evolution is truly absurd and meaningless. My analogy of of the atricities "in the name of evolution" parellels yours to christainity and the atriocities done in it's name. In the case of two christains disagreeing on a particular doctrine - only two occurances are possible. 1) One is correct - the other is not 2) Both are incorrect. Neither outcome determines the truth or validity of the bible itself. Unlike science - where truth is determined by popular vote, the truth of scripture is not determined by how man interprets it. The mere idea of God - as limited as man is to comprehend - contradicts the idea that He be defined by the obsevances or conjecture of man. The idea that God "should intervene" in the circumstances where atrocities are commited in his name is contradictory to what God has claimed he would do in the bible. That would be taking away the ability of man to freely make chices - right or wrong. What he does state - is that wrong choices bring about consequesnces, and those consequences have a ripple effect through the lives of others. That's where "the rule book" comes in. Despite the fact that one may chose to accept - or reject the bible as true, does not determine the outcome of consequences for wrong actions. They are universal for all - despite what they believe. No religious interpretation is going to change that. This is not the outcome of humanistic thinking as a way to preserve the species - for at no time can man determine himself to change the consequences of his actions. They are beyond his control. As to God's failing you... Stop looking to Him as though He were Santa Claus. And stop thinking so highly of the actions of man that their decisions should prove God less than them. That's absurd. To have that observation is not to be aware of the world around you. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Thu 03/05/09 05:20 AM
|
|
I do. to me it falls in line with Karma....the Golden Rule...what goes around, comes around (or the other way can't remember) etc you may not get the effect for good deeds right away but for me the knowing i did something good is enough for me. Im not sure how a person can believe in Karma and be a christian at the same time but okay. I answered your question about "where it all began". |
|
|
|
I do. to me it falls in line with Karma....the Golden Rule...what goes around, comes around (or the other way can't remember) etc you may not get the effect for good deeds right away but for me the knowing i did something good is enough for me. Im not sure how a person can believe in Karma and be a christian at the same time but okay. I answered your question about "where it all began". Did somebody say KARMA? http://mingle2.com/topic/show/209679 |
|
|
|
I do. to me it falls in line with Karma....the Golden Rule...what goes around, comes around (or the other way can't remember) etc you may not get the effect for good deeds right away but for me the knowing i did something good is enough for me. Im not sure how a person can believe in Karma and be a christian at the same time but okay. I answered your question about "where it all began". no mirror...i was using Karma as a general explain is all. I think they are pretty much the same. take the Golden Rule...it doesn't give punishments or reqards like Karma says but they are all basically saying to do good |
|
|