Cool! So is there much of a difference, in your opinion, between underlying god and god underlying (e.g. "form does not differ from emptiness")?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution, true, fact of life, false or God made?
- Thread starter Im an Atheist
- Start date
Worshipper
Active Member
Absolutely.
The same way any of us creates anything. He's just smarter and cares more about attention to detail.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
God only temporarily represents our lack of understanding of our origins. We can trace ourselves beck to 4.3 billions years where our only function was fermentation. Hell we were almost wiped out by oxygen in which stronger species adapted by developing a respiratory system. We then started to use oxygen to survive, around the same time Ozone was created (2.2 billion years ago). Back in the day when we were bacteria, UV mutations created us. Thats our origin, there was no creation, no intelligent design. We're too complex and biogeochemically aesthetic to be designed.
So to your thinking, evolution and creationism cannot co exist. You are here because of the superior adaptations that seperates you from beast. Holier than thou, western science crap. We have more in common with bacteria now than we ever had in our past and we are so complex and biochemically aesthetic that perhaps, only a design could survive such tribulations.
DNA is not proof that we evolved, it simply shows that the same chemical bonds that form DNA, are required for living organisms. I do not deny evolution but that is to a point.
DNA is not proof that we evolved, it simply shows that the same chemical bonds that form DNA, are required for living organisms. I do not deny evolution but that is to a point.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Of course they cannot. Creationism in my view is like inserting brackets into a sentence when you cant think of the right word.
I don't expect you to think what i think but "western science crap," come now thats not very nice. Im sure God cant cure your diseases the way science can.
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
2CO + O2 -> 2CO2
I hope you can identify these chemical formulas, oxidation on a planetary scale (well the surface anyway). These processes represent a biosphere far from equilibrium which gives further evidence that many changes had to be made in order to get ourselves right. Huge evolutionary processes occured for almost 3 billions years. The reason that oxygen took about 1.5 billion years to increase in the atmosphere was because of the presence of enormous sinks of reduced material that consumed the O2 being produced. The entire surface of the planet and even the mantle was undergoing a transition from mildly reducing conditions to oxidising conditions.
Intelligent Design is possible but hardly reasonable. We didn't just arrive here 10,000 years ago and start breathing. Especially when our planet is 5.4 Billion Years old. What were we doing for the other 5.3999999 Billion years is a few thousand years ago God got bored and deccided to create life?
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Quote:
Originally Posted by Im an Atheist
Evolution is one of the biggest debates within Arabic religion and science
"Fixed."
Fix yours, Most forms of Paganism are Western religions and they have no problem with evolution.
Animals are very adaptive, so are people. I believe that God made all the living very adaptable since there are definite climate changes. An example would be fish in deep caves who have membranes over their eyes.
Well said Darkendless but you have just placed humans in the lesser box than bacteria. Lets say for arguements sake, that human has been a presence for some fifty thousand years. It may be more or less according to the fossil records of possiblity. Human as we are, took some fourty plus thoudsand years just to invent himself. No other artifact, that wasn't already used by other species, spear, club, hammer or axe was created by human. All these years of nothing at all. From your definitions, human has less character than you are proclaiming to possess.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Im sorry i do not really understand what you'rew trying to say here. Are you saying we have less character because we took 5.4 billions years to get here instead of 50 thousand?
I'm not ranking us with bacteria as lesser beings. We are bacteria, just after billions of years of biogeochemical processes (evolution).
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
are you saying that god can't and nature can???????
lunamoth
Will to love
Oh my FSM! It's the Science of the Gaps! Where is Scuba Pete when you need him?
Odd Lunamoth, I thought the Gaps theory was placed in the creationist basket. I had one person argue that the time spent between the evolution of human and what is in the historical evidence timeframe, was the adjustment that humans made to their new environment. Learning to hunt, dealing with predators, surviving the night and the cold. Now pray tell, what animal evolved only to find that it was not adjusted. Isn't the theory of evolution, based on the principal that the stronger survive while the weak perish. If human evolved from some other creature, wouldn't we already be adapted and would hence begin to live as human, rather than continue to exist as the creature from whence we evolved, or worse, begin a new slate. Did it take fourty thousand years plus for humans to develop any skills what so ever.
lunamoth
Will to love
My comment was a joke, in reference to a comment another member has amde in the past. Apologies for posting something of an inside joke in resonse to your post.
Second, I'm having a difficult time following your post to address your questions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say there is no evidence of humans between the time of their appearance as a species and some point of 'historical evidence.' Like other creatures, humans would evolve new attributes and skills over time. They were already human before they learned to use tools and have a written language.
I took no offence, I was however intrigued. I solemnly believe in evolution to a point. If we are classified as human when we were homo erectus, then I disagree with us being human. Did not other creatures use tools as well. Evolution does not account for the past fifty thousand years or so that, humans are said to exist for. Either the adaptation humans developed in becoming humans, set us backward making it more like devolving rather than evolving or we as humans came at a much later time scale.
Was the control of fire humans to claim, I don't know but I know the wheel and the bow and arrow were, perhaps even the woomera, which is an Aboriginal term for the sling that aided in spear throwing. I do not believe that biologically humans have existed for so long as I do not believe we as humans spent so much time adapting from our evolved state to suddenly reach for the stars.
Was the control of fire humans to claim, I don't know but I know the wheel and the bow and arrow were, perhaps even the woomera, which is an Aboriginal term for the sling that aided in spear throwing. I do not believe that biologically humans have existed for so long as I do not believe we as humans spent so much time adapting from our evolved state to suddenly reach for the stars.
This is an interesting paragraph, but one that is hard to follow.
The definition of which primates are human is unavoidably arbitrary to some degree. I wonder why Homo erectus shouldn't be accounted. It seems that you are implying that your criterium is that use of tools is enough (or, perhaps, is not enough) to tell a "true" human from some other "not-quite-human" primate. May you please confirm and elaborate?
Anyway, even if you consider that only Homo sapiens should be called human, the current estimate is that it originated at least 250000 years ago (Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
As for the comment about evolving backwards, I don't understand it at all. Biologically, there is no such thing as "devolution"; changes do not have a purpose and therefore are still evolution even when they turn back to a situation found in previous generations. In any event, what do you mean by "evolution not accounting for" the last fifty thousand years?
You may not believe it, but it is pretty much a documented fact. Although I wonder what would that "evolved state" be. Humans are not any more or less evolved than chimpanzes or mice, really.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Humans have not been literate for a very long time at all. Before that we were probably higher primates as scientific evidence suggests.
LuisDantas, I often wonder whether I write in English or not. I cannot see how my comments are not understandable. I am not saying that you cannot understand plain English, rather it seems quite simple to me to read back what I have written. I get this quite a bit. Is it that there is little direct attention to detail or opinion, being that the opinion is subtle or is it that I am either opposing or agreeing with both arguements that I do not seem to express myself clearly.
Anyway, if you are saying human has been on the Earth for some 250,000 years, my point is that we have nothing to show it. Therefore I claim that human has been around a lot less time than that. By biological definition, especially of the brain, wouldn't you say that 243,000 years was spent doing SFA. Would you concur that, if evolution is the path we took, that humans as we are, are not of the time frame you have mentioned but something a little closer to say 7-10,000 years in existence. My guess it is less but I can settle with that.
Anyway, if you are saying human has been on the Earth for some 250,000 years, my point is that we have nothing to show it. Therefore I claim that human has been around a lot less time than that. By biological definition, especially of the brain, wouldn't you say that 243,000 years was spent doing SFA. Would you concur that, if evolution is the path we took, that humans as we are, are not of the time frame you have mentioned but something a little closer to say 7-10,000 years in existence. My guess it is less but I can settle with that.
Hence my point about humans and their existence, Darkendless and I will reiterate, I do believe in evolution, to a point. Now you along with science make astounding claims about the origins of human, bridging this great divide with simple expectation of belief and blind adherance to the Theory. If it works for A it must have worked for B. I understand that the works in progress are still incomplete, do you.