Evoluton????

[stemann]

Now, I don't know what some local church is like near your house, but just because you have theist friends (and most are probably nice people and I do to but won't get into that), doesn't make up for the fact that their beliefs are derogatory, discriminative and just plain wrong.

What do you define as wrong, Mr. Atheist dude? For what reason do you think this?

Deut, is naturalism like deriving moral values from observation of the physical world?

 

[stemann]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.

.... first living organisms came from chemicals in the earth becoming self-replicating chemicals by mixing, and maybe being struck by lightening aswell.

If you are religious and that is why you find this hard to believe (and I'm not saying you are), what is your logical answer for the world existing?

If God, what is your logical answer for Him existing (or any deities)?

Why does anything exist at all? If you believe that something exists, then surely the hardest thing to do is understand why anything should exist.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Why does anything exist at all? If you believe that something exists, then surely the hardest thing to do is understand why anything should exist.

Another question is "If you believe something so divine and perfect exists (provided you're a theist), isn't it hard to believe at the same time that nothing else exists?". If according to the Bible god created Eve because Adam was feeling lonely, if he was in human image why didn't he create a goddess for himself? Wouldn't he be feeling lonely than too after an eternity? Then, before he decided (or figured) there should be light, what did he do/think the eternity before?

 

[AtheistAJ]

What do you define as wrong, Mr. Atheist dude? For what reason do you think this?

Deut, is naturalism like deriving moral values from observation of the physical world?

Mostly the edited, infinitely wise words of god from the old testament. Wife of Moses having to manually cut the penis of her son before the lord, because he suddenly decided to kill her husband, testing them for whatever reason. Then new testament, Jesus deciding to raise armies of the undead on those who didn't believe, or placing curses on trees for pissing his infinite wisdom off, or the unchanged degrade of homosexuals and women. Denial of sciences, are you asking "Is that it??".

There are Christian people who accept evolution, the fact Earth is round, the solar system theory, medical science etc; and most are good people, but don't take their religion seriously. The sick religion or any of sorts should not be defended because of individuals who are not in high positions within it and don't see it for what it is. Would you agree the ex-nazi pope who wants to grant rapist priests immunity instead of condemning them is a great and wise man?

 

[painted wolf]

AJ-I hardly think your qualified to tell others if they take thier religion seriously... :tsk:

Abiogenisis is the theory that covers the 'origen' of life. The fact is that simple molicules form naturally, Amino Acids form naturally and they are the ground floor when it comes to life.
So the ground floor is there, RNA and DNA can be found in non-life (viruses) and some protiens can self replicate (prions)... there is still more work to be done to figure out all the whys and hows but simply dismissing Abiogenisis out of hand is poor reasoning.

wa:do

 

[Idontknow]

Evolution, simple, you are seeing it as you read this post, take an example whit the evolution of technology, when you born internet was a crazy idea now you use it everyday, men created comp tech and they made it better for suiting the neccesity, now here it goes for all the people that believe that a "god" an allmigthy beign selfish and arrogant created the ALL, ok, MEABY you can be given that chance, after all its a theory, and easy and lazy one but theory after all, anywayz, the same way we created tech we made it better and better for suiting neccesity so you religious people can think about how god made us evolve better and better for neccesity, this is a more sutil point of view of evolution i give so hardcore religious people could meaby understand it, your choice, religion was invented by men for men to answer the question that we as rational beigns can think, can look at the sky and ask WHY? and HOW? then we could finally be able to develop Science at the cost of every human life since we could rationally think, since every culture (and im making a huge generalization over here, to keeping it simple) had put us in here, (i.e a middle age baby brought to our times could be as intelligent and rational as you and me, but at middle age he would be very different and knowing alot less than we know today, all thanks to the accumulation of culture and civilization)
Religion in the issue of answering questions is obsolete now, we have science which is a very more accurate and trusting in giving answers than religion, but dont missunderstand me here, Religion is good but only in the purpose of spiritual need, it gives FAITH to people, gives them someone very good and loving (like your parents when you were a kid and u feel protected) its the same thing, some people find faith in themselves and other do in religion and whitout faith and hope we wouldnt be here really, so thats the good side of religion, doh whit thousands of years it has become a way of life and in some cases a very extreme way of life and pardon me for calling hardcore religious people stupid ( just my point of view, a kid if you wish) this is when religious come to a stupid way to me and even turn some people nocive, and afterall religions (generalization again, sorry =P) tells people that at the end everything is going to be fine, gives peace for the mind thats cool, but attach to the facts and leave your fairy tales away, evolution is real and you live it everyday, even now you are changing, your sons will be different and your grandsons as well, thats called evolution my friend.
Pd. Abiogenesis is in part true in part not, it states that things can be created from nothing, but thats because when they made this theory they couldnt see atoms or molecules, even doh its a key part of the big bang theory if you think about it.

 

[JerryL]

Evolution, simple, you are seeing it as you read this post, take an example whit the evolution of technology

That's equivocating.

Pd. Abiogenesis is in part true in part not, it states that things can be created from nothing

No it doesn't.

 

[painted wolf]

Abiogenisis states that life formed from pre-existing non-living materials... Amino Acids and what not...they certenly know about molicules and atoms.

certenly not from "nothing" but from easily avalible somethings.

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

The evolution of technology doesn't follow the same path of natural selection that natural evolution does. Use technology as an analogy if you want, but it's a relatively flimsy one.

 

[Pah]

The evolution of technology doesn't follow the same path of natural selection that natural evolution does. Use technology as an analogy if you want, but it's a relatively flimsy one.

Right! Evolution is without direction and technology always has a goal.

 

[Angama]

Right! Evolution is without direction and technology always has a goal.

Would it be accurate to say that Evolution has the direction of surviving and that's it. Not unless something evolves for the worst?

AA

 

[mr.guy]

Would it be accurate to say that Evolution has the direction of surviving and that's it.(?)

Sounds like lemmings would throw a wrench in the gears if that's so.

 

[JerryL]

Would it be accurate to say that Evolution has the direction of surviving and that's it. Not unless something evolves for the worst?

Sort of. There is an element of evolution that sort-of has direction, but it's subtractive rather than additive... it's "natural selection".

Things less likely to procreate are moved away from.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Would it be accurate to say that Evolution has the direction of surviving and that's it. Not unless something evolves for the worst?

AA

It seems to me that evolution has a different direction: less to more complex. But this is only looking at evolution very broadly. The most simple life came first (replication system), then cells, simple multicellular organism up to animals like chimps and humans, and who knows what will come next. Evolution occurs in a nested heirarchy, without cells, no animals would exist, but not vice versa.

 

[Idontknow]

Right! Evolution is without direction and technology always has a goal.

Of course evolution haves a goal, maybe you dont see it in humans as clearly cuz it has took over 1 million years to Homo-sapiens to emerge, and homosapiens have (apparently) stayed whitouth changes in the past 10,000 years, if evolution wouldnt exist you wouldnt have Black people, White people, Brown people, Pink people, Yellow people, their skin changued because the environment they habited
There are alot of especulations of which will be the next step in men evolution, some say we will lose our hair in some 400 years since we wont need it anymore, some others say we will lose the tiny finger in our feets since we aparently dont need it anymore.

 

[Yerda]

Of course evolution haves a goal

Trust me, evolution haves no such thing. Direction, yes. Goals, no.

some others say we will lose the tiny finger in our feets since we aparently dont need it anymore.

For future reference those feet-fingers are commonly referred to as 'toes'. I trust english isn't your first language?

 

[JerryL]

It seems to me that evolution has a different direction: less to more complex. But this is only looking at evolution very broadly. The most simple life came first (replication system), then cells, simple multicellular organism up to animals like chimps and humans, and who knows what will come next. Evolution occurs in a nested heirarchy, without cells, no animals would exist, but not vice versa.

Evolution tends to move in every direction; but creation lends itself to simplicity.

Going from "most simple" and moving in "every direction possible" would indeed look like "mocing toward complexity".

To make an analogy, explode a bomb in the air. The explosion goes in every direction. Now explode a bomb on the ground. The explosion cannot expand much down (there's nothing more simple than simpleist), so it looks like the explosion is aimed up, when infact it's aimed in every direction.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope it's useful.

 

[mr.guy]

Does help, jerry. btw thanks for the license to go set off a bomb!

 

[jobalexander]

Why can't they're be both? I believe that basically God got the ball rolling, and then evolution did the rest. I really don't understand all the controversy. I have been told that anyone that believes in intelligent creation is a douche. Why can't the two coincide?

 

[robtex]

I think you may be asking about abio-genesis as opposed to evolution. Not sure so here is a link to abio-genesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis