-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
He thought so, and so did his Father.
But it doesn't explain why humans have a collectively overwhelming sense that this is not the way life should be. Perhaps it was God who had to explain why they feel that way, and why we can be sure that the "real" life is coming in the future. This is the Bible's message. How does evolution explain a collective desire among humans for paradise conditions, when they have no geographical connection to one another?
If you go to paradisaic places and look at the nationalities of the tourists, why are they all there? Why is the desire to experience beautiful places almost universal among humans? Animals couldn't care less about the scenery.
If suffering and death is all we have ever known, then why is death still so hard to process? Why have we not evolved a way to eliminate mourning? We humans grieve very deeply and some never recover from their loss.
Humans have been searching for the fountain of youth since time immemorial......why? How come we finite beings have a desire to live forever and never get old? Science hasn't figured out a way to prevent death, old age or suffering despite its extensive knowledge of human biology. The Bible explains why they never will.
Last edited:
Certain things in nature are designed to be food for others. As long as the creature is not sentient, I see no problem. I don't see cockroaches as sentient beings, I don't see wasps as such either. Yet I do see some creatures who eat their sentient prey alive and it bothers me to no end. How I explain that is by referring to the Bible and seeing what God created in the beginning....how it went off the rails (for humans and animals IMO) and how the Creator will return all things back to their original balance in the future.
A prophesy in Isaiah predicts...."The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull, And the serpent’s food will be dust.
They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah." (Isaiah 65:25)
That sounds more like the way it should be, to me.
I guess it gives them a fighting chance. The Bible says that God instilled a fear of men in the animals when he gave them permission to eat meat.....perhaps this fear of one another, prey and predator was also established at that time.
It means that the predator doesn't always win. This happens in human experience as well.
I don't see him that way at all. I see him as his qualities are demonstrated in human creativity. Why can't he continue to build on his creativity? Is there some law that states he must conform to some human estimation of himself?
He is who he is and that is for us to find out....
I do not see any problem with creatures finding their own "kind" to mate with in the wild"...do you?
The wasp is fooled into believing the orchid is a female wasp.....they will never have 'waspids' I assure you.
No, I'm saying that the pot calls the kettle black. Science stretches its scenario beyond anything it can prove but still calls it scientific fact. Diagrams and artists impressions fill in the blanks.
BTW, I read the link@Hockeycowboy supplied. After all your scorn at diagrams of evolutionary relationships, I had to chuckle at the 'artist's impression' of Noah's Ark. . . complete with a giraffe peeking over the top.
That was a very poor artist's impression of Noah's ark. It was not a boat as many assume...it was a great floating chest, or box with no bow or stern and no navigation equipment. It was designed to float...that's all.
More like this....
You see how much more space opens up when you view it like this? 3 stories and ample room for everything.
Hockeycowboy's link was interesting, none the less. The students calculated that it was very plausible.
The movie with Russel Crowe was a joke BTW.
Well, the same is true of us. Since we do not treat science as a substitute explanation for our being, when science tries to eliminate the Creator from the conversation, we don't see that as relevant either.....so what? Science assumes a high ground that it has assigned to itself....we don't put it on a pedestal.....ours is already occupied.
Not according to this source,
Putting DNA to Work - Introduction - Tracing Similarities and Differences in Our DNA ::
What percent of their genes match yours?
Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes.
I see your point. It varies with the source. "Fruit flies share nearly 60% of human genes".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/647139.stm
Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet
Given that according to you you have the same father and no mother aren't you all related?....this is my cousin Fred Banana
and please don't swat my uncle Elroy....
Not sure I understand the question.
No Deeje. People have an overwhelming sense that this is not the life it should be, not because of God, but because life is, in general, crap. The average human that lives or lived had a miserable life with a very high probability. You just have to open a book of history or check how most people in the world live today.
It would be actually very surprising if they did not invent something that gave them hope, no matter how imaginary.
If you go to paradisaic places and look at the nationalities of the tourists, why are they all there? Why is the desire to experience beautiful places almost universal among humans? Animals couldn't care less about the scenery.
Don't tell me. I am always late at work when all those tourists busses clog traffic through Lucerne.
But I am not sure what your point is. It seems to prove mine. If I like beautiful places so much, I can expect to make up an eternal hotel for my soul in a beautiful location (without busses please).
Nobody would make up heaven looking like some rotten factories in Detroit.
Because tring to avoid death and suffering when our genes carriers disappear, is a natural adaptation. I would say that evolving indifference, or self control, when some of our gene carriers, or partners in creating our gene carriers, die, is more detrimental than suffering when they die.
Some even die themselves, or kill themselves, because of their loss and the pain. Yet, from an evolutionary standpoint, that is collateral damage, mainly due to the fact that evolution usually settles for something that is good enough, not perfect.
It would probably require a more complex brain wiring that makes you sufficiently concerned about our dears when they are alive, and indifferent, or self controlled, when they are dead. Probably easier, from an energetic and complexity point of view, to evolve a brain that follows up our concern for our dears. Especially, when it is good enough.
Such an evolution would require a lot of moons, anyway. And we are just a few seconds aways from the common ancestor we have with chimps, in evolutionary time scale, of course.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Isn't according to you God the Father the father of fruit flies and bananas too or did they evolve?Not sure I understand the question.I have a mother and a father....and I also have a Creator who designed the whole process of reproduction that produced me, ensuring that all species multiplied "according to their kind"....can you tell me where this is not the case?
I think you are confusing the terminology here.....God is the Creator of all life, but not all living things are classified as his 'children'. He is a Father only to his intelligent human creation. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus asked us to pray to "OUR Father in heaven".......he is the Father of those who are 'made in his image' and who possess spirituality and a capacity for worship.
Animals do not have those faculties.....only humans do. Can evolution explain this?
Because we evolved a survival instinct so many people invent and believe in all kinds of schemes and religions if they give them hope of surviving physical death.
Humans have evolved bigger and different brains capable of a lot more things than the brains of animals. Including inventing gods and religions.
But what if you are wrong? What if the Bible really is the Creator's only communication with man at this point in time?
What if this really is his earth and what if he has plans for it that could include everyone if they just bothered to find out what he is doing?
How is instinct evolved? Instinct is programming...and programming requires a programmer.....humans are the only species on earth who are NOT programmed to any great extent. We were created to be taught just about everything by our parents....we alone have a concept of past, present and future. We alone communicate with complex language in different forms. We speak language, we hear language and we can read language in written form. We use facial expression and body language as well.
Our brain can process images that affect us emotionally and we have an amazing capacity for facial recognition. We plan our future by anticipating the outcome of our actions, using imagination. We can use information in ways that animals never can. The gulf between humans and any other species of living things on this planet is a chasm that cannot be bridged by any godless theories of humans with their own bright ideas about how it all happened.
Well, there are godless theories about how life and humans on this planet were created. Intelligent Design for Atheists - The Raelian MovementThe gulf between humans and any other species of living things on this planet is a chasm that cannot be bridged by any godless theories of humans with their own bright ideas about how it all happened.
There's a lot of information online about how instincts evolved. For example https://www.quora.com/How-did-animal-instincts-evolve
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I do.....but I also do not separate the creation from its Creator. I see that the Creator of all things is also the Creator of science....the very thing you study. You just eliminate him to give creation a different source......it just created itself.....which is equally as 'ridiculous' as you think we believe.....if you understand what science is actually suggesting, the whole scenario becomes farcical.
So basically what you're saying is, there is no separation of religion and science for you. You approach and evaluate science from a religious perspective.
I hope you appreciate how while you can operate that way (because you're not a scientist and are only throwing rocks from the sidelines), actual scientists cannot. See, when scientists collect and analyze data, they don't check with the Bible, Koran, or Book of Mormon first. When they draw their conclusions, they don't consult with a pastor, monk, or Imam.
But I get the feeling that's what you would have them do. You would have them make sure their analyses and conclusions mesh with your interpretation of the Bible. I mean, that is the logical consequence of the "if it disagrees with scripture, it has to be wrong" framework, correct?
Can you show me any scientific paper or publication that concludes that gods don't exist?
I sense from this that you feel evolution = atheism, and that's the entire basis for your posts about science. It looks like your logic path is something like....
Science's first premise is that there are no gods.
Without gods, science had to explain where humans and other life came from.
So scientists invented evolution to explain the existence of humans and other life forms without God.
You know God exists and the Bible is accurate, which means science is wrong about God and evolution.
Therefore evolution cannot be scientifically valid and you are completely justified in criticizing scientists and their work.
Is that about right?
Before I can answer that, you need to show where science ever established this first premise (that gods don't exist).
Very easily. When I'm curious about a scientific result, I look up and read the associated paper(s) that are published in the scientific journals. There I can read all about how they collected the data, how they analyzed it, what the results were, and what conclusions they drew from it.
That's the entire point of the published literature....to be as transparent as possible about the process by which they reached their conclusions. And if I or anyone else (you included) see an error, misinterpretation, or misuse of a method, we can write the journal and the authors and point it out. It happens all the time.
Further, if I'm really interested I can go to a conference where the authors are presenting their work and findings. There I can directly ask them questions, either during the Q&A session at their presentation, or alone on the side.
But I'm extremely confident you've never done anything like that at all.
Nice dodge.I was asking for the benefit of the readers here, not me. Do you ever consider that others might be interested in how plausible your explanation might be? Just because I might find it amusing, doesn't mean that others will not appreciate it. You see, your argument works both ways. You will never listen to arguments that you consider to be beneath your dignity to accept.
So go ahead, give it your best shot, explain how two completely separate biological species can form a symbiotic relationship where only one is benefited?......but try to keep it simple for those without a science degree...OK?
First, I don't know what "readers" here you're talking about. This forum isn't very active, so I'm not sure just how many people you think see these posts.
Second, the evolutionary development of symbiotic relationships is not my area of expertise. So to be perfectly frank, I don't know what's out there regarding the evolutionary history of that specific flower and wasp.
Finally, like I said earlier I have been interacting with creationists for a long time now, and it's been my experience that when a creationist wants you to explain the evolutionary history of something, they're not asking in good faith. They're not asking because they're truly interested in the answer; rather they're asking because they think no such explanation exists and they're hoping to "stump the evolutionist". And if it turns out I can answer and post the explanation, it just gets waved away ("that's all speculation", "you're just biased") and the creationist just demands something else ("well explain this then!").
So I would suggest that if you are genuinely interested in the evolutionary history of symbiosis, you look into it.
Exactly as I described above....you would prefer scientists ensure their results all agree with your religious beliefs.
Well there's your mistake. You've taken general education material.....material intended for teenagers....and assumed that it represents the entirety of the science that's been done on a given subject.
I strongly suggest you not make this mistake in the future.
Exactly. The material you're looking at is very superficial, and if you want to go more in depth and gain a true understanding of the science behind the conclusions, you have to do some work. You have to learn the jargon and read the papers.
Anything less than that and you're just being lazy.
The problem here is, you're guilty of exactly what you've accused scientists of. You've assumed that scientists have concluded gods don't exist. You've assumed that general education material for teenagers represents the totality of the science in a subject. You've assumed that you are just as qualified as any scientist to evaluate and critique scientific work. You've assumed that any scientific results or conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs have to be wrong.
And from that set of assumptions, you conclude that scientists are being dishonest.
It's easy really...all you have to do is look at what they suggest and see that it is even more farfetched, requiring more faith with less evidence, than ID supporters do. No amount of scientific jargon is going to make a suggestion into a fact.....is it?
I suppose given your set of mistaken assumptions, it's not surprising to see you say that.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
God hasn't been eliminated from the explanation since god has not been demonstrated to exist in the first place. Do we have to eliminate storks from our explanations as to how babies are born?I do.....but I also do not separate the creation from its Creator. I see that the Creator of all things is also the Creator of science....the very thing you study. You just eliminate him to give creation a different source......it just created itself.....which is equally as 'ridiculous' as you think we believe.....if you understand what science is actually suggesting, the whole scenario becomes farcical.
I have an inbuilt need to appreciate what the Creator has made and a desire to express it. I realize that not everyone is spiritually minded, but just because you can divorce yourself from the Creator and deny his existence, doesn't mean everyone can, or should. We each have a choice. The purpose of this thread is to show people that there is actually a choice because science is not quite accurate in its first premise. To accept that evolution ever took place, except in the fertile imagination of the educated ones who felt that religion was simply "the opium of the masses", is to understand that science is without a single shred of real evidence to support what it suggests.
How do you know that what science suggests is based on an accurate first premise? How do you know that their interpretation of the evidence is not so skewed towards their own biased ideas that they can't see past them, and will find a plausible answer to satisfy their own need to be "scientific"?
It's OK to assume something, but its not OK to pass that assumption off as fact. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as actual evidence...it can easily be misinterpreted. People have been executed on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and later proven not guilty.
Nice dodge.I was asking for the benefit of the readers here, not me. Do you ever consider that others might be interested in how plausible your explanation might be? Just because I might find it amusing, doesn't mean that others will not appreciate it. You see, your argument works both ways. You will never listen to arguments that you consider to be beneath your dignity to accept.
So go ahead, give it your best shot, explain how two completely separate biological species can form a symbiotic relationship where only one is benefited?......but try to keep it simple for those without a science degree...OK?
To me they are one and the same issue. Science is just an understanding of the mechanics of creation....although I think it needs to discover the real mechanic, subscribe to the manual, and learn from the Master.
I am assuming that the information posted for the benefit of high school students and 'ordinary' folk, is enough to determine the validity of the whole scenario? Isn't this what science hopes will prompt students to take on the study of the sciences in more depth? I am saying that if your first premise is wrong, then everything you build on it, no matter which branch of science to choose, will be equally flawed, so even at a rudimentary level it is apparent that science makes a lot of guesses (supposition...conjecture) about a lot of things, but calls it fact. That is not honest IMO.
It's easy really...all you have to do is look at what they suggest and see that it is even more farfetched, requiring more faith with less evidence, than ID supporters do. No amount of scientific jargon is going to make a suggestion into a fact.....is it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What if you're wrong and the Qu'ran is actually the "creator's only communication with man at this point in time?" Or what if any of the other thousands of gods that humans have thought up throughout our existence turns out to be the real one? Maybe there's actually more than one god. Then you're in the same boat as I am.But what if you are wrong? What if the Bible really is the Creator's only communication with man at this point in time?
What if this really is his earth and what if he has plans for it that could include everyone if they just bothered to find out what he is doing?
How is instinct evolved? Instinct is programming...and programming requires a programmer.....humans are the only species on earth who are NOT programmed to any great extent. We were created to be taught just about everything by our parents....we alone have a concept of past, present and future. We alone communicate with complex language in different forms. We speak language, we hear language and we can read language in written form. We use facial expression and body language as well.
Our brain can process images that affect us emotionally and we have an amazing capacity for facial recognition. We plan our future by anticipating the outcome of our actions, using imagination. We can use information in ways that animals never can. The gulf between humans and any other species of living things on this planet is a chasm that cannot be bridged by any godless theories of humans with their own bright ideas about how it all happened.
Pascal's Wager is a poor argument.
Olinda
Member
While speculation is an essential part of science it is never called 'scientific fact', nor have you shown it to be. In fact when cautious language is used to avoid making unsupported claims, you have a problem with that also.
Happy to leave it there. Whenever research supports a bit of the story (in this case, that animals could be crammed in and it would float) it is 'interesting' and 'very plausible' and when it's difficult to see how this could be maintained for a year, the God of miracles is invoked.Hockeycowboy's link was interesting, none the less. The students calculated that it was very plausible.
The movie with Russel Crowe was a joke BTW.
I notice you haven't addressed the non-falsification of the ToE, so hopefully you agree?
Well, the same is true of us. Since we do not treat science as a substitute explanation for our being, when science tries to eliminate the Creator from the conversation, we don't see that as relevant either.....so what? Science assumes a high ground that it has assigned to itself....we don't put it on a pedestal.....ours is already occupied.
Another chuckle. Whenever you speak of science as 'trying to eliminate the Creator from the conversation' I see an ugly bogeyman with an eraser. In reality, science is a useful and successful methodology and nothing more or less. There is no need at all to draw unsupported conclusions from research results, let alone put anything on a pedestal.
How exactly do you see 'science' trying to assume the high ground?
- Status