Creation vs. Evolution

[sandjeep]

Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

Actually I was attempting to find out if warthaug is stating that his beliefs are of Theistic Evolution.

Which is God created all and used evolution to bring us into our present form, however the question is open to all!

 

[Midnight Star]

Ok, I know this isnt the proper forum for this, but how about this...

1) Sending fire coral to your favorite enemy with "Homeopathic Sponge" on the outisde of the box.

2) Sending Pufferfish skin goo, freshly squeezed, to your favorite enemy as pain reliever for their gums?

3) A rolled up blue ringed octopus as an all natural "Everlasting Gobstopper"?

Send any thoughts or comments to:

Caustic Cackles

 

[lamont]

I think it depends on your definition of god. Some people would only accept that as a caring, humanoid begin who watches us from above. If that's what I have to believe god is, then I guess I am an atheist. As are the members of a fairly large range of religions. Spinoza's god most certainly falls away from that definition, but many would still consider his god a god...

How do you distinguish between Spinoza's God, though, and just a sense of awe over the universe taken as a whole? Atheists can certainly feel the latter. And how can you tell what Einstein actually meant when he used the term "Spinoza's God". Anyway, I feel pretty confident that what Einstein was referring to was much closer to an Atheistic belief system than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism -- and that religious people who claim that Einstein believed in God based on that statement really don't understand what Einstein was talking about...

 

[lamont]

BTW..


Are we there yet???

 

[Midnight Star]

BTW..


Are we there yet???

I'm not sure ... but on the next stop, i've gotta go to the restroom.

-----

Mike.

 

[Warthaug]

Ok, bottom line your thoughts here. Did Mankind Evolve from a lower life form that was NOT human?

Most certainly. We are simply one of the more recent links in a chain of life which extends back about 4 billion years. We share a common ancestry with all life on earth, and arose from simpler, non-human organisms.

As to whether a god, of any form was involved, I'm on the fence. AS I've said before, although I no longer believe in organized religion, I don't think I'd qualify as an atheist either.

Bryan

 

[H2Andy]

As to whether a god, of any form was involved, I'm on the fence.

i used to be as well, with a three-pronged problem:

1. By its very definition, I will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

2. Assuming there is a deity, which of the many worshiped on Earth is the one? there is no way to prove this either; and

3. Assuming i can prove which is the "right" deity, how do i figure out what that deity wants from me, since the message has been passed down through imperfect (i.e. human) means and the deity doesn't seem inclined to reveal itself in the present?

all of the which led me to conclude that i could never solve this problem during my lifetime, and that i had better things to worry about, such as what sort of person i wanted to be, and what sort of life i wanted to lead.

if the deity thinks i'm wrong, he/she/it is welcomed to tell me in person.

 

[Warthaug]

I answered the question by stating that Part of Gen 2 was an elaboration on part od Gen 1. That's my answer and I disagree that there is any conflict to resolve.

Fair enough, but I still think you're ignoring a rather obvious conflict between the two. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

I disagree that "the rightness of slavery" is supported by the Bible. While war, slavery and all manor of ugly things did and do exist and show up in the Bible they are a product of mans rebellion against God.

Except that in some cases both the war, and ensuing slavery, were conducted at god's command. He did order the Israelites to conduct several wars, including commands to commit genocide. And god himself says in the new testament that salves should behave themselves, etc. Not direct approval, but still approval by consent.

I would also agree that in the context of the whole bible that slavery wouldn't be a very Christian thing to do - even though parts of the bible do seem to condone it. But then again, in my reading of the bible I would also say that the human characteristics of reason and intelligence were something we were given as a gift, a gift to be used. That is why I don't understand the creationist movement - aside from the fact that what they propose (be it intelligent design, or 6-day creationism) it isn't all that consistent with the bible, their beliefs require not only very selective interpretation of scripture, but complete and utter denial of the very facts nature screams at us.

Or, more plainly, that we are to reject the gift of reason.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Earlier in the thread I mentioned something that I recently read which was was that primates and bats share a common ancestor. Some sort of a bat-monkey I guess. It's been a while but I don't remember them presenting any explanaition as to how they arived at that conclusion.

All mammals share a common ancestor - we all originated from the first mammals, which appeared near the end of the dinosaur age. All mammals, from the smallest vole, to the largest whales, all have their origin in little rat-like creatures which evolved over 65 million years ago. So yes, monkeys and bats (or for that matter, whales and pigs, ocelots and rabbits, cats and dogs, etc) all once were the same thing.

As for how we know this – it’s a mix of paleontology (fossils and such), comparative physiology, and genetic analysis.

No bat-monkey hybrids required. Simply a continual, but branching, progression from one form to another.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

How do you distinguish between Spinoza's God, though, and just a sense of awe over the universe taken as a whole?

Tell me exactly what a "god" is, and maybe I can answer that question. And, at least based on my reading, Spinoza's god is a little more then just a sence of awe.

Atheists can certainly feel the latter.

No doubt about it.

And how can you tell what Einstein actually meant when he used the term "Spinoza's God". Anyway, I feel pretty confident that what Einstein was referring to was much closer to an Atheistic belief system than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism -- and that religious people who claim that Einstein believed in God based on that statement really don't understand what Einstein was talking about...

And I would disagree. Oh well...

Bryan