view on evolution?

[slothpomba]

It needs to be posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs

[Soul_Khan]

Both can be compatible depending on how you view the book of genesis (which deals with creation, original sin,, the first humans, etc.) some people view it as an allegory and don't treat it as if it were a scientific textbook but rather stories which were created in order to tell people during those times about the world, god, etc. and have a deeper purpose, others view it as literal and therefore don't believe that the two can ever be compatible. I think it's nonsense to exclude religion out of the debate because for thousands of years, religion has always had the explanation for the origin of the universe and the world - since evolution deals with questions which once where only dealt with in the realm of religion - I can see why religion is brought up.

Personally, I don't see the incompatibility with believing in a god (say a deist god) and accepting evolution.

I believe that evolution, as defined as changed over time does occur and we can see it evident everywhere and given enough time large scale changes can occur as organisms begin to adapt more into their respected environments and evolve. However the real controversy is how the first cell begin in the first place (abiogenesis), if you believe in evolution you can't ignore the fact that you had to first have the first organism which could replicate itself in order for the process of evolution to began in the first place.. which means that the first replicating molecule or organism had to have came up due to chance - which is what I disagree with, because I think it's improbable that mere molecules can arrange themselves into that order just purely based on chance.

I think once you go into origins - this is where some of the science gets shaky, especially when it comes to the evolution of life - not necessarily the evolution of the universe since we can actually see how in the universe used to be in the past and how it evolved whilst in the natural world we only see a few glimpses and clues in the fossil record.

Overall; I believe it's true. However I'm still ignorant and intend to study these issues of origins further, to understand the overall evolutionary process more especially the biochemistry behind abiogenesis.

[abeybaby]

What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?

not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?

[enwiabe]

What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?

not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?

Evolution is not random. Randomness does not drive evolution. Random mutations are a part of it, sure, but natural selection is the mechanism which dictates the favourable mutations and discards the uncountable number of undesirable ones.

If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

[abeybaby]

What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?

not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?

Evolution is not random. Randomness does not drive evolution. Random mutations are a part of it, sure, but natural selection is the mechanism which dictates the favourable mutations and discards the uncountable number of undesirable ones.

If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

im well aware that natural selection is not random, as i made clear when i said "it has to be true to some extent, why else do we have asians looking different to indians or arabs or caucasians?". I'm just asking kingpomba what he meant.

i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.

[enwiabe]

i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.

p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.

[enwiabe]

I think this sums up my position on the utter implausibility of Christianity quite adequately. From 2:19 on until about 3:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&v=iR0GyYaeI-k&feature=player_detailpage#t=139s

[slothpomba]

not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?

I'm saying i believe there are serious theological and philosophical difficulties that come along with believing that. I can't really respond until i'm sure what your exact position is.

There are a few things i need to know before i can say much more though. I'm not sure if you're presenting what you actually believe or doing something else like playing the devils advocate (which is fine), i don't really mind or need to know which it is either.

Your position for example, does it entail....

A)Creationism - That God "designed" everything the way it is. Bacteria, plants, animals, etc.
Eg. That it's intended that we are the way we are.

It's not particularly important how you think this design was actualised, whether he just simply plonked down all these things at once or that he "guided" evolution. The intentional design bit is the thing i'm interested in.

B) That in regards to creationism, God created everything as it is, unchanging. If you are willing to concede that things change, that of course implies evolution can occur as well. So, therefore, it must be at least a possibility for our origin. So, you can't really brush it away with any kind of certainty. Of course, if you take the alternative position and believe nothing changes, in light of what we know, you're also going to have a very hard time with that.

[abeybaby]

i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.

p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.

that isnt an argument for the existence of god by any means at all...

also, this thread wasnt intended for the plausibility of christianity, but regardless, what hitchens said was a fundemental misunderstanding on his behalf - god doesn't sit idly by for 98,000 years then spontaneously decide to intervene, preparation begins in foreshadowing of Christ's coming from the very start of the bible, in the first book in Noah and the second in Moses, all the while, God had Israel, his people, and was standing by them the whole time.

I dont know hitchens pulled out a figure 25 years for life expectancy:
"And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”" Gen6:3.

and the best way to intervene was not comdemning some random to human sacrifice in the less literate areas of the world, it was sending God incarnate to pay the price for which humanity was liable: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”Gen2:7

I think its so so so dangerous/wrong to make any inference about a religion based on either what its followers do, or what others say about it. the only way you can make objective judgments about any religion is to read the texts on which theyre founded, thats the only infallible way to judge a religion.

[abeybaby]

I'm saying i believe there are serious theological and philosophical difficulties that come along with believing that. I can't really respond until i'm sure what your exact position is.

There are a few things i need to know before i can say much more though. I'm not sure if you're presenting what you actually believe or doing something else like playing the devils advocate (which is fine), i don't really mind or need to know which it is either.

Your position for example, does it entail....

A)Creationism - That God "designed" everything the way it is. Bacteria, plants, animals, etc.
Eg. That it's intended that we are the way we are.

It's not particularly important how you think this design was actualised, whether he just simply plonked down all these things at once or that he "guided" evolution. The intentional design bit is the thing i'm interested in.

B) That in regards to creationism, God created everything as it is, unchanging. If you are willing to concede that things change, that of course implies evolution can occur as well. So, therefore, it must be at least a possibility for our origin. So, you can't really brush it away with any kind of certainty. Of course, if you take the alternative position and believe nothing changes, in light of what we know, you're also going to have a very hard time with that.

im saying what i personally believe, not playing devils advocate at all. A) is my belief, but with the addition of free-will, the ability to make our own decisions.

[ninwa]

How can the statement "I believe God created man" NOT be an argument for the existence of god? That makes no sense?

[abeybaby]

How can the statement "I believe God created man" NOT be an argument for the existence of god? That makes no sense?

thats not an argument at all, i didnt provide any reasoning, i just stated my belief. saying "i believe in monsters" isnt an argument for the existence of monsters, it would be if you say "i believe in monsters because etc. etc."

[ninwa]

right. but presumably you believe in the existence of god

If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

he didn't say you had an argument for god, he said IF you were arguing for god's existence and that were your argument, THEN blahblahblah

[abeybaby]

So you are saying that God does not exist?

im saying exactly what my posts say. I believe god exists, i provided no arguments for this. enwibee's post was:
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

I pointed this out because i didnt provide any argument for the existence of god, and so this statement (i would say insult, not statement) is unwarranted.

[enwiabe]

but the more i learn about the human body, the more impossible it feels that the body could EVER result from a random occurrence....

You're saying here that the more you learn about the intricacies of the human body, the more you feel like there was a design behind it. Let me ask you now if it's possible for something to be purposefully designed without having a designer?

If you are arguing that the human body is designed, which you are, then -you- are implying a designer. And your argument for this design is that you are simply unable to fathom a natural explanation for the human body. And to that, I say, "If that is your reasoning for god, then your god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." (loosely paraphrased from Neil deGrasse Tyson)

You can decide, either you're participating in this debate, and your views are open to inquiry, or you don't want to participate. But don't dip your toes in and then all of a sudden call "insult" when somebody critiques your views. That is intellectual abdication of the highest order. I have not insulted you, I have criticised your arguments and your views. If you cannot delineate between the two, then maybe you shouldn't be debating the topic, because it's only going to cause you pain. I'm not going to pull punches just because you write "oh I'm offended. You've -insulted- me!!!" I did NOT insult you. I called your beliefs a load of horse manure. There's a difference, and you'd do well to learn it.