Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Newsweek Poll: 90% Believe in God - Evolution? Not So Much.. High Five! « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12

klb55

****
Starter

Posts : 639
Offline
#135 : April 08, 2007, 12:21:41 PM


I don't have time to write the reply that I wanted to in this thread, so I'll just say this: For the people who have problems believing that life started out as very simple life forms that evolved into ever more complex systems, how can you then turn around and believe that the highest, most complex life form of all came first and then created all the others? It just doesn't make sense.



Exactly, that *poof* just magically appeared from nothing.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
#136 : April 08, 2007, 02:02:55 PM

If we make an assumption that God exists, and does so in some separate plane of existence, trying to understand his existence is probably beyond our capability. Dismissing Him strictly because of we are incapable of understanding His existence would not be very wise, in my opinion.

Understanding life is a bit less complicated, as we can see how things work, and we have a pretty thorough understanding of this. Unfortunately for some, not having the ability to create life ourselves from nothing, indicates just how difficult the process is and how highly unlikely it is for life to just come into existence all by itself without any help.

Man created God in order to control people by promising them life after death. No possible way to prove anything different. Religion thrives because people can't accept the fact that, like every other living creature in the universe, we die. That's it. People would be more careful with their lives, they would value it more, if they realized it is the only one they will ever have. It would certainly be much harder to recruit people to fight a war. Bush and Bin Laden would have to fight a duel. AK-47s at twenty paces. Pay per view would make a killing.

Darwin's work lead to a belief in a life that just happened to be; i.e. a life without any real importance, because there is no rhyme or reason for us being here. This very philosophy was picked up by Karl Marx and was a prime driver in communism, as it made the group good superior to the individual's right to a life to freely become what one can. This has resulted in the death of many millions, and the enslavement, or greatly reduced freedoms, of a great many millions more. A life without meaning does not lead people to want to be at peace. It makes people realize that their is no consequence if they can grab power and maintain it. That they can impose their will if they have means, and there will be no punishment in the after life. It cheapens life's value and makes it easier for someone to justify taking life to make their ends.

While churches have been used to manipulate people in the past, overall they've done far more good than bad. It's no excuse for those who did bad in God's name, but they are simply not the majority.

And, with Easter here, I think it behooves some people to know the following: Whether or not Jesus Christ was the son of God or not, the actions that happened upon him (the trial, the beatings, the hanging on the cross, his dying and subsequent rising from the dead) were witnessed by a great many people of different beliefs and from different places. It's one of the most heavily researched events in history (if not THE most heavily) and the evidence is very solid that the events occurred as witnessed. People think, because of the secular nature of today's education, that these events are not very likely, and don't have a lot of evidence to support them, yet it is quite the contrary. There's a reason why it blossomed into such a huge religion.

Believe or not, that is your right, but when an event like that is so well supported by the evidence, and that the whole universe appears to be perfectly tweaked, and the odds against life happening on it's own are beyond astronomical, it tends to make me believe in the faith. I try not to let those who rely on mis-translated parts of the bible deter me from believing, as I once did. Those of you who choose to believe that life has zero meaning, which implies zero worth, I wish you well, but I simply refuse to think that way. The evidence is pretty strong in my opinion.

I do notice that people continue to shy away from the information issue. Dal took a subtle stab that completely missed the point. No one else seems ready to sit here and explain where all this information to create life came from. What's your guess? Nowhere in nature do we see information come from nothing. It has not been observed, yet we are supposed to believe that 2.3 billion lines of intricate code, describing how to build a specific human being, just came out of nowhere? Anyone want to buy the Sunshine Skyway bridge? I'm selling...dirt cheap.


>>Ugh.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#137 : April 08, 2007, 02:13:43 PM

Just a couple minor points: Christianity has evolved just in my lifetime. They have changed their stance to conform to science and to be more acceptable in the light of day. KKK membership is no longer condoned in the local Calvary Baptist Church. Times have changed.

It's evolved on SOME science. Christians still feel that Jesus raised a man from the dead.
Just ignore the decomposition problems. Is that conforming to science? What about
walking on water? I shouldn't even go there because I am open minded to people
being able to do things that most of us think are impossible. So I'll shut my
mouth. Glad they have moved towards science in a way.

I make the case that 99% of the politicians in this country are atheists. If they truely believed in God,
they would conduct their business in a very different manner.

With that statement, you're saying that atheists are some bad ass people. But I get your point
you were trying to make.

Man created God in order to control people by promising them life after death. No possible way to prove anything different.

I think that man created God when they saw the Moon and Sun and stars. Those were the first Gods.
Then the church got involved and created the devil.

I think certain people in the Bible shared their out of body experiences and that is where some
of their belief in a spiritual plane might have come from, IMO.

You can prove it to yourself with personal experience. But proving to others? No way.

Religion thrives because people can't accept the fact that, like every other living creature in the universe, we die.
That's it.

The fact? You mean, in your opinion. It may be the right opinion but it's still an opinion.

People would be more careful with their lives, they would value it more, if they realized it is the only one
they will ever have.

Maybe. if I knew 100% for sure that there was no life after death, I might live differently. Would
I have sex with every hot woman I could if I knew there would be no penalties in the afterlife?
Only if I was single! I wouldn't just start hurting people for no reason. Different people would
handle it in different ways. Once a state makes the death penalty legal, do murders go down?

It would certainly be much harder to recruit people to fight a war. Bush and Bin Laden would
have to fight a duel. AK-47s at twenty paces. Pay per view would make a killing.

It would definitely affect the Muslims and suicide bombers if they knew there wasn't
72 virgins waiting for them. I'll give you that.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#138 : April 08, 2007, 02:46:42 PM


I don't have time to write the reply that I wanted to in this thread, so I'll just say this: For the people who have problems believing that life started out as very simple life forms that evolved into ever more complex systems, how can you then turn around and believe that the highest, most complex life form of all came first and then created all the others? It just doesn't make sense.

I don't know what the story is for other planets in the Universe. But on this planet, there are problems with
the accepted theory on how life supposedly came about. Like I said, even folks like the co-discoverer of DNA
realizes there are problems. Doesn't mean it could have happened on some other planet in the universe.

On higher life or Gods or spiritual beings? I can't even begin to try to figure out how they would have
come into being. It makes my head hurt. Although I do remember asking my parents, "Who made
God?" They told me to shut up.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#139 : April 08, 2007, 03:03:58 PM

Unfortunately for some, not having the ability to create life ourselves from nothing, indicates just how difficult the process is and how highly unlikely it is for life to just come into existence all by itself without any help.

Maybe on this planet but in the entire Universe? We have no way of telling that. Life appears
to be under the oceans on Europa and maybe on some moons of Titan. Intelligent life?
Probably not. But IMO, there was intelligent life on Mars at one point. Intelligent Life may
not be as rare as some think it is. We have a large sample to compare Earth to, yet.

A life without meaning does not lead people to want to be at peace. It makes people realize that their is no consequence if they can grab power and maintain it. That they can impose their will if they have means, and there will be no punishment in the after life. It cheapens life's value and makes it easier for someone to justify taking life to make their ends.

I do not agree. The amount of people who want to impose their will on others is very small. Unfortunately,
we haven't learned to overcome those few power mongers.

For the most part, I feel that humans are good. And their beliefs or lack of belief in an
afterlife or god have nothing to do with that, IMO.

And, with Easter here, I think it behooves some people to know the following: Whether or not Jesus Christ was the son of God or not, the actions that happened upon him (the trial, the beatings, the hanging on the cross, his dying and subsequent rising from the dead) were witnessed by a great many people of different beliefs and from different places. It's one of the most heavily researched events in history (if not THE most heavily) and the evidence is very solid that the events occurred as witnessed. People think, because of the secular nature of today's education, that these events are not very likely, and don't have a lot of evidence to support them, yet it is quite the contrary. There's a reason why it blossomed into such a huge religion.

So why did Islam blossom or Hinduism?

The evidence is very solid that Jesus came back from the dead after three days? Besides stories
written in a book, what other evidence is there?

It's too bad that most Christians have dismissed the Lost Tomb of Jesus story because some
of the evidence being found in the Jesus ossuary is very strange and could point towards
something very strange  or anomalous happening. But since most have dismissed the
evidence they'll never know about it. Now THAT is the evidence that you should be
looking for. That's too bad.

Those of you who choose to believe that life has zero meaning, which implies zero worth, I wish
you well, but I simply refuse to think that way. The evidence is pretty strong in my opinion.

You've totally lost me now. I think life has meaning and I think there is another level of
existence after this one. But for others who don't? They still can find plenty of meaning
in their lives without religion or a belief in the afterlife. They find meaning in their kids
and in nature and in the beauty of the world. God doesn't have to be part of that
for them. And their lives can be just as rich as yours and mine.

The evidence of what is pretty strong?

I do notice that people continue to shy away from the information issue. Dal took a subtle stab that completely missed the point. No one else seems ready to sit here and explain where all this information to create life came from. What's your guess? Nowhere in nature do we see information come from nothing. It has not been observed, yet we are supposed to believe that 2.3 billion lines of intricate code, describing how to build a specific human being, just came out of nowhere? Anyone want to buy the Sunshine Skyway bridge? I'm selling...dirt cheap.[/quote

No one? I suggested a few possibilities.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21589
Offline
#140 : April 08, 2007, 04:54:22 PM


God or a host of intelligent life. Buc leaves open several possibilities. The theory Dal believes? Even
Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA sees the problems with it. That's good enough for me and plenty
of others. Dal would have you believe that anybody who questions the prevailing theory is out
of their minds. I enjoy being surrounded by crazy people so Dal's words are a compliment
for me.


Crick is a bright man, obviously, but in this he's wrong. There's just a mountain of evidence for evolution and just nothing that says creation, ID or ET.

Creationists can't explain biogeography for example - nor any of the other theories. Why aren't there mammals or reptiles on the Pacific Island atolls (natively not after people brought them). Did god forget about those places, aliens not want to bother with them? Or, does the notion that those areas were separated from land masses where land animals evolved and thus made them unreachable make more sense? <insert we don't know why god does what god does defense here>. Why are large marsupials found only in Australia in geographic isolation?

ID can't explain a host of problems. Namely things like.
1. The eye. The design is really not very intelligent and has flaws - not seeing in the dark sucks. The inverted retina and associated blind spot also stinks.  You'll note that octopii don't have this issue so god apparently forgot his good design on the way to people - or he built us first and figured out his mistake in QA.
2. Why we eat and breathe through the same hole - what idiot came up with that? Evolution can explain it based on ancestry - blame your nearest Devonian lungfish for your choking problems.
3. The male urethra passes through an expandable organ called the prostrate. Anyone over 50 likely knows this is very bad design.
. We'll only touch on the panda's thumb as a great example of awful design.
4. The bedbug Xylocaris Maculipennis reproduces by homosexual rape - and we know god ain't down with this. The male will impale and inseminate other males, and the rapist's genes enter the bloodstream to be carried to females by the victim. In this way, the rapist conceives by proxy.
5. Testicular formation in humans. The testes form inside the abdomen and then drop leaving a holw in the abdominal wall that can lead to herniation.
6. Flightless birds. Enough said, they have wings. God just wanted to make all birds alike?
7. ungulates toes. Ungulates are hoofed animals yet they still have toe bones.
8. Snakes with legs Boa constrictors have left over legs that serve no purpose.

There are, obviously, legions of these and the point is that the "order" you see is not as clean and orderly as you'd like it to be. Things are a bit messy under the hood.



All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#141 : April 08, 2007, 05:07:13 PM

Crick is a bright man, obviously, but in this he's wrong. There's just a mountain of evidence for evolution and just nothing that says creation, ID or ET.

From what I understand of Crick (did you read what I posted?), he had a problem with the way life started and not with the subsequent evolution, for which you just listed several details.

Dr. Crick in no way rejected the orthodox scientific thesis that life evolved in some way, yet to be specified, from the chemicals present on the early earth. But he was impressed by the unexplained universality of the genetic code and uncomfortable with the narrow window of time between the date the earth cooled enough to be habitable and the first appearance of life in the fossil record. With ''Directed Panspermia,'' he prepared, in effect, an intellectual escape hatch, an alternative explanation for life should scientists in fact find it too hard to account plausibly for the remarkably rapid emergence of earth's first life forms.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21589
Offline
#142 : April 08, 2007, 06:01:06 PM

I read what you posted but I was rolling my response to you and BH into one response and going off your "darwinism is dying" and argument by design 747 example. Design sucks so either ET is a retard or god is. Take your pick.

Right, well and Crick in 1973 and 1981 had more basis for that belief given the state of research. That's fine, Crick is pretty much going cowboy on that one so more power to him.

Still, my point remains, it doesn't matter if life was seeded by aliens here, or those aliens were seeded by another life or if they were ALSO seeded by another life. At some point someone planted the first seed and at that point you either need abiogenesis or you believe in creationism for that original farmer. Life formation likely would have been similar anywhere else since, one would assume, they used what they had so they're critters of DNA as well.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#143 : April 08, 2007, 07:02:06 PM

I am open to abiogenesis. Just not here. IMO, I don't think that's what happened here.

I'm surprised you didn't comment on BH's life has no meaning comment. Unless you
tink I covered that well enough.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
#144 : April 08, 2007, 09:10:19 PM


God or a host of intelligent life. Buc leaves open several possibilities. The theory Dal believes? Even
Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA sees the problems with it. That's good enough for me and plenty
of others. Dal would have you believe that anybody who questions the prevailing theory is out
of their minds. I enjoy being surrounded by crazy people so Dal's words are a compliment
for me.

Creationists can't explain biogeography for example - nor any of the other theories. Why aren't there mammals or reptiles on the Pacific Island atolls (natively not after people brought them). Did god forget about those places, aliens not want to bother with them? Or, does the notion that those areas were separated from land masses where land animals evolved and thus made them unreachable make more sense? <insert we don't know why god does what god does defense here>. Why are large marsupials found only in Australia in geographic isolation?

ID can't explain a host of problems. Namely things like.
1. The eye. The design is really not very intelligent and has flaws - not seeing in the dark sucks. The inverted retina and associated blind spot also stinks.  You'll note that octopii don't have this issue so god apparently forgot his good design on the way to people - or he built us first and figured out his mistake in QA.
2. Why we eat and breathe through the same hole - what idiot came up with that? Evolution can explain it based on ancestry - blame your nearest Devonian lungfish for your choking problems.
3. The male urethra passes through an expandable organ called the prostrate. Anyone over 50 likely knows this is very bad design.
. We'll only touch on the panda's thumb as a great example of awful design.
4. The bedbug Xylocaris Maculipennis reproduces by homosexual rape - and we know god ain't down with this. The male will impale and inseminate other males, and the rapist's genes enter the bloodstream to be carried to females by the victim. In this way, the rapist conceives by proxy.
5. Testicular formation in humans. The testes form inside the abdomen and then drop leaving a holw in the abdominal wall that can lead to herniation.
6. Flightless birds. Enough said, they have wings. God just wanted to make all birds alike?
7. ungulates toes. Ungulates are hoofed animals yet they still have toe bones.
8. Snakes with legs Boa constrictors have left over legs that serve no purpose.

There are, obviously, legions of these and the point is that the "order" you see is not as clean and orderly as you'd like it to be. Things are a bit messy under the hood.

First, geography and lack of life on atolls, has zero relevance. Who says God has to populate the entire planet? Second, ID easily has an answer to the issues you raise: message theory. Let's be blunt here, God stated that His creations would tell us of His existence and handy work. If all life used optimal designs, then it would actually bolster Darwinian Evolution a lot more because only the best traits would have survived. It would have also prevented a message from being sent to us that the same designer had his hand in everything. Being an Engineer, believe me, nobody wants to keep using the same perfect design. We like to reinvent the wheel (call it a flaw).

The issue with the intersecting of the trachea and esophagus is only a problem until you start to think about how we could have been able to produce speech. You may think a design is not optimal, but, for the being in question, it may be. If our eyes allowed us to see more than we do know, it may have negatively affected our ability to deal with the information we receive. To simply look at imperfections in design, many of which could be degradations over time from lost DNA, and just say it precludes a designer is not, in my opinion, a very good way to understand how we came about.

Try to remember something from an Engineer: design is about trade offs. You don't always need the perfect hands, eyes, nose, senses, etc...to be a successful organism. You need what best fits your environment. Besides, I really don't think that God wanted to design a bunch of perfectly duplicated lemmings following everything he said like mindless automatons. Anyone that's done any programming for AI (games, research, etc...) wants their creations to have a mind of their own. It's otherwise boring and pointless.

Has far as the bug that reproduces in a "homosexual" fashion, the reality is that homosexuality between humans is a sin. Nothing more. God didn't say to strike down your female dog because it starts licking the private parts of another female dog. No. This only applies to humans.

>>Ugh.

BucHarbour

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3110
Offline
#145 : April 08, 2007, 09:49:38 PM

A life without meaning does not lead people to want to be at peace. It makes people realize that their is no consequence if they can grab power and maintain it. That they can impose their will if they have means, and there will be no punishment in the after life. It cheapens life's value and makes it easier for someone to justify taking life to make their ends.

I do not agree. The amount of people who want to impose their will on others is very small. Unfortunately,
we haven't learned to overcome those few power mongers.

For the most part, I feel that humans are good. And their beliefs or lack of belief in an
afterlife or god have nothing to do with that, IMO.

Unfortunately, history and psychology both disagree with you. It's the unfortunate fact of life that humans are, by nature selfish. They can be taught at the earliest of ages to be giving and caring of others, but kids (I'm seeing mine in action daily) think nothing of hitting other kids, animals, or their parents, and they aren't prone to sharing or giving unless you teach them that it's a good thing to do. These things can be learned, but it's still against natural instincts.

Further, the life without meaning is based on not believing in some kind of afterlife. When you make life something that is just common and happens all over for no reason whatsoever, life loses it's meaning. We become people who are just here to survive and it lends itself to situations where instincts take over. This has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout human history in many, many ways. Religion, unfortunately, does not take all of that away, but the more people who believe that their actions will be judged after death, the more likely we are to see civilized behavior as the norm.

And, with Easter here, I think it behooves some people to know the following: Whether or not Jesus Christ was the son of God or not, the actions that happened upon him (the trial, the beatings, the hanging on the cross, his dying and subsequent rising from the dead) were witnessed by a great many people of different beliefs and from different places. It's one of the most heavily researched events in history (if not THE most heavily) and the evidence is very solid that the events occurred as witnessed. People think, because of the secular nature of today's education, that these events are not very likely, and don't have a lot of evidence to support them, yet it is quite the contrary. There's a reason why it blossomed into such a huge religion.

So why did Islam blossom or Hinduism?

The evidence is very solid that Jesus came back from the dead after three days? Besides stories
written in a book, what other evidence is there?

It's too bad that most Christians have dismissed the Lost Tomb of Jesus story because some
of the evidence being found in the Jesus ossuary is very strange and could point towards
something very strange  or anomalous happening. But since most have dismissed the
evidence they'll never know about it. Now THAT is the evidence that you should be
looking for. That's too bad.

Well, to Jesus, one of the better roundups I have seen on the web is here. It does a good job of looking at it from a legal standpoint; i.e. how a trial would determine the truth of the resurrection, or falsify it. I don't want to be slammed on Islam, since we are not trying to create "those" types of arguments on these boards. Otherwise, I would comment, and it would be negative. Many beliefs have sprung up in the world, but many are simply unaware of the events that drive Christianity, nor how convincing the arguments are. Most simply are uniformed to all of the details that are available. Read the link and think about it.

Those of you who choose to believe that life has zero meaning, which implies zero worth, I wish
you well, but I simply refuse to think that way. The evidence is pretty strong in my opinion.

You've totally lost me now. I think life has meaning and I think there is another level of
existence after this one. But for others who don't? They still can find plenty of meaning
in their lives without religion or a belief in the afterlife. They find meaning in their kids
and in nature and in the beauty of the world. God doesn't have to be part of that
for them. And their lives can be just as rich as yours and mine.

The evidence of what is pretty strong?

See above.

I do notice that people continue to shy away from the information issue. Dal took a subtle stab that completely missed the point. No one else seems ready to sit here and explain where all this information to create life came from. What's your guess? Nowhere in nature do we see information come from nothing. It has not been observed, yet we are supposed to believe that 2.3 billion lines of intricate code, describing how to build a specific human being, just came out of nowhere? Anyone want to buy the Sunshine Skyway bridge? I'm selling...dirt cheap.[/quote

No one? I suggested a few possibilities.

I was talking more to the Darwinian Evolutionists. Sorry...didn't mean to disparage your reply to it. As I have said, I am open to the possibility that life here was influenced by other life from elsewhere. But, like I said, it gets back to the "who created ET?" problem. I'm at least open minded and review the science appropriately, while there are others, as you know, who are not open minded and choose not to listen to what they don't want to here, or try to get around it.

Unfortunately for Dal, most of his arguments are pretty well refuted, but he seems not to be aware of this. I was a disciple of the Darwinian religion at one time, but as the evidence was put in front of me, I could tell that it didn't match reality. Today that camp seems to just make up things left and right to put their theory on top. They should have learned from Piltdown man, but they can't seem to stop.

>>Ugh.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#146 : April 08, 2007, 11:25:19 PM

Has far as the bug that reproduces in a "homosexual" fashion, the reality is that homosexuality between humans is a sin. Nothing more. God didn't say to strike down your female dog because it starts licking the private parts of another female dog. No. This only applies to humans.

Haven't heard God say anything on that matter one way or the other. But I've read plenty of
opinions from men.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Offline
#147 : April 08, 2007, 11:45:25 PM

Unfortunately, history and psychology both disagree with you.

My 42 years on planet Earth agree with me. I see the positive in people and it
has a huge effect on my interactions with them. History proves my point
that the few bad apples try to ruin it for the masses.

It's the unfortunate fact of life that humans are, by nature selfish. They can be taught at the earliest of ages to be giving and caring of others, but kids (I'm seeing mine in action daily) think nothing of hitting other kids, animals, or their parents, and they aren't prone to sharing or giving unless you teach them that it's a good thing to do. These things can be learned, but it's still against natural instincts.

Comparing children to mature adults? You teach kids about ethics. No need for religion.
I agree that kids need guidance but we disagree on how to guide them.


Would you be ok with ethics classes and keeping religion out of it completely or do
you want to scare the kids with hell too?

Further, the life without meaning is based on not believing in some kind of afterlife. When you make life something that is just common and happens all over for no reason whatsoever, life loses it's meaning. We become people who are just here to survive and it lends itself to situations where instincts take over. This has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout human history in many, many ways. Religion, unfortunately, does not take all of that away, but the more people who believe that their actions will be judged after death, the more likely we are to see civilized behavior as the norm.

Like I said, in states where they implement the death penalty, do the number of murders
go down? Scaring people into submission is not the right way to go, IMO. Especially when
it might not be true. Hell is a scare tactic which is the church's best friend.

Well, to Jesus, one of the better roundups I have seen on the web is here. It does a good job of looking at it from a legal standpoint; i.e. how a trial would determine the truth of the resurrection, or falsify it. I don't want to be slammed on Islam, since we are not trying to create "those" types of arguments on these boards. Otherwise, I would comment, and it would be negative. Many beliefs have sprung up in the world, but many are simply unaware of the events that drive Christianity, nor how convincing the arguments are. Most simply are uniformed to all of the details that are available. Read the link and think about it.

I've read "The Case for Christ," by Lee Stoebel (sp?) and wasn't convinced. I'll read the info. at the
link but don't expect there to be much new material. But I'll give it a shot and try to learn something
new like I did when I read Stroebel's book.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21589
Offline
#148 : April 09, 2007, 09:02:15 AM

I am open to abiogenesis. Just not here. IMO, I don't think that's what happened here.

I'm surprised you didn't comment on BH's life has no meaning comment. Unless you
tink I covered that well enough.

Why not here, the same problems happen anywhere you want to have it happen. That's why your stand is so puzzling. You either gets the cooking primoral soup on Earth or on Glazxxon XIV. One way or the other you have to think it is possible so why is there better than here?

The life has meaning concept is an old saw of the creationists (along with the Marxist bit) but of course I have no issues with finding meaning in my life. In fact, since I'm not looking forward to a glorious reunion with the creator and messiah I've pretty much got to cram all the meaning I can into this life.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21589
Offline
#149 : April 09, 2007, 09:17:54 AM


First, geography and lack of life on atolls, has zero relevance. Who says God has to populate the entire planet?

Second, ID easily has an answer to the issues you raise: message theory. Let's be blunt here, God stated that His creations would tell us of His existence and handy work. If all life used optimal designs, then it would actually bolster Darwinian Evolution a lot more because only the best traits would have survived. It would have also prevented a message from being sent to us that the same designer had his hand in everything. Being an Engineer, believe me, nobody wants to keep using the same perfect design. We like to reinvent the wheel (call it a flaw).


I'll deal with the first one which is priceless creationist cant. God just didn't put stuff everywhere. Funny how god didn't put stuff exactly where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be. He went to the bother of putting, bugs, plants and birds on those islands so why'd he stop short on the higher end animals? Why didn't get bother to stop short anywhere else on the planet? Why are there notably not any other areas free of types of life like these islands. Was he on a budget? I guess he knew that'd be a good joke to play on us atheists?

Second, wow, this is a new one. I'm trying to stop laughing long enough to figure out a good response to this other than laughing.  I guess you guys had to find something and so this is your stab at a response. Let me get this straight, god sends us a message by being a crappy designer of life? Since god is perfection how does muddying the waters with bad designs tell us of him? Wouldn't it be very hard for evolution to explain perfect design, would that very perfection imply something more grand that our randomly assembled badly fitted bits? Then you could run your 747 or swiss watch arguments. Plus the idea that "we" like to reinvent the wheel is an action of hubris, pride - the original sin. Clearly if god is perfect he should be free of such a flaw.

Your response, further  shows you don't get evolution. The notion that evolution should only leave the "best" traits is bogus. Evolution isn't about building a better animal. Only a more fit animal and fitness is merely about passing on genes. Therefore, anything that is "good enough" is good enough. There are dozens of different types of eyes because there isn't one best design, many forms get the basic effect one needs for survival or works better for the survival of some species. A better example, if there was a genetic trait that made women 1% more attractive but caused them to explode when they hit menopause that would be strongly selected for. The design isn't "better" but in reproductive terms the downside is non-existent so it has no effect.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Newsweek Poll: 90% Believe in God - Evolution? Not So Much.. High Five! « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools