Posters are saying about how a single celled organism can change in a lab in a matter of weeks, but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.
You are still getting your timescales wrong despite being corrected on this thread. It's almost like you don't want to learn.
And yeah, humans haven't changed at all in the last million years. 🙄
Posters are saying about how a single celled organism can change in a lab in a matter of weeks, but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years
we absolutely are constantly evolving, a single base pair mutation can have a huge effect on fitness & has been shown to completely change our society, lifespan, infant mortality, environment eg dairy farming,
https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
8000 years ago no adult on earth could drink milk in adulthood.....
then 1 man had a 1 base pair mutation, and it spread
today....
[img] 
[/img]
fascinatingly it looks like the guy may have also taken his cow with him as cow genomes point to a common ancestor around that time!
average mammal generation time of all know 5000+ mammals is 4.3 years, BUT for the majority of life on earth mammals have mostly been much smaller eg mnouse sized so pronbably half that at most likely https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1343
also mutation rate is much higher eg humans 64 mutations per generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rateso you are actually looking at 128 billion mutations, not 4m million, though actual beneficial fraction of that much smaller, but as our genomes are 3billion bases long.....
either way the observed mammalian mutation rate compares very favourably with the genetic differences we see between species and when we estimate them to have diverged over time, by fossil record
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/2/803.full
Thank you, a sensible answer to a simple question, at last.
but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.
Well we developed different races. But evolution needs a driver. Otherwise, random mutations just get lost. Homo Sapiens evolved into a form that was pretty good at surviving and reproducing. There are loads of genetic variations - tall people and short people for example. But because we developed a social system there's no advantage for tall people so they remain outliers.
Unless you live on a small island, for example, and you might evolve a different kind of human such as Homo Florensis. Or if you lived in some cold climate without so much clothing tech, you might evolve into a tougher shape such as Homo Neantherthalensis.
It's all there - you just don't know about it.
I get it at a basic life (single cell etc) level, but once things get more complicated it all seems to slow down to a crawl. Posters are saying about how a single celled organism can change in a lab in a matter of weeks, but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.
Your cells can evolve in a matter of years.
You go out in the sun, you mutate one too many genes and you get cancer. Those cancer cells are hyper competitive and essentially trying to out compete the rest of the cells in your body.
Secondly, mutations can randomly appear in new borns - they do not have to be passed on. It stands to reason that sometimes those mutations have beneficial effects.
And humans have changed quite a lot in a few hundreds of thousands of years - we just haven't got to the point where we have speciated. That big **** off nose on westerners, designed to cool cold air before it hits the lungs and triggers pneumonia. Africans....get sickle cell anaemia at a rate vastly greater than the rest of the world - but they also have an innate resistance to Malaria because of it. Due to migration and air travel we will probably never speciate - unless we become a space fairing species.
You've already said we're "unable to define the true will of god" yet are now asserting that doing this will tell us what he wants. These things are mutually exclusive, which is it?
Please don't be deliberately obtuse. You asked how you can comprehend what God desires of you and I answered you. That doesn't translate into being able to completely define the true will of God.
Then how is it relevant?
It was relevant to the original question I answered, you're the one who asked me why God allowed it to enter the world
I asked why god allowed sin, you said "omnipotence" (which explains nothing, incidentally) and when I queried that you said it was because we needed knowledge.
Omnipotence means among other things, divine right. Making it a perfectly reasonable explanation. You are expecting a logical answer on your own terms, of the divine.
I get it at a basic life (single cell etc) level, but once things get more complicated it all seems to slow down to a crawl. Posters are saying about how a single celled organism can change in a lab in a matter of weeks, but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.
Human generation time ~20yrs. Bog-basic yeast ~2hrs. [i]E.coli[/i] ~20mins.
That's why there's such a huge difference in how long things take for humans to change in comparison.
Beyond that the mechanism is largely the same. As above, think bigger. 20 years is still sod all once you get beyond an understandably human comprehension of time being based on a human lifespan.
As above, think bigger. 20 years is still sod all once you get beyond an understandably human comprehension of time being based on a human lifespan.
After all it's only 40 human lifetimes since a carpenter got nailed to a cross for telling people to be nice to each other.
the real trouble is OP is not alone 🙁
[img] 
[/img]
Human generation time ~20yrs. Bog-basic yeast ~2hrs. E.coli ~20mins.
That's why there's such a huge difference in how long things take for humans to change in comparison.
Beyond that the mechanism is largely the same. As above, think bigger. 20 years is still sod all once you get beyond an understandably human comprehension of time being based on a human lifespan.
But thats my point, it takes such a long time for significant change once you get to a certain level.
Homo has been around for 2.8million years according to wikipedia. In that time it has changed shape/height/proportions etc but essentially looks very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. In 2.8 million years!
But thats my point, it takes such a long time for significant change once you get to a certain level.
Homo has been around for 2.8million years according to wikipedia. In that time it has changed shape/height/proportions etc but essentially looks very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. [b]In 2.8 million years![/b]
Have you had a look at the link I posted earlier about putting time in perspective? Please I urge you to have read, not only is it enlightening it's quite good fun as articles of that nature go 🙂
([url= https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html ]link here again in case you did miss it[/url])
The issue here is not evolution and how long it takes, the issue is your conceptualisation of time.
going from H. habilis to H. sapiens in less than 3 million years seems amazingly fast to me...
So this god could make us all but was [u]not able [/u]to tick that last little simple box of 'make my people able to understand the concept of me without question and to know why they exist' and instead makes us all have to scrabble around to try to understand why we exist and grasp at having a belief in the existence of a god despite not having a single shred of tangible proof when there is so much scientific proof of an alternative theory as to how we came to be in existence.
Not, not able. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. If God turned up right in front of you with a big beard and a commanding voice and demanded you wouldn't really have much choice in whether you belived in him or not.
This way you have free will, free will is critical here. But I assume you get that based on your tone.
[b] looks[/b] very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. In 2.8 million years!
thats why things like skin colour are such a poor indicator of race
in that time 60 million base pairs could have changed between them & us
only a fraction of that results in functional changes, just because we appear similar does not mean that we are genetically,
not to mention that we have been breeding with Neanderthal, Dinisovans, Hobbits? & other unknown but measurable contributors to our genomes in that time!
then thanks for free will I did as you asked not leave me alone please great designer
That's also why you don't see many sumo wrestlers winning the 100 meters at the Olympics.
I bet this is not even the simplest thing you have ever had to explain on the internet 😉
there are only two reasons to not accept evolution on current known facts
1. you are religious and you dont need facts
2. you are incredibly stupid
Neither option makes me wish to try to persuade anyone of this [ it wont work anyway] anymore than I wish to persuade someone the sun will rise tomorrow
Evolution has been proved. It's been observed in many animals and organisms with much shorter lifespans than us. It's the mechanism by how superbugs have EVOLVED to be resistant to anti-biotics. Why we need a flu jab every year because the flu EVOLVES every year, same with Malaria which is estimated to have killed half of the people who have ever lived.
Not sure humans are 'evolving' any more. Not is the same sence as we think of it. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest that drives/filters out very specific traits that increase the likelihood of the animals survival long enough to mate and pass on its genes. But in humans traits no longer improve our chances of mating. Ugly people can mate now, disabled people also pass their genes on etc. So we might be changing, but the changes are no longer improving the ability of our species to survive the environment we live in.
The problem with the maths at the top of this page (or the previous one if I've rolled over onto another page) is that is looks at one genetic strain. In reality there are billions of individuals all over the world, so billions of genetic strains all evolving simultaniously to survive different threats from their very different and diverse environments hence the reason for diversity. The maths is simply several thousands of orders of magnitude out.
This way you have free will, free will is critical here. But I assume you get that based on your tone.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/
[img] 
[/img]
Sweet! We've already reached the posting of graphs phase.
But thats my point, it takes such a long time for significant change once you get to a certain level.
Homo has been around for 2.8million years according to wikipedia. In that time it has changed shape/height/proportions etc but essentially looks very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. In 2.8 million years!
So what's your point exactly?
2.8 million years is nothing in terms of the Earth's evolutionary history. How much change would you have expected to see in that timespan? It's barely 5 years in [i]E.coli[/i] terms and I wouldn't expect to be able to complete a separate speciation under lab conditions in that period, but I could give you some very interesting biochemical adaptations to varying conditions, much like ^ described up there.
The example of dogs mentioned very early is a good one to try and bridge the gap between single-cells and multicellular organisms. Intensive selective breeding has produced hundreds of vastly different breeds (not species, note) in 10,000 or so years, not overnight. And also note that they have two eyes, four legs (so two arms and two legs), a heart, capillary system etc. pretty much identical to ours...
The building blocks are all there, it's only fine details which need to change.
Like I asked earlier, what do you actually want to know in terms of how it's possible? More likely, how much do you want to go out and learn about it, we can give you as in-depth an answer as you like, so long as you're willing to try and understand it. No offence meant but I'm keeping it at 8-year old level here.
Tom_W1987 - Memberhttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/ <
You only think you decided to post that, but it's just your brain playing a trick on you
So we might be changing, but the changes are no longer improving the ability of our species to survive the environment we live in.
You know, what you just said there was "there's a different environment".
People adapt to make the best of it and the best at that get the best shot at passing on their genes. In the usual evolutionary way.
I spotted this on Flipboard earlier, and I thought I'd chuck it in, it shows how interbreeding in [i]Pantera[/i], the Big Cats, has enabled some, like Jaguar, to take different prey due to head and jaw size:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/interspecies-hybrids-play-a-vital-role-in-evolution-20170824/
It also covers interspecies cross-breeding in the Hominids.
This has a direct effect on the maths involving human evolution, because it introduces more variables into the gene pool than just via random mutation.
You know how there are so many different dishes on a Chinese takeaway menu? It's a bit like that.
Worth repeating…
well we share about 90% of our genome with mice, which is why they have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.or
Mice are merely the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who, unbeknownst to the human race, are the most intelligent species on the planet Earth. They spent a lot of their time in laboratories running complex experiments on humans. They paid Magrathea for the planet (Earth) and will now collaborate to create a new one due to the interruption of Vogons.
Thanks for that post… stopped me screaming at others in this thread.
Don't Panic.
You know how there are so many different dishes on a Chinese takeaway menu? It's a bit like that.
We're all just meat and gloop, man. Meat. And. Gloop.
Also, the OP is too focused on mutations … every single mammal birth results in a new, unique, DNA sequence … evolution is not just the result of mutations. Genes interact in different ways, and produce new characteristics, without need for quirks. New parings, new DNA sequences, new gene interactions.
Homo has been around for 2.8million years according to wikipedia. In that time it has changed shape/height/proportions etc but essentially looks very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. In 2.8 million years!
You appear to be ignoring one simple thing, that mutations generally only change things significantly if it is of benefit to the organism, basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There are organisms around that are effectively unchanged after tens of millions, if not [i]hundreds[/i] of millions of years, because there's no need for them to change, they're perfectly designed for what they d.
Sharks are one very good example, sure, they're smaller now, or at least there are no sharks the size of Megalodon, but I'm wearing a 35,000,000yo fossil shark tooth, that's identical in every way to a modern Tiger shark, and the Great White is just a smaller relative of Megalodon; there just isn't the prey for an 80ft carnivorous fish!
Dragonflies are another example, I was watching one this afternoon hawking over a stretch of river, and it's a perfect predator of small flying insects; it's fundamentally unchanged from dragonflies from Meganeura, a dragonfly from the Carboniferous period, that's 300,000,000 years ago, [i]three hundred million![/i] The big difference was size, they had twenty-five to over twenty-seven [i]inch[/i] wingspans! A hunting flying insect the size of a large bird of prey!
How, because the atmosphere was far richer in oxygen then, allowing insects to evolve to much larger sizes, they've now evolved to exist on a less oxygen-rich atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
And humans cannot build a machine that can fly as fast, or manoeuvre, like a dragonfly can, an insect with a wingspan about four inches across, that can cruise with scarcely a wingbeat, then suddenly accelerate up to around 60mph, and change direction almost instantaneously is an extraordinary creature, other than size, it's fundamentally identical, because it fills its niche perfectly, and has no need to change.
Humans are omnivorous, they have an opposable thumb, and have dexterity and the ability to make tools, and to adapt to their environment, not by changing themselves, but by building and making things to help themselves adapt - clothes, shelter, fire, etc.
Not, not able. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. If God turned up right in front of you with a big beard and a commanding voice and demanded you wouldn't really have much choice in whether you belived in him or not.
Faith is nothing of the sort, and you know It! There is no concrete [i]evidence[/i] of any deity, only a [i]belief[/i] that such a thing exists, and a [i]hope[/i] that one day proof might turn up to support that [i]belief[/i].
If someone turned up in front of me with a beard and a commanding voice, demanding whatever unspecified [i]thing[/i], (you haven't said what he's supposed to be demanding), I'd walk around him, tutting to myself and wondering why he's off his meds.
I'd certainly have a choice whether or not to believe, because all I'd have evidence of, on front of my eyes, is some random, unkempt bloke standing in the street shouting at me.
That's because I don't accept what someone says I [i]ought[/i] to believe, just 'cos he says I ought to, because [i]faith[/i], right?
Walks away tutting loudly...
Not read the thread. Has the OP posited a better theory than evolution yet?
Faith is nothing of the sort, and you know It! There is no concrete evidence of any deity, only a belief that such a thing exists, and a hope that one day proof might turn up to support that belief.
If someone turned up in front of me with a beard and a commanding voice, demanding whatever unspecified thing, (you haven't said what he's supposed to be demanding), I'd walk around him, tutting to myself and wondering why he's off his meds.
I'd certainly have a choice whether or not to believe, because all I'd have evidence of, on front of my eyes, is some random, unkempt bloke standing in the street shouting at me.
That's because I don't accept what someone says I ought to believe, just 'cos he says I ought to, because faith, right?
Walks away tutting loudly...
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
If God turned up right in front of you with a big beard and a commanding voice and demanded you wouldn't really have much choice in whether you belived in him or not.
He would have to convince me he was God first.
He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith. And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
How do you know? Have you asked?
jonnyboi - Member
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
How convenient...
There is a whole lot of Lamarkism here. I love it.
Instead of greatest benefit, it is sometimes easier to consider matters in terms of least negative effect. Survival is barely achievable, anything that nudges the odds in your favour is kept.
Those that might become bald post reproduction still manage to pass on the trait of baldness.
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
And you know this how precisely? Where is your evidence? If you say you don't need evidence because you have faith, well, isn't that just massively convenient.
Please don't be deliberately obtuse.
I'm not not being obtuse, I'm trying to unpick what appears to be contradictory. I've presumably misunderstood something, please let me know where I've gone wrong. (I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely trying to understand.)
You asked how you can comprehend what God desires of you and I answered you.
[s]No you didn't, you replied in one word "omnipotence," which is a nonsense answer.[/s]
EDIT: no you didn't, I was misremembering, you said to go to Church and find out. Which is a similar non-answer.
That doesn't translate into being able to completely define the true will of God.
So you're saying, mortals can learn to understand some of the will of god but not all of it?
Omnipotence means among other things, divine right.
Assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, you're suggesting that the answer to "why did god allow sin" is "because he can," is that right?
Still seems pretty malevolent to me TBH. And you worship this, right? A supernatural being that gave us cancer because someone ate an apple once?
You are expecting a logical answer on your own terms, of the divine.
No, I'm expecting a logical answer period. Logic doesn't have "terms," something is either logical or it's not. If you're offering an illogical explanation because "devine" then fair enough, but just say that then.
(Sorry for the delay in replying BTW, I've been dealing with a major outage at work and only just got home.)
Not read the thread. Has the OP posited a better theory than evolution yet?
'Theory' in the scientific sense of the word or in the 'making shit up' sense of the word?
Neither, at last glance. OP?
there are only two reasons to not accept evolution on current known facts1. you are religious and you dont need facts
2. you are incredibly stupid
3. You're inherently sceptical.
"Accept" is a problem word here. I accept that it's the best answer we have currently and probably a correct explanation, but I reject the notion that it's irrefutably true. Because science.
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
And now we're back to "how do you know?" again. You said earlier that we cannot "completely define the true will of God." Yet here you're claiming to know what god wants.
Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants? He could actually want us to murder each other in our sleep, Old Testament fire and brimstone stuff.
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
[img]
[/img]Sorry son, but you have got to be taking the piss, shirley.
I'm supposed to listen to a voice in my head, purportedly from some mythical being, and give him my unquestioning loyalty, because he says I have to?
Seriously?
And when his voice in my head tells me some random soul is satan and I have to kill that person, that's all right with you, then?
There's a word for that sort of condition, and those with it are locked up for society's safety.
Or sometimes let out, forget to take their meds, with tragic results.
mHow convenient
It wasn't my idea, that's how Christianity works, if you don't like it don't join them
Can we give all religions a fair shake because they all seem to have evolved (Creation) stories to explain why we are here. Almost as if before the advent of the scientific method - we had little option other than making shit up?
For instance:
Enuma Elish begins with the universe unformed and containing only water. Only two beings exist in this unformed creation: Apsu, the fresh waters, and his wife, Tiamat, who is the salt water and the chaotic oceans. Tiamat is depicted as a monstrous dragon. From their union, silt forms, as it does when a freshwater river runs into the salty sea; from that, the gods arise, and the universe begins to take form. The gods begin to have children of their own, and soon there are many of them ruling the cosmos.This new order of things is too much for Apsu, who is bothered by the noise and commotion caused by the gods. He decides to destroy them, despite the fact that they are his progeny. Tiamat is horrified by her husband's plan to attack her children and opposes Apsu, but cannot defeat him.
Apsu is eventually conquered by the god Ea, his own great-grandson, who uses a spell to subdue Apsu and keep him imprisoned in a deathlike state of sleep. All seems well, and Ea and his wife have a son, the god Marduk, who as a child is the favorite of the other gods. They give him the winds as a toy to play with, but the winds stir up trouble on the salty seas, enraging Tiamat. Tiamat, her new husband, the god Kingu, and a group of gods to which she has given birth swear revenge for this and for Ea's treatment of Apsu - although, breaks in the text leave her reasons for this change of allegiance somewhat vague.
What's up with that then? Sounds good enough to spawn a load of subsequent tales? Eh?
And now we're back to "how do you know?" again. You said earlier that we cannot "completely define the true will of God." Yet here you're claiming to know what god wants. Is that not a tad arrogant?Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants? He could want us to murder each other in our sleep, Old Testament fire and brimstone stuff.
I'm not claiming to know absolutely anything. I'm just pointing out how Christianity works. If you don't like it then take it up with the bible.
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
jonnyboi - Member
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
No uglier than blind faith...
EDIT
No uglier than blind faith of whatever persuasion, and all that can entail in our current cultures.
This [s]militant atheism[/s] unshakeable skepticism coupled with a demand for evidence is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait. Unlike unquestioning faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.
FTFY
I sometimes ask of highly religious people; if they or their loved ones were to be hauled up in the dock on a (false) charge of murder - would they wish the good members of the jury to decide their fate on:
A. Faith against overwhelming evidence (including forensic)?, or
B. Overwhelming evidence (including forensic)?
Well that's just rude
I'm not claiming to know absolutely anything.
Oh ok, so you're happy to concede that you might be wrong about what god wants?
I'm more than happy to change my mind about what I think about evolution if our evidence shifted. If god rocked up tomorrow and started doing irrefutably goddy things I'd convert in a heartbeat.
I'm just pointing out how Christianity works. If you don't like it then take it up with the bible.
Well, no, you're shifting the goalposts now. No-one other than you was talking about the bible, I was merely trying to get to the bottom of your seemingly self-contradictory statements in order to understand what -you- thought.
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
That's Woppit you're thinking of but thanks for the ad hominem, always a sure sign that you're on solid ground in a discussion.
I'm not a militant atheist (any more), sceptical atheist might be more accurate?
It can't be in the usual evolutionary way, which is wobbliscott's point, and what makes it so fascinating. Stephen Jay Gould said that natural selection hadn't been relevant in humans for 20,000 years, (possibly going a bit overboard to make a point), but still - what is the genetic difference between us and someone from say 500 years ago? Very slight, yet humanity is unrecognisable - so what's changed? Clearly things like ideas, communication, social interactions, record keeping etc are driving human evolution (in the lay sense of the word), at a hugely faster pace than classic phenotype / genotype Darwinian evolution.mrmonkfinger - MemberSo we might be changing, but the changes are no longer improving the ability of our species to survive the environment we live in.
You know, what you just said there was "there's a different environment".
People adapt to make the best of it and the best at that get the best shot at passing on their genes. In the usual evolutionary way.
Or to put it another way - what happens when you take some cows and put them in a field, then come back in one thousand years? The cows are still standing around chewing the cud, maybe one has slightly bigger hooves, or a shaggier coat. But they're still basically doing fk all.
Now take some humans and put them in a field. 1000 years later they look pretty much the same, too. Maybe a bit taller on average. But they've built the Starship Enterprise.
Well that's just rude
How is calling faith "ugly" rude, but calling atheism "ugly" not?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something.
But they've built the Starship Enterprise.
And I bet they still fling poop and argue over all of this, even while piloting The Starship Enterprise...
I was merely trying to get to the bottom of your seemingly self-contradictory statements in order to understand what -you- thought.
All my answers you your questions have been entirely consistent. If you don't understand them or they don't confirm to your worldview isn't something I can fix. But you should ask questions based on seeking enlightenment rather than simply to try to undermine someone or score points.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
How is calling faith "ugly" rude, but calling atheism "ugly" not?Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something.
Militancy is any form is ugly, why do you feel the need to reply to every comment I make to others?
Because, like those who have faith, those who don't might seek to support others with similar views?
Before they've even replied? There's a fine line between that and religious intolerance
All my answers you your questions have been entirely consistent.
No, they haven't. As far as I can see, you claim to know what god wants, whilst simultaneously claiming that it's not possible to know what god wants.
Now, as I said before, it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood. Assuming that to be the case, I'd love to know where I've gone wrong. I'm not trying to "undermine" anything or "score points," I'm trying to establish exactly what you're trying to say because you appear to be self-contradictory.
I'm not "seeking enlightenment," I'm seeking to understand what you (not god or the bible or christianity) believe.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
I'm trying, but you're not actually addressing any of my questions, you're ignoring them and responding with mild insults.
For instance, from the previous page: Are you happy to concede that you might be wrong about what you think god wants?
Militancy is any form is ugly,
Ah ok, so it's the militancy you object to rather than the atheism? That's fair enough.
[i]Militant: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause."[/i] Have I been confrontational or violent? That wasn't my intention if so and I'm sorry if you feel that way. Like I said, I'm just asking questions because I don't understand.
why do you feel the need to reply to every comment I make to others?
I'm not replying to every comment you make to others, don't take it personally. I'm replying to comments made generally. This is a discussion forum, it's how discussion works.
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
It's only a sub-set of religious people that deny evolution. Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html ]Pope Francis[/url]
I genuinely can't tell if jonniboy is religious or just trolling. Either way you're not coming across too well to be honest.
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
I don't think most of us were until a certain individual came along. I don't think religion should be discussed alongside evolution at all. The two things, to me, are about as separate as you can get
Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants?
He might want us to go about our business with no thought or care as to what he wants… those seeking to believe in him, and do his bidding, might be be completely messing up his little experiment/game/creation.
Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
I'm staying with some very strongly Christian family members at the moment, and, over drinks this evening, they brought up that a neighbour had declared themeselves a creationist. They haven't been able to speak to them since… they are deeply uncomfortable with anyone who can live in the modern world and ignore long standing and strongly supported scientific knowledge.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
Sanctimonious, much?
Militancy is any form is ugly
Especially when the militants claim to have god on their side. Which god would that be, by the way?
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
Because that's where this tangent started.
they have mutated from their original perfect form because of sin.
Seemingly god gave us / allowed us sin because it's important for us to know something that we cannot understand. Or something. I've kind of lost track, to be honest.
Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
Absolutely not, and there are plenty of Christian scientists so it can certainly co-exist. Where the wheels come of is when the fringe Xtians such as Creationists assert that science is wrong because god. (Not that I'm saying this is what Jonny is doing, just so we're clear.)
I've never really understood why such questions often seem to degenerate into Religion vs Evolution.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the world's religions, in most cases the deity is omnipotent. That's omnipotent. A bit like infinite, it trumps everything else.
Said deity is usually attirbuted with having created "the universe" - surely that term is not limited to the physical space, but also to all the principles, laws and immutable certainties? So, in this universe, said deity has ordained that e=m times c(squared), opposites attract (or mutually annihilate each other), pies have lids and the fittest survive. It her previous project it might have been that e's = good, opposites fail to interact with one another, pies have basil and the fattest flourish.
Suggesting that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive is logically flawed (sorry, Professor Dawkins). If you're religious, surely [b]anything[/b] can exist if your God wants it to, including evolutionary diversification. I'm sure some might argue that evolution proves the existence of an overarching power, orchestrating it all.
Not sure that's going to help the OP, but I feel better for getting it off my chest.
Tl;dr
Religion and an acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Things you can believe in include:
• There is a God and it created the world and universe exactly as we see it today
• There is no God and life came about through spontaneous chemical reactions, and has changed due to evolutionary processes
• There is a God and it created a universe in which life came about through spontaneous chemical reactions, and has changed due to evolutionary processes
• There is no God, no evolution and… well… still waiting for an alternative from the OP.
Suggesting that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive is logically flawed
Agreed.
It's... difficult, but it's not mutually exclusive (as I said, there are plenty of religious scientists).
I've spoken about this before, but I used to know a polymath, one of the most brilliant minds I've ever known. He was a Christian. I asked him about it once and we lost an afternoon to it. The TL;DR was that he parked religion in a separate box marked "other" where normal rules don't apply.
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
So he (why do you say it is a he)? Is a bit of a Kim Jong-Un Power Trip kinda guy?
So he (why do you say it is a he)?
God created Man in his image. Ergo, "he." Woman was an afterthought, made from Adam's bone (hur hur hur).
God created Man in his image. Ergo, "he."
That, for me, is the definitive proof that god is a man made construct. The ego involved to assume that we were created in the likeness of some all powerful being could only be the ego of man 🙂
Which brings us back to how 'He' came to being. Was He born? Was He part of the Big Bang (fnarr). Was He Created? If so, who Created Him? This story makes Game of Thrones seem like a documentary.
If so, who created Him?
Intelligent design, obvs.
It's elephants all the way down.
It willed itself into existence?
Some other (more omnipotent?) it created it?
It spontaneously burst into existence from nothingness?
It has always existed?
It was created by humanity's need to explain the world they observed?
I think he may have evolved 😉
From what?
Something else not quite as godly
*I don't believe in it so have never really given it much thought.
Some other (more omnipotent?) it created it?
Where did that one come from? Like I said, elephants all the way down.
It spontaneously burst into existence from nothingness?It has always existed?
Why are they acceptable explanations for "god" but not for "the universe"?
Is this thread going to diverge into a discussing religion species and a discussing evolution species? If so, can it happen some time soon?
Hey, I have no answers, just questions...
funkmasterp - Member
Something else not quite as godly
Does that imply more than one God that reproduced and mutated over many generations?
Or does it mean we (humanity), who are clearly not (yet) Godlike (except being made in his image), are evolving into Gods? Each capable of creating our own personal universe?
Ooh, that's deep.
Does that imply more than one God that reproduced and mutated over many generations?
I'm going with the theory that it started with a kiss and who'd have thought it would come to this?
Each capable of creating our own personal universe?
I think a lot of folks already do this and just see the rest of us as the extras in their own movie.
Cougar - Moderator
Some other (more omnipotent?) it created it?
Where did that one come from?
[img]
[/img]
Total pulp, but actually an interesting philosophical concept at its core.