Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Evolution...

Discuss religion and spirituality topics.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Post Reply
zacb
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1536
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 4:33 am
Location: Somewhere out in the American West (for now)

Evolution...

Post by zacb » February 8th, 2014, 6:18 pm

Now I must state I am biased. I grew up in a Christian home, and grew up on Christian education, thus I obviously have a conflicted of interest. Having said that, here are some problems I have with both sides:

-Bishop Usher's calculations seem rather arbitrary, since he was merely a man.
-I find the interspecies evolution (there was not always humans, but merely evolved) kinda a hard idea to swallow. If that is the case, what makes us different from other "animals".
-Supposedly Darwin said it was BS. I don't know the validity of it.
-People seem like animals sometimes, which would make sense under an evolutionary model.
-If evolution is so great, then why not apply that to social ideals (Social Darwinism)?
-The complexity of nature seems too odd just to say everything almost perfectly came together, and for the most part, stays together without mutating into glob man.
-On the age of the Earth, it never explicitly states the age of the earth in the Bible.


I can't think of any other problems, but I am kinda not sure on these things. In all honesty, both creationism and evolution seem kinda cobbled together. Seems like there should be a third option.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com

The_Adventurer
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1384
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 5:17 pm

Post by The_Adventurer » February 8th, 2014, 6:49 pm

I'm not a believer in either, as both are actually faith based religions. I also wouldn't be surprised if the truth was some kind of combination of both.

Some say evolution is a proven fact. On some level this is true. Jumping from that to the descent of man, however, is a leap of faith.
“b***y is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of b***y in another dimension." -- Joe Rogan

fschmidt
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2520
Joined: May 18th, 2008, 9:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX
Contact:

Re: Evolution...

Post by fschmidt » February 8th, 2014, 7:44 pm

zacb wrote:-Bishop Usher's calculations seem rather arbitrary, since he was merely a man.
Who is Bishop Usher?
-I find the interspecies evolution (there was not always humans, but merely evolved) kinda a hard idea to swallow. If that is the case, what makes us different from other "animals".
Most animals are nicer than people, but most people are smarter than animals.
-Supposedly Darwin said it was BS. I don't know the validity of it.
That's BS.
-If evolution is so great, then why not apply that to social ideals (Social Darwinism)?
Because people are too stupid to find the right selection criteria. In other words, people shouldn't play God. But following the Bible causes positive evolution.
-The complexity of nature seems too odd just to say everything almost perfectly came together, and for the most part, stays together without mutating into glob man.
This makes no sense. Evolution takes advantage of complexity and randomness.
I can't think of any other problems, but I am kinda not sure on these things. In all honesty, both creationism and evolution seem kinda cobbled together. Seems like there should be a third option.
Evolution makes perfect sense to me. I can't see any problems with it.
Last edited by fschmidt on May 4th, 2014, 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

zacb
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1536
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 4:33 am
Location: Somewhere out in the American West (for now)

Re: Evolution...

Post by zacb » February 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

fschmidt wrote:
zacb wrote:-Bishop Usher's calculations seem rather arbitrary, since he was merely a man.
Who is Bishop Usher?
-I find the interspecies evolution (there was not always humans, but merely evolved) kinda a hard idea to swallow. If that is the case, what makes us different from other "animals".
Most animals are nicer than people, but most people are smarter than animals.
-Supposedly Darwin said it was BS. I don't know the validity of it.
That's BS.
-If evolution is so great, then why not apply that to social ideals (Social Darwinism)?
Because people are to stupid to find the right selection criteria. In other words, people shouldn't play God. But following the Bible causes positive evolution.
-The complexity of nature seems too odd just to say everything almost perfectly came together, and for the most part, stays together without mutating into glob man.
This makes no sense. Evolution takes advantage of complexity and randomness.
I can't think of any other problems, but I am kinda not sure on these things. In all honesty, both creationism and evolution seem kinda cobbled together. Seems like there should be a third option.
Evolution makes perfect sense to me. I can't see any problems with it.
Bishop Usher is the one to assert that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old, based merely on the generational charts in the Bible.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com

theprimebait
Junior Poster
Posts: 828
Joined: March 9th, 2013, 8:02 am

Post by theprimebait » February 8th, 2014, 8:52 pm

There isn't anything making us different than other animals.even dolphins and tigers are as intelligent as us.intelligence is a trait in hunter species,its merely a tool to hunt correctely.nothing more.as we switched from a herbivore diet to a carnivore diet our brain was able to grow in size due to the saturated fat intake.


we are ALL RUN by instinct.

no darwin did not say it was Bs.thats a bold face lie.


we shouldn't follow social darwinism because we have morals and we want whats best for the entire species.evolution is a blind process.evolution is just a observation of a phenomnon,it isn't what we base our morals on,we do that thru logical thinking.as Dawkins himself said,he would be horrified to live in a social darwinist society,and most evolutionists oppose social darwinism.we aren't trying to better the species thru superficial selection.there is no end goal to evolution,there isn't necassarily improvement,its just adaptation to local environment.

there is no complexity in nature.there is alot of chaos and mistakes.the human body is a prime example of a mistake.it could be better,if God existed he did a very poor job in creating human beings.nature is dog eat dog and chaos.complexity is something you attribute to it,but anything will seem like complex concepts to us .


99% of species to have ever existed on planet earth are now extinct.and you talk about complexity.lol
all species hutn each other or basically live to eat and reproduce,what is complex about that?its justa endless cycle with no end goal of animals born to suffer msotly,eat each other ,and breed to start the cycle all over again for Generations.

how can someone not look at nature and be a nihilist?






also be sure to check out this site

ww.youtube.com/user/sapiensape?feature=playlist

aswell as this

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

The_Adventurer
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1384
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 5:17 pm

Post by The_Adventurer » February 8th, 2014, 9:45 pm

The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.â€￾
“b***y is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of b***y in another dimension." -- Joe Rogan

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Religion and Spirituality”