Support NeoGAF

[zomaha]

Yep. I pretty much dismiss the Adan and Eve thing. I believe that God started everything, and designed everything (evolution), Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I found the evolution alone, just as fantasy as Adan and Eve story. Like everything happened randomly? Yeah sure...

*sigh*

Adam and Eve is God's explanation of the origin of humans. If you are throwing that out, then you're throwing out everything else God supposedly said because you're calling him a liar. And if you're doing that, you're basically throwing out the entire religion and everything that comes with it. So in the end you're tacking on some random, nameless, history-less god as the creator of evolution which is way more nonsensical than accepting that this shit all came about on its own.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yep. I pretty much dismiss the Adan and Eve thing. I believe that God started everything, and designed everything (evolution), Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I found the evolution alone, just as fantasy as Adan and Eve story. Like everything happened randomly? Yeah sure...

Evolution doesn't state that things happened just randomly. It actually argues to exact opposite.

 

[ReBurn]

Nobody alive on this planet today was around when Abraham Lincoln was a US president. If a (relatively large) group of people were going around saying instead of Abraham Lincoln being a US president, he was actually a tomato, would you say "why does it have to be either/or"?

The analogy doesn't make any sense to me. We have recent historical documentation that indicates Lincoln was a US president, which makes the whole analogy kind of silly. Nobody wrote it down when the first person walked the earth. The Biblical account as documented by Moses came much later, and he wasn't there when it happened either. So my question still stands. What does it really change, and what's the point of arguing over it?

Besides, people are already saying that events that happened in much more recent history than Abraham Lincoln being US president never happened the way that they were documented. Reasons for the civil war, events leading up to WWII, etc. History is colored by perception all the time, even with so much documented evidence.

Uh....you're underestimating how important scientific knowledge about evolution is. It explains a lot about history, biology, mankind, diseases, geography, ... Evolution theory is not meant as a simple negation of the idea that we were created.

I don't think so. I understand why we study it. It's good to know where we came from. I just don't understand how the world would change tomorrow if it was definitively proven one way or the other.

I say that we should teach both viewpoints and reinforce that there are diverse points of view. I also think that we should teach the origin of man as postulation from all points of view and teach our kids more practical things. That's all.

 

[Axion22]

creation science

 

[elsk]

Evolution doesn't state that things happened just randomly. It actually argues to exact opposite.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that evolution was random. I was trying to say that, without God involved, the creation of -well- everything was just a random thing that happened. I found that to be very stupid.

*sigh*

Adam and Eve is God's explanation of the origin of humans. If you are throwing that out, then you're throwing out everything else God supposedly said because you're calling him a liar. And if you're doing that, you're basically throwing out the entire religion and everything that comes with it. So in the end you're tacking on some random, nameless, history-less god as the creator of evolution which is way more nonsensical than accepting that this shit all came about on its own.

Well, you had to explain the people of that time, the way God created everything. You can talk about intelligent design, or evolution, to people who doesn't knew a clue about that at the time. And if you look at the Genesis they explain the creation twice, you don't have to take everything letter by letter in the Bible. And well, yes, Adan and Eve could have happened, I'm not against it. I just don't know "where" to put it, because I do believe in evolution, but I believe that everything started with God creating... everything, with Intelligent design.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Yep. I pretty much dismiss the Adan and Eve thing. I believe that God started everything, and designed everything (evolution), Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I found the evolution alone, just as fantasy as Adan and Eve story. Like everything happened randomly? Yeah sure...

You know nothing about evolution.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that evolution was random. I was trying to say that, without God involved, the creation of -well- everything was just a random thing that happened. I found that to be very stupid.



Well, you had to explain the people of that time, the way God created everything. You can talk about intelligent design, or evolution, to people who doesn't knew a clue about that at the time. And if you look at the Genesis they explain the creation twice, you don't have to take everything letter by letter in the Bible. And well, yes, Adan and Eve could have happened, I'm not against it. I just don't know "where" to put it, because I do believe in evolution, but I believe that everything started with God creating... everything, with Intelligent design.

SMH

 

[Furret]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that evolution was random. I was trying to say that, without God involved, the creation of -well- everything was just a random thing that happened. I found that to be very stupid.

Why?

And does your entire argument rest on what you personally have difficulty understanding?

 

[jambo]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that evolution was random. I was trying to say that, without God involved, the creation of -well- everything was just a random thing that happened. I found that to be very stupid.

Why?

 

[zomaha]

Well, you had to explain the people of that time, the way God created everything. You can talk about intelligent design, or evolution, to people who doesn't knew a clue about that at the time. And if you look at the Genesis they explain the creation twice, you don't have to take everything letter by letter in the Bible. And well, yes, Adan and Eve could have happened, I'm not against it. I just don't know "where" to put it, because I do believe in evolution, but I believe that everything started with God creating... everything, with Intelligent design.

You sound like you aren't really sure of anything.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that evolution was random. I was trying to say that, without God involved, the creation of -well- everything was just a random thing that happened. I found that to be very stupid.

Road rage is quite stupid.

Does that mean God is the source of road rage too?

 

[Dead Man]

I don't think so. I understand why we study it. It's good to know where we came from. I just don't understand how the world would change tomorrow if it was definitively proven one way or the other.

I say that we should teach both viewpoints and reinforce that there are diverse points of view. I also think that we should teach the origin of man as postulation from all points of view and teach our kids more practical things. That's all.

I don't think you do understand why we study it, or why it is more important to teach it than every other competing theory. From all points of view, you say? So... all the creation myths of every religion, in a science class. More practical things? So have an explanation for how and why viruses and bacteria mutate is not practical?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

If God designed us he did a crap job.

 

[TGateKeeper]

maybe I did not understand that article correctly. are they saying that there were only like 8 types of dinosaurs on the ark and from those 8 we get all the different variations? but if the earth according to "believers" is only 6000 years old that would not be enough time for such a vast variation in a group to occur.

 

[Neuromancer]

If God designed us he did a crap job.

But he created man in his own image, whatever that means

 

[heyf00L]

But he created man in his own image, whatever that means

It means the same thing that any image means. Your avatar is an image of a guy's head. It's not a guy's head, but it bears a certain resemblance to it, albeit a static and two-dimensional one.
So it means that by looking at humans you can see something about God, something that looking at animals doesn't give you. This isn't exclusively morality, but that would be a big part of it.

As for it being a crap job, the story of Adam and Eve is meant to explain that (whether you believe it to be literally true or not). The point is God created humans in His image, but later humans rejected that. Humans still bear the image of God, but when they rebel against him (disobey the moral law), they obscure the image (just like putting some black pixels over your avatar so that you can no longer see it).

 

[Orayn]

If God designed us he did a crap job.

No, man. Adam and Eve each had an appendix that worked perfectly, perfect wisdom teeth, and no blind spots in their vision. Imperfections were clearly caused by THE FALL.

 

[elsk]

You sound like you aren't really sure of anything.

I don't think there's anybody that knows for sure, how it all happened. As far as I know all we have are theories.

Why?

Well, maybe as you think a God creating everything is dumb, I think that everything being created from nothing is way more dumb. I just can't imagine everything we have on earth, specially humans, being created by itself.

 

[Dead Man]

maybe I did not understand that article correctly. are they saying that there were only like 8 types of dinosaurs on the ark and from those 8 we get all the different variations? but if the earth according to "believers" is only 6000 years old that would not be enough time for such a vast variation in a group to occur.

Pretty much, that is my understanding.

 

[zomaha]

I don't think there's anybody that knows for sure, how it all happened. As far as I know all we have are theories.

You're right about that, nobody really knows for sure.

But you really don't comprehend the insanely large amounts of evidence scientists have accrued that say evolution is natural. Tons. Missing links, evolution in our lifetimes, predictions - it's all there.

 

[a posh hammer]

when i grow up, i want to be a baraminologist

 

[params7]

Well, maybe as you think a God creating everything is dumb, I think that everything being created from nothing is way more dumb. I just can't imagine everything we have on earth, specially humans, being created by itself.

All you're doing is giving yourself a plot device. If humans came from God, where did God come from? Or is it okay for God to have come from nothing but stupid if life on a planet exists when the conditions are right for it?

 

[Furret]

Well, maybe as you think a God creating everything is dumb, I think that everything being created from nothing is way more dumb. I just can't imagine everything we have on earth, specially humans, being created by itself.

We think believing in God is dumb because there's no proof.

What's your excuse? Other than apparently you have no imagination.

 

[Neuromancer]

when i grow up, i want to be a baraminologist

It's not hard, I don't think

 

[heyf00L]

We think believing in God is dumb because there's no proof.

What's your excuse? Other than apparently you have no imagination.

What? Lack of proof can't be the deciding factor. There is also no scientific proof for the creation of matter. So by your own argument is it dumb to believe that the universe was created by natural causes? There's no proof.

 

[Zenith]

I believe that everything started with God creating... everything, with Intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is as much a fantasy science as creationism.

 

[Escape Goat]

Every instance of intelligent design you can find a case of unintelligent design.

See documentary: Flock of Dodos

 

[Furret]

What? Lack of proof can't be the deciding factor. There is also no scientific proof for the creation of matter. So by your own argument is it dumb to believe that the universe was created by natural causes? There's no proof.

Evidence would have been the correct word for me to use but the point is the same.

There is scientific data backing up the various hypothesis for the creations of the universe, including the big bang.

There is not one shred of evidence for anything any religion has ever said. Nor is there any evidence for the paranormal.

 

[heyf00L]

Evidence would have been the correct word for me to use but the point is the same.

There is scientific data backing up the various hypothesis for the creations of the universe, including the big bang.

There is not one shred of evidence for anything any religion has ever said. Nor is there any evidence for the paranormal.

I'm aware of the evidence for the Big Bang. However, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the origin of the universe (ie what caused the Big Bang and the matter/energy involved in it). Some might say God. Some might say natural causes. There is no evidence for either (you can only argue for them from something else). So until science can prove that either matter can spontaneously exist out of nothing or that somehow matter has always existed or does not need an origin, is it dumb to believe in natural causes?
No. Lack of proof/evidence does not make a belief dumb. A belief is dumb when the proof/evidence contradicts it. But science doesn't contradict God. It's 100% possible for God and science to coexist.
Just as belief in God doesn't make science untrue, belief in science doesn't make God untrue. You have to arrive at that conclusion another way.
Maybe you simply believe that science makes God unnecessary and so you don't bother with Him. But that's a completely different thing.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm aware of the evidence for the Big Bang. However, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the origin of the universe (ie what caused the Big Bang and the matter/energy involved in it). Some might say God. Some might say natural causes. There is no evidence for either (you can only argue for them from something else). So until science can prove that either matter can spontaneously exist out of nothing or that somehow matter has always existed or does not need an origin, is it dumb to believe in natural causes?
No. Lack of proof/evidence does not make a belief dumb. A belief is dumb when the proof/evidence contradicts it. But science doesn't contradict God. It's 100% possible for God and science to coexist.
Just as belief in God doesn't make science untrue, belief in science doesn't make God untrue. You have to arrive at that conclusion another way.
Maybe you simply believe that science makes God unnecessary and so you don't bother with Him. But that's a completely different thing.

I kind of get what you're getting at. You're answer to the "there is no need for god to exist, ergo he does not" is "there is no theory for the genesis of reality, therefore the existence of a first mover is as valid a hypothesis as any other offered"

 

[Neuromancer]

Every instance of intelligent design you can find a case of unintelligent design.

See documentary: Flock of Dodos

Interesting, will watch.

 

[Volimar]

I think that once you set out to try to prove something that is meant to be taken on faith, you have already lost.

 

[Sennorin]

I think if you take evolution back just far enough into the past, you *will* reach the point where science and religion clash and turn into the same. All this talk about intelligent design or not becomes meaningless when we try to talk about what happened before the big bang. And what happened before that. And before that. Or more importantly, what startet *it* all and how?

I wonder if human science will reach a level where explaining these questions becomes possible.

 

[Furret]

I'm aware of the evidence for the Big Bang. However, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the origin of the universe (ie what caused the Big Bang and the matter/energy involved in it). Some might say God. Some might say natural causes. There is no evidence for either (you can only argue for them from something else). So until science can prove that either matter can spontaneously exist out of nothing or that somehow matter has always existed or does not need an origin, is it dumb to believe in natural causes?
No. Lack of proof/evidence does not make a belief dumb. A belief is dumb when the proof/evidence contradicts it. But science doesn't contradict God. It's 100% possible for God and science to coexist.
Just as belief in God doesn't make science untrue, belief in science doesn't make God untrue. You have to arrive at that conclusion another way.
Maybe you simply believe that science makes God unnecessary and so you don't bother with Him. But that's a completely different thing.

Particles in vacuum are constantly creating from energy 'borrowed' from the future, which from a our perspective, i.e. observing time in a linear fashion is precisely 'something from nothing'.

We learn more about the Big Bang, and postulate alternative theories all the time, all of it based on good science and mathematics.

Giving up the second we don't know something and just saying 'God did it!' is childish and disingenuous - especially given the real reason most people believe in God (to convince themselves there's such thing as an afterlife and a pre-ordained 'point' to life).

 

[DoDonGouki]

 

[mckmas8808]

I think if you take evolution back just far enough into the past, you *will* reach the point where science and religion clash and turn into the same. All this talk about intelligent design or not becomes meaningless when we try to talk about what happened before the big bang. And what happened before that. And before that. Or more importantly, what startet *it* all and how?

I wonder if human science will reach a level where explaining these questions becomes possible.

Yes it will, but it will take a long time.

 

[Artie Fissio]

simple yet, to the point.

 

[jon bones]

my religion got this shit pretty good

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang."

"This idea of a periodically expanding and contracting universe, which involves a scale of time and space of vast proportions, has arisen not only in modern cosmology, but also in ancient Indian mythology. Experiencing the universe as an organic and rhythmically moving cosmos, the Hindus were able to develop evolutionary cosmologies which come very close to our modern scientific models."

99% of religious gaf is probably abrahamic
(the occasional hindu or sikh showing up is like a rare pokemon encounter)
so its a safe bet to guess

sup how's your SDTV

 

[Neuromancer]

my religion got this shit pretty good

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang."

"This idea of a periodically expanding and contracting universe, which involves a scale of time and space of vast proportions, has arisen not only in modern cosmology, but also in ancient Indian mythology. Experiencing the universe as an organic and rhythmically moving cosmos, the Hindus were able to develop evolutionary cosmologies which come very close to our modern scientific models."

I have to admit it sounds like your religion is pretty cool, but not being able to eat cows would be a deal-breaker for me.

 

[planar1280]

yes it can


http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_12.html

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_2.html

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_4.html

 

[CornBurrito]

Well, maybe as you think a God creating everything is dumb, I think that everything being created from nothing is way more dumb. I just can't imagine everything we have on earth, specially humans, being created by itself.

One idea is backed by mountains of evidence, the other by absolutely no credible scientific evidence.

Just because you find the answer doesn't match your grand expectations doesn't mean it is false.

I'm fine with people believing in ID/Creationism, just don't call it science because both at their core are inherently unscientific.

By the way, evolution doesn't happen "at random." The fact that you think evolution states that means your understanding of the theory is horribly inaccurate. I suggest you read talkorigins.

Oh I also get the feeling you don't get the difference between the word theory used in everyday speech, and the word theory as it is used in science.

 

[I_D]

The organization scheme reminds me of Plato's 3 worlds.



I support this idea, but only because it's a step closer to accepting evolution.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Holy fuck. I'm baffled. Between the arguments from ignorance claims, to the idea of Noah being able to fit every species on a boat and not only feed himself, but all the animals as well? For 40 days? And without the carnivores killing each other? What in the flying fuck? How stupid do you have to be to believe utter bullshit like this?

 

[Orayn]

Well, maybe as you think a God creating everything is dumb, I think that everything being created from nothing is way more dumb. I just can't imagine everything we have on earth, specially humans, being created by itself.

That's okay, because I'm a scientific naturalist and I don't believe in either of those things. Do you know what the scientific consensus even is on their of those issues?

Holy fuck. I'm baffled. Between the arguments from ignorance claims, to the idea of Noah being able to fit every species on a boat and not only feed himself, but all the animals as well? For 40 days? And without the carnivores killing each other? What in the flying fuck? How stupid do you have to be to believe utter bullshit like this?

It's not stupid, it's faith! The ability to believe something in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Heathen.