That's what Travis said. Evolution with the Hand of God behind it."smeagol, the Church is officially neutral on the issue"
not true. The RC Church requires believing in God's direct intervention, in evolution, to "insert" a "soul" into the human animal at some point. ie, RC's believe the soul did not spontaneously appear on its own, but needed God's jumper cables, pixie dust, whatever. Of course, that requires belief in a "soul", which along with R & B, I much prefer to rap and hip-hop.
The difference of opinion lies in the "Beginning Point"... Which is really pretty inconsequential. Evolution is an ongoing process, regardless of where it began. You can use evidence to find where all of the lines merge at the "Beginning of Time," but that doesn't require that those lines were ever merged.
But for the purposes of studying evolution, one must imagine that they did merge.
Last edited by Spurminator; 08-25-2005 at 10:44 AM.
ROFL...
Right wingers arent all creationism wackos.
Everyone at every major oil company believes in evolution.
How could they not? They use Paleontology to age rocks.
"lines were ever merged"
They merge in the Big Bang theory of cosmology. afaik, the BB is as unassailable as evolution. The question about BB is whether the universe will continue expanding infinitely, or will it stop expanding and collapse into another BB, ie, an oscillating universe.
fwiw, Vedantic thought, "intuitive knowledge", subscribes to the BB oscillation, and even says we are in the 40th cycle of BB's.
I like the oscillating BB theory, where that thimble-ful of matter just before it Bangs, and just after it collapses, is both the Alpha and the Omega. Damn, doesn't that ring Biblical bell somewhere.
From the Catechism (section 283)
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements . . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
Contemporary cosmology points strongly towards someone or something "fine-tuning" the properties of matter so that the Big Bang and the universe can even exist."lines were ever merged"
They merge in the Big Bang theory of cosmology. afaik, the BB is as unassailable as evolution. The question about BB is whether the universe will continue expanding infinitely, or will it stop expanding and collapse into another BB, ie, an oscillating universe.
fwiw, Vedantic thought, "intuitive knowledge", subscribes to the BB oscillation, and even says we are in the 40th cycle of BB's.
I like the oscillating BB theory, where that thimble-ful of matter just before it Bangs, and just after it collapses, is both the Alpha and the Omega. Damn, doesn't that ring Biblical bell somewhere.
The degree of precision required for things like atoms to form is mind-boggling, and if the properties came to be merely by chance, then the probability of the existence of matter is so small that even if expressed in scientific notation, the exponent in base-10 in typical newsprint-size type on one line is too long to fit in the universe.
Perhaps some new discovery will come along that will explain this naturalistically, but right now those folks are just shaking their heads and presuming a Creator.
In my case, I find evidence of an intelligent design in the complexity of the human being (physically and emotionally) and the complexity of the World that surrounds us. In your case, being the a guy who needs to “see to believe”, anything short of God himself coming down from Heaven and telling you he is the responsible for life on Earth, is probably not enough evidence.
The fact there was “enough” time for us to develop from minor forms of life is not enough evidence that God did not have something to do with that development.
Not sure how you reached to the “inevitability” conclusion. Knowing you, it is probably backed by some sensible theory. My question to you then would be: Does that theory rule out the fact that evolution could have been driven by an intelligent force? If the answer is no, how does it reach that conclusion?
I put a lot of stock on the warm fuzzies.
i can help here
i dunno if manny has read Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" But Dawkins says alot of this. Maybe I can help draw it out.
what he meant by inevitable is this
we already know (or at least 99.99999999999) sure that all life, you, me, fish, neandertals, plants, etc etc, sponges, bacterium, porifera, papillionidae, etc etc
all life is based upon DNA and RNA
what we know about DNA is that it is a self replicating molecule
If we can imagine that one time millions of years ago that there was a pool of a bunch of primitive self replicating RNA's or DNA's (not even cellular yet) then we can imagine that there would be intense compe ion of who could be the best replicator
it is in the compe ion that some see complex life forms as being inevitable
if a peice of DNA that can replicate itself really fast outdoes a peice of DNA that replicates really slow, then it will be represented in greater numbers in the gene pool
likewise, a peice of DNA that can replicate itself more accurately will be represented better than a peice that is not very accurate
now if we can imagine the peice of DNA that can replicate fast and the other that can replicate accurately could one day (rather by chance, coincidence, we don't know the reason) then it would suit both to stick together because they'd outcompete alot of other strands of DNA
we already have strong evidence showing that mitochondria present in every human cell are remnants of a microbe that lived in a symbiotic relationship with our body cells
it helped both the microbe and the body cells to work together, the mitochondria allowed respiration, the body cell provided it with nutrients, etc
this is analogous to the DNA i was describing
a major driver of evolution smeagol is compe ion
when those first self replicators evolved then it started a chain reaction of compe ion, of prisoner's dilemna's, and what not
it made sense for peices of DNA that made a human arm team up with peices that coded proteins for making human brains, likewise human legs, etc etc
all these peices of DNA would serve their own selfish replication purposes BETTER by working togheter with other peices of DNA
this of course leads to cells...which lead to tissues, which lead to organs, which lead to bodies, etc
it was a very gradual process of dna teaming up to help their own replication purposes
i hope that makes sense
Why? Why DNA and not, say, polyethylene or polytetra-flouroethylene? Or any long-chain polymer?what we know about DNA is that it is a self replicating molecule
The fact is that DNA as a single molecule is extremely complex, not to mention a single-celled organism.
Thanks. Its an interesting theory. But can't it still be compatible with God? I think it can. In other word, even if you acceopt the theory as true and valid, you cannot completely rule out that somebody was behind those organisms evolving. Compe ion might have been the way God designed those earky stages of Evolution.
Actually, the theory itself does not prove that God's will is behind Evolution.
And at the end of the day it becomes a question of faith. I believe God is behind it all, manny and others don't. Can I prove it? No. Can they prove it? No.
well the consensus is the first one was self replicating RNA but i was trying to keep it simple cuz smeagol has not read up on evolutionary theory
it could have very well been any of those
i think that as far as 'theories' go the best place to put god is not at the start of evolution but at the start of all creation
we still don't know if the big bang is legit or not, but even if it were, the reasons they have for it starting are not widely accepted
personally i think that if the big bang is correct then the first atom that moved and caused the golf ball sized universe to explode was god
thats just my opinion as of right now
I believe God has been there all the way. At the start of Creation and the beginning of life on Earth. But most important, he had a big say in the creation of us humans. We are far too complex, not only physically, but menatlly and emotionally, to be the the product of chance.
Smeagol, there is no evidence to suggest their isn't a God. All of the scientific theory out there does not rule out a God by any means.
But by the same token, the absence of proof that something is not there, is not then proof that something is there. There is no evidence to show that there is a god either.
So far, the strongest evidence for a god is the fact that there is no evidence that no god exsists. That is not evidence at all.
That is not proof! I hate to break it to you, but the human being isn't something that is all that advanced. Being beyond our comprehension (currently) is not something that you can use as scientific evidence.
Think of how half the things in this world would look to a Human in 1200 BC?
Look the simple fact of the matter is that science is another form of faith. Just like christianity is based on principles so too is science. The reason people believe in one or the other is because they were taught to believe in it. Manny and Scott have faith in gravity and the photo-electric effect. God created the heavens and the earth and 1 +1 =2, these are the principles that define those 2 faiths.
Wrong. Science is a process torwards understanding things. It doesn't teach you to believe in anything. Religion is a specific belief of the way things happend. Science leads to the answers, it is not the answer itself. Religion claims to have/be the answer.
Agreed
If the evidence were as strong and as concrete as the existence of the Sun and the Moon, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Reality is the existence of God is personal. It's in my heart, if you will. I can talk to you about miracles, about Jesus Christ, but it wouldn't change your beliefs because you need proof. Tangible and concrete proof. I once, not so long ago, was like you. I needed proof. Until one day, I opened my heart and started to see things in a different light. What up to that point had been the most unreasonable thing, became the most reasonable, the most sensible.
For a guy who needs to see to believe, you are right. The evidence I have is not tangible.
I'd like manny to prove that 1+1 =2 and I'd like smeagol to prove that god exists.
We don't need taste buds to survive. Why do we have them? Isn't it easier to believe that a benevolent God created us with taste buds to be able to savour foods, than to believe our taste buds somehow "evolved" just because?
Isn't it also easier to believe that the same caring God created all kinds of flavors for humans' taste buds to enjoy in foods like fruits, vegetables, meats, etc.?
Or did all these foods evolve too (and just happen to taste so good)?
Last edited by TOP-CHERRY; 08-25-2005 at 07:19 PM.
???
I never really thought about it before, but if we didn't have tastebuds we'd probably be too lazy to eat. Or we wouldn't eat enough to stay healthy. So yeah, our Creator gave us tastebuds to encourage this habit, not because he wanted to throw in some extra fun little doodads for us.
Tastebuds have a very real purpose. They help you avoid foods that are harmful, and they react in a positve ways to foods with more calories (fatty foods).
I think differently in that regard.
I don't know if crocodiles enjoy eating raw deer, pigs like eating garbage, or frogs enjoy eating flies. I'd say they still eat them because it satisfies their hunger. Their instinct is to eat to survive. Why do you think canibalism exists in animals (and in humans)? They eat whatever they can to survive. I don't think they were too lazy to eat. Their stomach forces them do it.
Since when did weed taste like crap, or spinach taste like heaven?
Tastebuds have a very real purpose. They help you avoid foods that are harmful, and they react in a positve ways to foods with more calories (fatty foods).
Spinach isn't the best food for you. Meats high in fat content would be. They have the most calories per bang. We're talking purely from a survival standpoint.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
