Darwinism and Evolution....

[OCinBuffalo]

We all know that we are supposed to believe in evolution, well, according to some anyway. In fact, you don't have to look very had to find tons of arguments for evolution, and, tons of disparagement of anybody who dares question it. Things like fruit flies evolving in months, genetics, etc. seem to provide a lot of evidence for evolution as "how we got here". Personally, I look at creation in terms of physics: if there was literally nothing, and then suddenly, there was everything, somebody or something, had to decide to flip that switch, and that something, by definition, could not be "of this world", or Universe, for that matter, since neither existed. However, once the switch was flipped, I see no problem with Darwinism as a reasonable explanation for how things changed, but I don't see it as a reasonable explanation for what started things off.

 

And, it seems, evolution is largely a good thing: it has forced us, and everything else, to continuously adapt, and as a result, grow stronger/improve. I don't think you can find an atheist, or any left-leaning person anywhere that would tell you that evolution is a bad thing. And, I especially don't think you will find one that will tell you that God, coming down from on high, determining who lives and who dies, gets sick/doesn't, prospers/fails, would be better than letting evolution, or "nature", run it's course. I think most people, while they may not agree, can see the logic in that position.

 

Hmm. That seems like a very good argument for Darwinism and not believing in the "plan" of some nameless, faceless, entity that has nothing in common with human beings and whose top-down interference is based on its own agenda, with little regard for what makes humans happy, wealthy, etc.

 

So why then, when we talk about free market enterprise, does the left, and often, many of these very same atheists, turn on Evolution and start calling it evil? We are told that the free market, low taxes, letting people who have earned wealth, keep it = "Social Darwinism"...and it's immoral. Is it immoral that the dinosaurs don't exist anymore?

 

So, is Evolution/Darwinism a good idea, or a bad one? Why is it that God coming down from on high a bad thing...but another nameless, faceless entity...the government, with a similar, human stifling, top down agenda, a good thing?

 

Or, if you are a left-leaning atheist, how do you resolve telling me that God is bad/doesn't exist....but, at the same time, tell me that I should put my faith in the Government, or Global Warming, or worse, the current government's plan for Global Warming?

[LeviF]

I guess this isn't for me. I'm a libertarian-leaning atheist

[Wacka]

OC in Buff,

I was on a conservative board and got banned because I argued with creationists.. They continuously stated that evolution didn't answer the question of the origin of life. Evolution doesn't and never will answer the origin of life and was never designed to. It explains how organism change and adapt once they were in existence. A lot of people don't get that distinction.

[Doc]

We all know that we are supposed to believe in evolution, well, according to some anyway. In fact, you don't have to look very had to find tons of arguments for evolution, and, tons of disparagement of anybody who dares question it. Things like fruit flies evolving in months, genetics, etc. seem to provide a lot of evidence for evolution as "how we got here". Personally, I look at creation in terms of physics: if there was literally nothing, and then suddenly, there was everything, somebody or something, had to decide to flip that switch, and that something, by definition, could not be "of this world", or Universe, for that matter, since neither existed. However, once the switch was flipped, I see no problem with Darwinism as a reasonable explanation for how things changed, but I don't see it as a reasonable explanation for what started things off.

The problem with this thinking is that it's a human construct: i.e. something must have created it. But if nothing can come from nothing, how did God come to exist? God created itself? You can't state that since something must have started it, it proves the existence of God, yet God didn't have to be created and was always just there. It's just as reasonable to say the laws of nature were always just there, and after 13 or so billion years, life developed to this point.

[OCinBuffalo]

OC in Buff,

I was on a conservative board and got banned because I argued with creationists.. They continuously stated that evolution didn't answer the question of the origin of life. Evolution doesn't and never will answer the origin of life and was never designed to. It explains how organism change and adapt once they were in existence. A lot of people don't get that distinction.

I do. And, you shouldn't fret over being banned by those people. If that's how they behave, and think, then its a good thing you ended up free of them. There was literally nothing to gain by continuing to interact with them. Maybe, you made them think a little...and that's a good thing.

The problem with this thinking is that it's a human construct: i.e. something must have created it. But if nothing can come from nothing, how did God come to exist? God created itself? You can't state that since something must have started it, it proves the existence of God, yet God didn't have to be created and was always just there. It's just as reasonable to say the laws of nature were always just there, and after 13 or so billion years, life developed to this point.

I prefer to think of it as a LOGICAL construct, first. And, logic has existed for 13 billion years as well. (That we have only recently been able to perceive it, doesn't mean it didn't exist this whole time. And we don't have a full handle on it...just look at conner's posts! ) But anyway, I think you missed the logic. I said "of this world"...to include existence in it. By definition, God cannot be of this world, and, only something not of this world could create it:

 

If he created the universe, he would have had to exist outside of it, in order to create it.

He would have also had to exist before it, in order to create it.

And, the universe didn't create itself since we "know" that a big bang supposedly did.

Something, not of this world, and with enough power, had to have done the job, since it's not like big bangs just "happen"...since, in 13 billion years, we have no evidence that another big bang has ever occurred

 

My explanation that God or some sort of super-natural(remember, not of this world?) force did it, is the simplest explanation, and therefore the most likely one...if we want to use Occam's razor....

 

And, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that if God could pull off creating the universe, creating himself might also be in the bag of tricks. Also, if God is a "consciousness" then it's quite possible that he never had to be created at all.

 

Now, if he could just twinkle his toes and make me a flying car powered by manipulating gravitons...

 

EDIT: For no reason at all other than I just remembered it: "Are you trying to tell me that Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?"

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That seems like a very good argument for Darwinism and not believing in the "plan" of some nameless, faceless, entity that has nothing in common with human beings and whose top-down interference is based on its own agenda, with little regard for what makes humans happy, wealthy, etc.

 

God is not:

 

1) Nameless: He has a name, in fact he has dozens of them. YHWH, Jehovah, Lord, Heavenly Father, etc...

 

2) Faceless: He has an image, and we are created in it. Are we a pale image? Certainly, for the time being.

 

3) A being with little regard for what makes us happy or prosperous: On the contrary, God loves us so much that even though we rebelled and polluted his wonderous creation, he descended to live among us and DIE for our sins at the hand of the Romans and the Pharisees.

 

I don't know where you're getting your theology (Maybe you're a Catholic), but you're not describing the God I know.

[murra]

Forgive me for being so rude, but what exactly has ever come from these discussions? It is certainly not a real, logical or fact-based debate, certainly no one is getting any smarter having argued, or learned more in the debate. The meaning of life is something that will not be answered on a Buffalo Bills forum, despite how fantastically hilarious an onion article that would make.

 

I also realize that my statement lops into the "who cares" aisle, which is often insulted. It's not that I don't care how the earth was created, its being the better man and realizing we'll never know, and moving on.

[OCinBuffalo]

Forgive me for being so rude, but what exactly has ever come from these discussions? It is certainly not a real, logical or fact-based debate, certainly no one is getting any smarter having argued, or learned more in the debate. The meaning of life is something that will not be answered on a Buffalo Bills forum, despite how fantastically hilarious an onion article that would make.

 

I also realize that my statement lops into the "who cares" aisle, which is often insulted. It's not that I don't care how the earth was created, its being the better man and realizing we'll never know, and moving on.

You don't care.....and yet...you post....

 

And, none of this is my point. (Every so often I catch some foolish liberal I know in real life in a logical contradiction...like: Bush was a great liar, and an idiot, at the same time, or, "we should be tolerant of all cultures and those who aren't are racist homophobes"/Mike Vick learned dogfighting from his culture/"Mike Vick should not be tolerated"!/but what about his culture?, etc., then, I bring it here to see if there's anything I am missing.)

[The Big Cat]

So you're questioning the tenets of evolution by pinning it against two completely different and unrelated concepts?

 

Social Darwinism = lazy naming. If memory serves me correctly, the idea has absolutely no connection to Darwin himself.

 

And Wacka is completely correct. Darwinism is rooted in biology, not astronomy and physics.

[murra]

You don't care.....and yet...you post....

 

And, none of this is my point. (Every so often I catch some foolish liberal I know in real life in a logical contradiction...like: Bush was a great liar, and an idiot, at the same time, or, "we should be tolerant of all cultures and those who aren't are racist homophobes"/Mike Vick learned dogfighting from his culture/"Mike Vick should not be tolerated"!/but what about his culture?, etc., then, I bring it here to see if there's anything I am missing.)

 

Like I predicted: insulted for being in the "not care" aisle... but if you read my post, there was actually a question added to it. What is the point of the argument? It's one of the most polarizing debates out there. And I want to know why.

 

To me the situation is almost akin to "is there life out there"? That's a silly sci-fi debate not to be taken too seriously, especially with alien theorists, but how is it any different than "who created us"? I just want to know why this one particular issue has become a huge industry.

 

The skeptic in me never fully took in the spoon-fed evolution theory I was taught in school. The skeptic in me never believed the Adam and Eve story to be more than a fable.

 

What I don't understand, however, is why people freak out about this debate? You can continue to write essays in your original posts and then reply to me with just a wallbashing emoticon, but I am interested in your response.

[The Big Cat]

You don't care.....and yet...you post....

 

And, none of this is my point. (Every so often I catch some foolish liberal I know in real life in a logical contradiction...like: Bush was a great liar, and an idiot, at the same time, or, "we should be tolerant of all cultures and those who aren't are racist homophobes"/Mike Vick learned dogfighting from his culture/"Mike Vick should not be tolerated"!/but what about his culture?, etc., then, I bring it here to see if there's anything I am missing.)

 

I don't think any one believes in social Darwinism, and if they do, the meaning of the term is lost to them, as it exists to critique what it "represents."

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

God is not:

 

1) Nameless: He has a name, in fact he has dozens of them. YHWH, Jehovah, Lord, Heavenly Father, etc...

 

2) Faceless: He has an image, and we are created in it. Are we a pale image? Certainly, for the time being.

 

3) A being with little regard for what makes us happy or prosperous: On the contrary, God loves us so much that even though we rebelled and polluted his wonderous creation, he descended to live among us and DIE for our sins at the hand of the Romans and the Pharisees.

 

I don't know where you're getting your theology (Maybe you're a Catholic), but you're not describing the God I know.

 

These are some pretty odd claims. Would you please explain how you know these things?

[DC Tom]

We all know that we are supposed to believe in evolution, well, according to some anyway. In fact, you don't have to look very had to find tons of arguments for evolution, and, tons of disparagement of anybody who dares question it. Things like fruit flies evolving in months, genetics, etc. seem to provide a lot of evidence for evolution as "how we got here". Personally, I look at creation in terms of physics: if there was literally nothing, and then suddenly, there was everything, somebody or something, had to decide to flip that switch, and that something, by definition, could not be "of this world", or Universe, for that matter, since neither existed. However, once the switch was flipped, I see no problem with Darwinism as a reasonable explanation for how things changed, but I don't see it as a reasonable explanation for what started things off.

 

And, it seems, evolution is largely a good thing: it has forced us, and everything else, to continuously adapt, and as a result, grow stronger/improve. I don't think you can find an atheist, or any left-leaning person anywhere that would tell you that evolution is a bad thing. And, I especially don't think you will find one that will tell you that God, coming down from on high, determining who lives and who dies, gets sick/doesn't, prospers/fails, would be better than letting evolution, or "nature", run it's course. I think most people, while they may not agree, can see the logic in that position.

 

Hmm. That seems like a very good argument for Darwinism and not believing in the "plan" of some nameless, faceless, entity that has nothing in common with human beings and whose top-down interference is based on its own agenda, with little regard for what makes humans happy, wealthy, etc.

 

So why then, when we talk about free market enterprise, does the left, and often, many of these very same atheists, turn on Evolution and start calling it evil? We are told that the free market, low taxes, letting people who have earned wealth, keep it = "Social Darwinism"...and it's immoral. Is it immoral that the dinosaurs don't exist anymore?

 

So, is Evolution/Darwinism a good idea, or a bad one? Why is it that God coming down from on high a bad thing...but another nameless, faceless entity...the government, with a similar, human stifling, top down agenda, a good thing?

 

Or, if you are a left-leaning atheist, how do you resolve telling me that God is bad/doesn't exist....but, at the same time, tell me that I should put my faith in the Government, or Global Warming, or worse, the current government's plan for Global Warming?

 

All scientific theories are "arguments of convenience". The sole purpose of a theory is to explain the observable world as accurately as possible, based on empirical observation and testing. The concept of "God" is not counter to that - both frameworks (science and religion) are mutually exclusive, in my opinion, but neither can or does invalidate the other. Most arguments of "God vs. evolution" come down to The Bible vs. evolution anyway.

 

As to relating that to "liberal" belief in "big government"...I think it's a faintly ludicrous comparison, and I'm not going to discuss it.

[DC Tom]

These are some pretty odd claims. Would you please explain how you know these things?

 

The Bible.

 

Like most religious people, Joe doesn't worship God. He worships The Bible. A symbol of God - a "graven image", if you will.

[OCinBuffalo]

God is not:

 

1) Nameless: He has a name, in fact he has dozens of them. YHWH, Jehovah, Lord, Heavenly Father, etc...

 

2) Faceless: He has an image, and we are created in it. Are we a pale image? Certainly, for the time being.

 

3) A being with little regard for what makes us happy or prosperous: On the contrary, God loves us so much that even though we rebelled and polluted his wonderous creation, he descended to live among us and DIE for our sins at the hand of the Romans and the Pharisees.

 

I don't know where you're getting your theology (Maybe you're a Catholic), but you're not describing the God I know.

Hey poky: I just wanted to state the so-called "objective" view of God, in the manner that most atheists would describe it....for effect. So, that when they start saying "yeah, yeah, yeah" and then, I hit them with the government thing, it causes a little dissonance, and God forbid, some thinking to occur...are you telling me you missed that?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The Bible.

 

Like most religious people, Joe doesn't worship God. He worships The Bible. A symbol of God - a "graven image", if you will.

 

 

Uh, not exactly. I worship the Lord and am redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus. I learn about God by reading the Bible.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

All scientific theories are "arguments of convenience". The sole purpose of a theory is to explain the observable world as accurately as possible, based on empirical observation and testing. The concept of "God" is not counter to that - both frameworks (science and religion) are mutually exclusive, in my opinion, but neither can or does invalidate the other. Most arguments of "God vs. evolution" come down to The Bible vs. evolution anyway.

 

 

And interestingly enough, the main purpose of religious theory is to explain the parts of the world that we simply can't explain. Back in the good old days of Ancient Greece, almost nothing was known in the way of the natural world. So (naturally), they created gods that would explain why we have lightning, volcanoes, the sun, the moon, etc.

 

Now that we DO have answers for all of those things, God has become largely irrelevant to daily life. But there are still things we don't understand, and that's where God comes into play. Where did the universe come from? What happens when we die? Do we have a soul? As far as I'm concerned, these things are unknowable. Maybe they aren't, but it sure seems to be that way. So God and religion will always have their niche in the human experience, regarding these abstract questions.

[DC Tom]

Uh, not exactly. I worship the Lord and am redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus. I learn about God by reading the Bible.

 

That doesn't disprove my point. Kind-of makes it, actually.

[Gene Frenkle]

We all know that we are supposed to believe in evolution, well, according to some anyway. In fact, you don't have to look very had to find tons of arguments for evolution, and, tons of disparagement of anybody who dares question it. Things like fruit flies evolving in months, genetics, etc. seem to provide a lot of evidence for evolution as "how we got here". Personally, I look at creation in terms of physics: if there was literally nothing, and then suddenly, there was everything, somebody or something, had to decide to flip that switch, and that something, by definition, could not be "of this world", or Universe, for that matter, since neither existed. However, once the switch was flipped, I see no problem with Darwinism as a reasonable explanation for how things changed, but I don't see it as a reasonable explanation for what started things off.

 

And, it seems, evolution is largely a good thing: it has forced us, and everything else, to continuously adapt, and as a result, grow stronger/improve. I don't think you can find an atheist, or any left-leaning person anywhere that would tell you that evolution is a bad thing. And, I especially don't think you will find one that will tell you that God, coming down from on high, determining who lives and who dies, gets sick/doesn't, prospers/fails, would be better than letting evolution, or "nature", run it's course. I think most people, while they may not agree, can see the logic in that position.

 

Hmm. That seems like a very good argument for Darwinism and not believing in the "plan" of some nameless, faceless, entity that has nothing in common with human beings and whose top-down interference is based on its own agenda, with little regard for what makes humans happy, wealthy, etc.

 

So why then, when we talk about free market enterprise, does the left, and often, many of these very same atheists, turn on Evolution and start calling it evil? We are told that the free market, low taxes, letting people who have earned wealth, keep it = "Social Darwinism"...and it's immoral. Is it immoral that the dinosaurs don't exist anymore?

 

So, is Evolution/Darwinism a good idea, or a bad one? Why is it that God coming down from on high a bad thing...but another nameless, faceless entity...the government, with a similar, human stifling, top down agenda, a good thing?

 

Or, if you are a left-leaning atheist, how do you resolve telling me that God is bad/doesn't exist....but, at the same time, tell me that I should put my faith in the Government, or Global Warming, or worse, the current government's plan for Global Warming?

I actually read one of your posts and it didn't immediately make me want to puke. What a day I'm having!

 

Assuming that you accept it, and it appears that you do, Evolution is no more good or evil than Gravity. Something may indeed evolve into something else (or more likely many other things), but Evolution always requires something to evolve from and therefore does not really deal with the origin of the Big Bang. Evolution does strongly conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is why many fundamentalist Christians have such a problem with it.

 

Free Market != Evolution. They're not really the same thing at all. The last part about god, government and global warming is interesting because unfounded faith in anything is a bunch of crap. At least government and global warming can be investigated and evaluated using science logic. You could as easily cite "Buffalo Bills Football", "911 Truthers" and "Global Warming Deniers" and make a similar point.

 

My question would be, given that faith in a god REQUIRES a total lack of evidence by definition, why is belief in god acceptable?

[OCinBuffalo]

Like I predicted: insulted for being in the "not care" aisle...

Oh come on->insulted? Please. Poking fun? Barely...but insult? Let DC Tom/Alaska Darin give you a good bashing...then you will know and insult when you see one.

but if you read my post, there was actually a question added to it. What is the point of the argument? It's one of the most polarizing debates out there. And I want to know why.

You want to know why you missed the point? Well, there are probably lots of answers to that. As far as polarization goes...I want to know why the ACLU will sue to demand that Darwinism be taught in school, but, then, will sue against it when it is applied in economics. See the contradiction yet?

To me the situation is almost akin to "is there life out there"? That's a silly sci-fi debate not to be taken too seriously, especially with alien theorists, but how is it any different than "who created us"? I just want to know why this one particular issue has become a huge industry.

Because it's a puzzle, and human beings, well most anyway, hate leaving puzzles unsolved. Some like to have other people do all their puzzle solving for them(cough, ACORN, cough). But, most people won't quit until they get the answer for themselves????? I hope that is a good enough answer.

The skeptic in me never fully took in the spoon-fed evolution theory I was taught in school. The skeptic in me never believed the Adam and Eve story to be more than a fable.

 

What I don't understand, however, is why people freak out about this debate? You can continue to write essays in your original posts and then reply to me with just a wallbashing emoticon, but I am interested in your response.

Well, I will have to remind myself not to unleash punishing emoticons on you ever again. As far as freaking out? Who is freaking out? I'm not. So far, I don't feel very freaky at all...but, that may change

 

I guess the answer is: keep looking for it until you find one you are happy with...

 

....and then fight like hell on a message board to defend it and ban people that don't agree with you...

 

....or, you could have a reasonable discussion with people to see where they stand in relation to your ideas...

 

....or, you could just do...this heheheheheh, did it again!