First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Evolution is NOT true
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/21/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Superchick31 wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

Evolution does exist.

Creation and God is your own believe.

I have a bible, no need to throw those stuff.


Actually if you have Bible then you should know that evolution is not true. You should know by just reading the first book in the Bible. I need to "throw" this stuff around because I need to prove my point.
Alexandra (Alex)


The first book of the Bible borrows heavily from Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology, as well as several archetypes common in all religions. It's not exactly an original work.


What do mean by "original"? It could be true that different religious groups have witnessed the same events but had different interpretations. The Great Flood is a good example.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/21/08

shiro2142 wrote:

CHarles Darwin's family was extrememly wealthy and had access to the highest echelons of society. The upper crust were receptive to the spread of survival of the fittest ideal as it would give a new justification for social pecking order in the industrial age as the influence of Christianity and divine right would wane.


Lmao talk about making things up.

The opinion of the wealthy has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Just because people misinterpreted his work does not affect the validity of it. Second, the one who coined the statement survival of the fittest was Herbert Spencer. "Darwinist ideas" and the theories by Charles Darwin are as different as oil and water.

Just because his last name is attached to a certain movement does not mean it is correctly based on Darwin's work.

do yourself a favor and read the actual writings instead of saying unsound things.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Darwin never said survival of the fittest. Never.
Posted 9/22/08

Superchick31 wrote:
Actually I am not ignorant and yes I have read books and books upon the theory of evolution... but I think it's a huge mess that even the scientist themselves don't know what to believe. I believe that there is bacteria. I believe that God put that bacteria there to produce itself. I am not against that thought. What I am against is the very thought that there was no creator to make this world to what it is today.


I'm not sure which scientists you're talking about here. Like I said before, there are many scientists who work with evolution and at the same time believe in a supreme creator. Creationism and evolution does not have to be so exclusive of each other. I'm thinking that what you're really arguing here is not that evolution doesn't exist, but rather you hold contempt for people who don't think there's a supreme creator in this universe we live in. Evolution has nothing to do with this particular dilemma.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

crunchypibb wrote:

What do mean by "original"? It could be true that different religious groups have witnessed the same events but had different interpretations. The Great Flood is a good example.


It is rather interesting that many ancient religions share common themes: a great flood, the virgin mother, the resurrected god, snake as destroyer and regenerator, the trickster god, good and evil as necessarily existing in conjunction with the other.

Which brings up the question: how can say that the Christian interpretation is any more valid than the Sumerian, the Greek, or the Hebrew?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

What do mean by "original"? It could be true that different religious groups have witnessed the same events but had different interpretations. The Great Flood is a good example.


It is rather interesting that many ancient religions share common themes: a great flood, the virgin mother, the resurrected god, snake as destroyer and regenerator, the trickster god, good and evil as necessarily existing in conjunction with the other.

Which brings up the question: how can say that the Christian interpretation is any more valid than the Sumerian, the Greek, or the Hebrew?


You do pose a good question. Here's one to answer that, how did the christian and jewish religions outlast the other ones from back in the day? The Jewish and the Christian religion are interelated since Jesus as a Jew claimed to be the one to fulfill the prophesies that were in the Old Testiment. Difference is Jews don't see Jesus as the Mesiah. As for all the similar stories in all the religions, they all have the basic message do they not? (I seriously don't know, you tell me plz.) Except for the serpent being consistantly known as a symbol of life and death, the only time I know it was a symbol of life was when Jesus asked Moses to make a staff resembling one. Otherwise I believe it is known just as a sign of death to the Judeo-Christians.
You should also look into miracles too, people almost never make those things up. There may have been people who have "faked" one like the painting of the crying Jesus but those shouldn't be classified along with the recognized miracles of the Catholic church. I would suppose they're one way of making the religion more valid. Although I am open to the idea that there are more "gods" out there as in other spiritual entities that have been treated as gods.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

crunchypibb wrote:
You should also look into miracles too, people almost never make those things up.


What?

On the contrary, people almost ALWAYS make miracles up due to ignorance or misconception of events.
To quote David Hume.

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior." When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.


Vague instances recognized by the Church as miracles help little to the validity of religion for the methods used to recognize them as such are not objective enough.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 9/22/08
There are enough evolution threads. Search for them, and you will find them.





~ Locked
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.