The root of all evil

[Shearergol 0]

No, Man "appeared" over 4.4 million years ago. From?

 

Evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps who lived btween 5.5 and 7 mya in Africa - good enough?

 

The Fossils are there, the DNA of chimps and humans (and Neanderthals for good measure) are there. All thats missing is a rejection of the blinkers endowed by God.

 

Creationists love the fact the fossil record is incomplete and use it to reject evolution lock, stock, and barrel. But since DNA analysis techniques have come out, this viewpoint is looking increasingly crazy.

 

I'm neither a creationist or an evolutionist by the way - I believe in both.

[NJS 4375]

Homonids

 

Toumai (6-7 mya)

[Renton 21404]

No, Man "appeared" over 4.4 million years ago. From?

 

Evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps who lived btween 5.5 and 7 mya in Africa - good enough?

 

The Fossils are there, the DNA of chimps and humans (and Neanderthals for good measure) are there. All thats missing is a rejection of the blinkers endowed by God.

 

Creationists love the fact the fossil record is incomplete and use it to reject evolution lock, stock, and barrel. But since DNA analysis techniques have come out, this viewpoint is looking increasingly crazy.

 

I'm neither a creationist or an evolutionist by the way - I believe in both.

 

:yes

[Shearergol 0]

 

Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it.

 

Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect.

 

That is one of the things that bothers alot of people, that we are animals (albeit far more evolved intellectually and emotionally) like any other and not special.

 

Also alot of them really don't want to hear they share 99% of their DNA with bonobos (sp?) as that means they are 1% off being a chimp!

 

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

[Shearergol 0]

No, Man "appeared" over 4.4 million years ago. From?

 

Evolved from a common ancestor with Chimps who lived btween 5.5 and 7 mya in Africa - good enough?

 

The Fossils are there, the DNA of chimps and humans (and Neanderthals for good measure) are there. All thats missing is a rejection of the blinkers endowed by God.

 

Creationists love the fact the fossil record is incomplete and use it to reject evolution lock, stock, and barrel. But since DNA analysis techniques have come out, this viewpoint is looking increasingly crazy.

 

I'm neither a creationist or an evolutionist by the way - I believe in both.

 

:yes

 

God created the Earth, but improved it with age

[Isegrim 9741]

 

There is no document in the world which proves where Man came from. Evolution doesn't even come close to explaining where Man even came from

 

Even if it doesn't prove where he came from, only that we know we evolved over a massive period of time to the species we are now, we certainly know we didn't spring forth from gods finger (or whatever!) and then get women from losing a spare rib!

 

So leaving aside the theory of evolution, as has been said on here there is more than enough evidence of how long there has been life on earth and the like. So people can quite easilly dismiss anything from Genesis (especially the Phil Colins years)

 

Evolved from what, originally?

Gemmill.

[Shearergol 0]

 

There is no document in the world which proves where Man came from. Evolution doesn't even come close to explaining where Man even came from

 

Even if it doesn't prove where he came from, only that we know we evolved over a massive period of time to the species we are now, we certainly know we didn't spring forth from gods finger (or whatever!) and then get women from losing a spare rib!

 

So leaving aside the theory of evolution, as has been said on here there is more than enough evidence of how long there has been life on earth and the like. So people can quite easilly dismiss anything from Genesis (especially the Phil Colins years)

 

Evolved from what, originally?

Gemmill.

 

Wow, that's a hell of improvement

[Renton 21404]

 

Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it.

 

Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect.

 

That is one of the things that bothers alot of people, that we are animals (albeit far more evolved intellectually and emotionally) like any other and not special.

 

Also alot of them really don't want to hear they share 99% of their DNA with bonobos (sp?) as that means they are 1% off being a chimp!

 

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

 

Man was created in God's image, they claim. It's an affrontery for some to even suggest we could be related to chimps. Were you not aware of the trials that took place in the US last century about this?

[Papa Lazaru 0]

 

Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it.

 

Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect.

 

That is one of the things that bothers alot of people, that we are animals (albeit far more evolved intellectually and emotionally) like any other and not special.

 

Also alot of them really don't want to hear they share 99% of their DNA with bonobos (sp?) as that means they are 1% off being a chimp!

 

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

 

No, but carry on with the leazesesque putting words into my mouth!

 

They believe in god because they believe in god, they don't like the idea of evolution because they really do haev a problem with the thought we have evolved from a chimp or some common ancestor with a chimp. Remember many of these people don't believe animals go to heaven (obviously neither do I!) but humans do, because they are superior beings with a soul (that animals don't have)

 

They don't believe in god to feel superior but they see themselves as acompletely seperate and superior entity to other animals.

[Shearergol 0]

 

Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it.

 

Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect.

 

That is one of the things that bothers alot of people, that we are animals (albeit far more evolved intellectually and emotionally) like any other and not special.

 

Also alot of them really don't want to hear they share 99% of their DNA with bonobos (sp?) as that means they are 1% off being a chimp!

 

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

 

No, but carry on with the leazesesque putting words into my mouth!

 

They believe in god because they believe in god, they don't like the idea of evolution because they really do haev a problem with the thought we have evolved from a chimp or some common ancestor with a chimp. Remember many of these people don't believe animals go to heaven (obviously neither do I!) but humans do, because they are superior beings with a soul (that animals don't have)

 

They don't believe in god to feel superior but they see themselves as acompletely seperate and superior entity to other animals.

 

Renton's mouth, tbh

 

Can I point out that I'm a Christian, who believes in God, and also some parts of evolution, before you tar me with the same brush

[NJS 4375]

It takes a lot of "faith" to disagree with the generally held analysis of the fossil records that suggests the move from fish to amphibians though to mammals. the vestigial organs in whales that prove they had land based ancestors being a small example. I don't see how with the addition of DNA coding to the more obvious traits we share with other animals (organs, limbs etc) that it isn't obvious that we have a common descent with some animals obviously being closer than others.

 

Science can't always "be there" - cosmology being the obvious example - what it does is suggest theories to explain evidence - on that basis evolution is no different and no less doubful than gravity, electricty, areodynamics or anything else. It only has to defend itself so much (usually from the ignorant) because it dares to question superstition.

[Shearergol 0]

It takes a lot of "faith" to disagree with the generally held analysis of the fossil records that suggests the move from fish to amphibians though to mammals. the vestigial organs in whales that prove they had land based ancestors being a small example. I don't see how with the addition of DNA coding to the more obvious traits we share with other animals (organs, limbs etc) that it isn't obvious that we have a common descent with some animals obviously being closer than others.

 

Science can't always "be there" - cosmology being the obvious example - what it does is suggest theories to explain evidence - on that basis evolution is no different and no less doubful than gravity, electricty, areodynamics or anything else. It only has to defend itself so much (usually from the ignorant) because it dares to question superstition.

 

*sighs*

 

I brought it up in relation to the "teaching in school" comment. Not once have I said that evolution doesn't "exist". A lot of it however, IS based on faith in it.

[NJS 4375]

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

 

Its not a major reason but its a major tenet of faith for a lot as well - see Mr Haggard as mentioned earlier who threw Dawkins out for suggesting his children "were just animals".

[Shearergol 0]

Right, I'm off out on the lash now. I'll continue this one tomorrow

[NJS 4375]

It takes a lot of "faith" to disagree with the generally held analysis of the fossil records that suggests the move from fish to amphibians though to mammals. the vestigial organs in whales that prove they had land based ancestors being a small example. I don't see how with the addition of DNA coding to the more obvious traits we share with other animals (organs, limbs etc) that it isn't obvious that we have a common descent with some animals obviously being closer than others.

 

Science can't always "be there" - cosmology being the obvious example - what it does is suggest theories to explain evidence - on that basis evolution is no different and no less doubful than gravity, electricty, areodynamics or anything else. It only has to defend itself so much (usually from the ignorant) because it dares to question superstition.

 

*sighs*

 

I brought it up in relation to the "teaching in school" comment. Not once have I said that evolution doesn't "exist". A lot of it however, IS based on faith in it.

 

Yeah but the idea that Creaitonism (as science) and Evolution are somehow "alternatives" which can co-exist is central to the education argument - my point is that if they apply the same criteria to all science as they want to do to evolution then nothing would be left.

 

I don't have a problem with that to some degree - I think if people reject science to the extent of the 6k year old earth and evolution then they shouldn't be treated with drugs or allowed to eat foodstuffs that are the result of that science.

 

Theres a quote I read on Dawkins site about the Creationist who catches TB and the Doctor says something like "Do you want the drugs we would have used before we knew about evolution or do you want to live?"

[Papa Lazaru 0]

 

Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it.

 

Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect.

 

That is one of the things that bothers alot of people, that we are animals (albeit far more evolved intellectually and emotionally) like any other and not special.

 

Also alot of them really don't want to hear they share 99% of their DNA with bonobos (sp?) as that means they are 1% off being a chimp!

 

Actually, missed Renton's last line. You honestly think people believe in God because they want to feel superior to monkeys?

 

No, but carry on with the leazesesque putting words into my mouth!

 

They believe in god because they believe in god, they don't like the idea of evolution because they really do haev a problem with the thought we have evolved from a chimp or some common ancestor with a chimp. Remember many of these people don't believe animals go to heaven (obviously neither do I!) but humans do, because they are superior beings with a soul (that animals don't have)

 

They don't believe in god to feel superior but they see themselves as acompletely seperate and superior entity to other animals.

 

Renton's mouth, tbh

 

Can I point out that I'm a Christian, who believes in God, and also some parts of evolution, before you tar me with the same brush

 

 

 

Too late, we've tarred (and feathered) you with the rabid, bible-bashing evangelist brush

Edited January 6, 2007 by Papa Lazaru

[@yourservice 67]

I don't think many people believe that there was a bloke called Jesus and that he had some good idea.

 

I think it's the whole son/prophet of an all powerful, all knowing God that they find difficult to believe.

 

Real madrid fans would argue with you.

[The Fish 10793]

I don't think many people believe that there was a bloke called Jesus and that he had some good idea.

 

I think it's the whole son/prophet of an all powerful, all knowing God that they find difficult to believe.

 

Real madrid fans would argue with you.

 

 

lol, I've just re-read that.. I should have said "I don't think many people DOUBT that there was a bloke called Jesus and that he has some good ideas."

 

 

I guess my mind was on something else..

[TheInspiration 1]

About what percentage of Christians do people here think don't believe in evolution? I'm quite sure there's a large number of them who do believe in evolution, perhaps as a tool used by God. A lot of people also don't believe in it, but do not believe the universe is 10,000 years old. I personally don't understand how anyone can take the Bible word by word - I believe Genesis is used to describe why the world was created, now how. There's no doubt the Big Bang occurred, but I think it's logical to suggest there was a higher power behind it. After all, what was before it? How could it create something out of nothing, and then create order when explosions create disorder?

 

Regarding evolution, I have to worry however, that there could be a lot of people who dismiss it, but at the same time no far less about it than scientists. This is where they have to be careful. Personally, while I can see it argues against the idea of a creator, it doesn't go near disproving it. There have also been flaws pointed out concerning it. For example, take the eye. Why should natural selection create eyes part by part, if they aren't to benefit the animal until complete? Dawkins has stated that an incomplete eye is more useful than nothing at all, but I still don't understand how the right parts are added (albeit with millions of failures), to eventually create something useful. There would be no brain behind this which would co-ordinate it.

 

Furthermore there's other questions which back up the idea of a creator and a designer. How were gravity and conservation of mass and energy developed? These are fundamental physical laws which are important in keeping the univere in order. Following this, there's the issue that our planet needs to be in a perfect position, with perfect conditions for life to occur on it. The sun's gravitational pull keeps it in orbit. It must be the perfect distance away from it to provide the optimum temperature and light for organisms to survive. The chances of the universe being fine-tuned for such development into complexity from simplicity are microscopic.

[NJS 4375]

They are all sensible questions but the thing they suffer from is going from a position of where we are now. There are billions of galaxies in the universe with probably an infinte number of planets - the conditions here may not be the only ones which support life and there may be millions of planets "identical" to Earth where life may have evolved. You also have the multiverse theories which can help explain the "perfect" conditions in this one.

 

Biologists have identified about 9 stages in eye evolution which all provide an advantage and all exist in nature in various forms.

 

If people believe that "someone" kicked it all off and either did or didn't nudge things along here and there then thats fine - I don't agree but it seems farely rational compared to the Genesis literalists.

 

In that context however I can't marry that with christian faith. We are then expected to believe that a being capable of building that infinte universe waits 14 billion years until an ape evolves enough intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and then sends his son on a mission to one small tribe which he's picked out of thousands available to teach these beings about sin with the promise of eternal life after 70 years plodding around on earth. A mere 2000 years on and things are still ongoing but many of these beings believe that God will "write off" this 14 billion year project any day now.

 

As I said in this "universe view" the biblical God is even more absurd than he was before imo.

 

In some ways the "6000 year" christians could be said to be more "honest" in that their God view fits in with the picture as they see it.

 

I think this is why Dawkins sees "moderates" as just as dangerous as "fundamentalists" - they seem to want their cake and eat it in a way which seems even more irrational on some levels.

[The Fish 10793]

couldn't theology just be a method used by man to explain the things he doesn't yet understand?

 

I mean you yourself have just said that you believe that evolution might have been a tool used by God... doesn't that strike you as shifting the Goalposts, yet again?

[Jimbo 175]

couldn't theology just be a method used by man to explain the things he doesn't yet understand?

 

I mean you yourself have just said that you believe that evolution might have been a tool used by God... doesn't that strike you as shifting the Goalposts, yet again?

 

 

The fact that documents such as the bible didn't contain descriptions of events that would later be discovered such as dinosaurs etc, just further prove that it is the word of man rather than the word of god.

[NJS 4375]

couldn't theology just be a method used by man to explain the things he doesn't yet understand?

 

I mean you yourself have just said that you believe that evolution might have been a tool used by God... doesn't that strike you as shifting the Goalposts, yet again?

 

Not thelogy - thats just lame attempts to explain God - but religion itself is certainly mans attempts to explain things and answer the "why?" question.

 

Another thing that seems obvious to me when you consider the many, many religions that emerged after man became "civilised" is that "inventing" God(s) to explain the world, storms, sunlight, where we came from and everything else seems like a good idea in the face of that much ignorance. I just feel that now that we have a lot of the answers to those questions, and a sense of where the world is in the universe especially, that more of us should have had the sense to realise that history and reject the notions in general.

 

Of course then we enter the argument that if people weren't indoctrinated as kids then it wouldn't last another couple of generations imo.

 

On a more specific point I'd define God as the excuse people use when they don't or won't understand something that is generally explainable. I realise it doesn't cover everything but it certainly covers things like evolution.

[Renton 21404]

They are all sensible questions but the thing they suffer from is going from a position of where we are now. There are billions of galaxies in the universe with probably an infinte number of planets - the conditions here may not be the only ones which support life and there may be millions of planets "identical" to Earth where life may have evolved. You also have the multiverse theories which can help explain the "perfect" conditions in this one.

 

Biologists have identified about 9 stages in eye evolution which all provide an advantage and all exist in nature in various forms.

 

If people believe that "someone" kicked it all off and either did or didn't nudge things along here and there then thats fine - I don't agree but it seems farely rational compared to the Genesis literalists.

 

In that context however I can't marry that with christian faith. We are then expected to believe that a being capable of building that infinte universe waits 14 billion years until an ape evolves enough intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and then sends his son on a mission to one small tribe which he's picked out of thousands available to teach these beings about sin with the promise of eternal life after 70 years plodding around on earth. A mere 2000 years on and things are still ongoing but many of these beings believe that God will "write off" this 14 billion year project any day now.

 

As I said in this "universe view" the biblical God is even more absurd than he was before imo.

 

In some ways the "6000 year" christians could be said to be more "honest" in that their God view fits in with the picture as they see it.

 

I think this is why Dawkins sees "moderates" as just as dangerous as "fundamentalists" - they seem to want their cake and eat it in a way which seems even more irrational on some levels.

 

A great post NJS imo. There's no point in arguing with true evangelical theologists, but then it's very difficult to understand how the more "rational" amongst them reconcile their faith in a world which is increasingly leaving their faith irrelevant (my own Dad fits into this category)?

 

Btw, regards the human eye, I think it is incredibly ironic how creationists seize on it to "support" their cause. It is "wired" in reverse, no one would ever design it that way. But evolution through natural selection explains how it ended up that way very plausibly.

[Renton 21404]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard.

 

I took that from the first post in this thread - 45% of Americans believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. If you've ever been to Texas, you'd hardly find this surprising. And of course one Texan, president Bush, believes in Armageddon and the Rapture. Does this not worry you? It scares the shit out of me, and it affects his policies, such as the Middle East and the environment.

 

The enlightenment was not driven by Christians, rather they have always opposed it. What I'm worried about is that we are in an age where science and rationality is being rejected, the enlightenment is in reverse, so to speak. As a passionate scientist and humanitarian this greatly depresses me, and I think it should be resisted. I wish there were more Richard Dawkins in this world.

 

Btw, might I add your dig at Islam being a barbaric religion, was that supposed to be an ironic joke?

No, it wasn't an ironic joke, because I think that Islam which was once far more "modern" than Christianity got stuck in time without being able to cope with scientific progress. And yes, enlightenment is unthinkable without its Christian forethinkers, e.g. the reformation and newer critical text methods by the likes of Luther, Melanchthon et al. Descartes first aim was to prove that there was actual a god that existed and the list goes on an on. Only later it started more and more to seperate itself from Christianity like in the form of deism (but which for example didn't have a big impact in Germany).

 

Yes, and I do share your worries about a reverse in enlightenment by the new form of Christian orthodoxy like the evangelical right in America. If religious nutters like Ashcroft (the one unable to cope with a naked statue of Justitia and promoting creationism) are getting into important political positions it is indeed a worrying sign.

 

Btw Isegrim, just like to apologise for not answering this rather good post. It was stuck at the end of the page and consequently went unheeded by me at least.