Creation vs. Evolution

[Aragorn21]

What's your view? I personally believe that all evidence points to a creator. I, however, do not believe God created the earth and all it contains in six literal 24-hour days.

[Gothmog]

There are a couple of threads in the Forsaken Inn already about this subject. However, some members may have been put off posting in those, so instead of merging them together at this time, I will just give links to them and to another in the archives. Please have a read of them.

Evolution vs. Creation (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14234)
who believes in evolution (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14493)
Thoughts about Darwinian evolution (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10832)

[Astaldo]

Actually is not exactly 6 24-hour days. Each day is a period of many many years. The word "day" allegoric. Now if there is a creator or not I really do not know.

[spirit]

Now if there is a creator or not I really do not know.
If there is a creator, there must be a destroyer.

[Astaldo]

Nice theory Spirit :)

[Aragorn21]

There are a couple of threads in the Forsaken Inn already about this subject. However, some members may have been put off posting in those, so instead of merging them together at this time, I will just give links to them and to another in the archives. Please have a read of them.

Evolution vs. Creation (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14234)
who believes in evolution (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14493)
Thoughts about Darwinian evolution (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10832)Yes, I did realize there were already threads on this topic, however I didn't feel like reviving an old thread. If I did I feared that, instead of starting all over with a new discussion, they would go back to the old one that had died. Is that ok?


If there is a creator, there must be a destroyer.The devil. ;)

[Astaldo]

I do not think devil is the destroyer. This guy cannot do anything right. If he could destroy the world he would have done it long ago.

I think the destroyer will be Morgoth when he will be realesed. If he will ever be realesed. ;)

[Gothmog]

Yes, I did realize there were already threads on this topic, however I didn't feel like reviving an old thread. If I did I feared that, instead of starting all over with a new discussion, they would go back to the old one that had died. Is that ok?

It is for the same reason that I did not merge the threads but only gave links to them. :) I too am hoping for a new discussion.

[Aragorn21]

It is for the same reason that I did not merge the threads but only gave links to them. :) I too am hoping for a new discussion.ok, goodie. :D


So...where should we start? The beginning? :p

[greypilgrim]

If you don't believe in God you have to believe in nature.

I don't think earth has the only life in the universe.

[Barliman Butterbur]

What's your view? I personally believe that all evidence points to a creator. I, however, do not believe God created the earth and all it contains in six literal 24-hour days.

Many more like you see what they conclude is evidence for a creator. Others take much of the same "evidence" and conclude just the opposite. Still others (like myself) have concluded that man is incapable of finding out one way or the other, for the same reason that a cat is incapable of reading. I am saying that I absolutely believe that the most brilliant humans who ever lived still fall far short of the ability to apprehend the truth of reality.

And I have concluded quite to my own satisfaction that "God" as described in the world's holy books are figments of man's imagination, his early attempts to explain the Big Questions.

As I say, this is a settled issue for me, and I have no need or desire to debate it or prove it.

But to answer your question: I believe in most of what science alleges about the creation and functioning of the universe. I am suspicious of the Big Bang Theory. It begs the question, What was there before there was Anything, and how long was it there? Most humans conclude that Reality is the consequence of some sort of intelligent Force, but that's only the human thought process. There may well be other intelligent races in the universe (and possibly other universes and dimensions) whose makeup allow them to apprehend much more of the reality of the situation than we can.

Barley

[joxy]

What was there before there was Anything, and how long was it there?
The response to that is that those are questions which literally can have no answer.
That is because Time itself came into existence only with the Big Bang - if there was one! - so there was no "before" or "long".

[Aragorn21]

The response to that is that those are questions which literally can have no answer.
That is because Time itself came into existence only with the Big Bang - if there was one! - so there was no "before" or "long".And that, is why evolution is not a science...it also takes faith. You agree?

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Time itself came into existence only with the Big Bang - if there was one! - so there was no "before" or "long".

With respect: what IS time? According to Henrí Bergson, there is a huge difference between time and duration; time being man's arbitrary chopping up of duration into units that he can understand: minutes, seconds, etc. Duration is the "lastingness" of existence, which had to be there along with space and matter.

That time came into existence with the Big Bang begs the question — again — what was there before the Big Bang (if there was one, as you said), and how long did it last, and what came before that in infinite regress.

For me, the Big Bang Theory is just that: a theory, a production, a concoction of man's (limited) mind (albeit his best effort so far, and open to change with the very next discovery), which is (I firmly believe) woefully inadequate to the task of finding the answer to the question, which in itself may be the wrong question because it too is the product of man's limited mind and sensorium.

That's why, in my ever-more-doddering old age and senescence, I see that the only thing that matters is: How well am I treating myself and you? Pass that jug of 1420!

Barley

[e.Blackstar]

I belive that God created the world, not in 24-hour days, but merely in seven time periods. As Spirit said, if there is a creator (yep) then there has to be a destroyer-has anyone here read Revalation? I don;t think that with his current power, the devil could destroy the world as a whole, but if he corrput senoughh people and gets them to do enough stuff, then I suppose that it could be destruction. I think that God's power is holdingt him back as of now and when the time comes, that wall will be let down for the devil to go amongst his own subjects and do with them as he sees fit. Somehow I don;t think that it will be all that nice or fun for them.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I belive that God created the world, not in 24-hour days, but merely in seven time periods. As Spirit said, if there is a creator (yep) then there has to be a destroyer-has anyone here read Revalation? I don;t think that with his current power, the devil could destroy the world as a whole, but if he corrput senoughh people and gets them to do enough stuff, then I suppose that it could be destruction. I think that God's power is holdingt him back as of now and when the time comes, that wall will be let down for the devil to go amongst his own subjects and do with them as he sees fit. Somehow I don;t think that it will be all that nice or fun for them.

You are a believing Christian, which is fine. Just know that other religions have equally legitimate notions about creation and divinity, not to mention what science and the various philosophies have to say about them.

Barley

[Beleg]

There are two basic caveats in all this mess which scientists haven't been able to find a plausible explaination for IMO:

1. Just How/why did Humans evolve from 'dead' Orangic matter into 'sentient' lifeforms?

2. What came before Planck's time?

[greypilgrim]

Who/what is Planck?

Well, scientifically, the earth is about 70% water, and so is the human body. Makes you wonder...since (yes) we need water to live and (yes), fish are healthy to eat...did we "evolve" from the oceans?

I disbelieve the Big Bang theory. It, like the existance of a creator, cannot be proven (or disproven). And like Barley said, I agree that the human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of time and space. Mathematics help.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Who/what is Planck?

Max Planck was one of the fathers of quantum physics.

===============================

"He studied thermodynamics, in particular examining the distribution of energy according to wavelength. By combining the formulas of Wien and Rayleigh, Planck announced in October 1900 a formula now known as Planck's radiation formula. Within two months Planck made a complete theoretical deduction of his formula renouncing classical physics and introducing the quanta of energy. On 14 December 1900 he presented his theoretical explanation involving quanta of energy at a meeting of the Physikalische Gesellschaft in Berlin. In doing so he had to reject his belief that the second law of thermodynamics was an absolute law of nature, and accept Boltzmann's interpretation that it was a statistical law. In a letter written a year later Planck described proposing the theoretical interpretation of the radiation formula saying:-

... the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be.

Planck received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918 for his achievement."

===============================

For details on Planck, click here (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Planck.html).

...like Barley said, I agree that the human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of time and space. Mathematics help.

Although mathematics has enabled us to gain much knowledge and theorize deeply, it is still the product of the limited human brain/mind. The only really complex mind we know of is the human mind, which, in my opinion is the product of the human brain, which has evolved to survive on this planet (and we are so proud of it!).

The human brain has its limits: it can only produce thoughts commensurate with its biological structure and nature. If we compare the brain to a waffle iron, and its thoughts to the batter: no matter how one varies the ingredients, the thought-product is still going to look like a waffle: bearing the stamp of the waffle iron which produced it. In other words, any thoughts the brain/mind produces are going to bear the stamp of the brain's limits. We usually don't think of this.

We are still arrogant enough to believe that the human brain/mind and the five senses are enough to eventually solve anything. We don't understand our own limits because we have nothing to compare them with: no Martians, no Venusians or other creatures whose development might surpass ours by light-years.

We can never step outside of our own limits. We don't think about this very much. We should, it would help keep down the rampant hubris which is the constant companion of our human accomplishments. Our brains are sufficient for our needs, but one wonders: what else could we accomplish, what else could we learn, were our brain/minds and senses more developed and sophisiticated, or if we had senses (which cannot even be imagined) that would allow us to perceive aspects of Reality that are denied us because of our present limitations?

Cats can only think cat thoughts, dogs can only think dog thoughts, and humans can only think human thoughts. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are beings in Reality, entirely outside our means to detect, and who are evolutionally equipped to know much more about the Nature of Being that we will ever be able to do at this stage of our evolution.

Barley

[greypilgrim]

Barliman, you are the man.

[joxy]

With respect: what IS time? According to Henrí Bergson....
....the Big Bang Theory is just that: a theory, a production, a concoction of man's (limited) mind....
The simple (!) answer is that Time is the Fourth Dimension, that is a part of the Space-Time Continuum.
Unfortunately that simplicity (!) has been complicated in recent times by the discovery that the number of Dimensions is at least 11!
As Grey Pilgrim said: Mathematics helps. Though it was a little surprising to find that Planck, he of the Constant, is forgotten so soon.
The Big Bang Theory, like any other theory, like any other concept, is indeed a product of man's mind, but it is also a product of mathematics, and many see that as the expression of the art of God, at work in running the Universe.
Astronomy tells us that the mathematics that we - myself not included! - understand is demonstrated throughout the observable universe. That helps to convince me that it is not merely (!) a concept of man's limited mind.
I have to repeat my statement that, if the Big Bang Theory is correct, then there is no meaning in the question of what came before it. If space and matter did come into existence "in a flash" then so did time, at the same instant, and there was no instant, no time, before that, just as there was no space and no matter before that. In that context there is no "Before".
On the other hand the Theory may not be correct.
There is a growing belief that it is not currently "man's best effort so far". So where do we go from there?

For me Mr Bengson's greatest contribution to human knowledge was to write a book about the philosophy of Laughter. To any serious author who could undertake such a work my only comment has to be: You can't be serious. :D

Beleg asks about evolution from 'dead' organic matter into 'sentient' lifeforms, and about what came before Planck's time.
The chain that began with the complex molecules which we now find are widespread in space, and which went on to become more complex organisms which were on the edge between inanimate and animate matter, which in turn produced the enormous variety of sentient and non-sentient lifeforms which we see today, and which were preceded by so many more now extinct, is, in my opinion, a reasonable concept. ;)
The big question that I ask is when and how did the human mind, and its spirit, if there is such a thing, enter into that inexorable chain? If there is an answer to the time factor it must be in expressed in terms of millions of years.
There is a curious parallel in the point Beleg raises, this time below: the time at which Quantum Theory came into existence. The answer to that would be expressed in those minute negative powers of seconds!
If I've understood the second question correctly, the answer is the one I've given above: concisely, nothing.

[Beleg]

The Big-bang model requires that the universe started from a primordial fireball of infinite temprature and density. However, astrophysists and Cosmologists have only been able to predict the development of Universe after it was 10 to the power of -43 seconds old through Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, In my understanding. There are many other problems with Big-bang theory as well, it has certain loose ends which are in contrast with other accepted principals like Relativity etc which certainly are complicated and beyond the understanding of us general laymen [Even the science students below the Post-Graduate Level, I'd say]

We go from here where our mind will take us; that is an inherent aspect of evolution. ;)

[Barliman Butterbur]

The Big-bang model requires that the universe started from a primordial fireball of infinite temprature and density. However, astrophysists and Cosmologists have only been able to predict the development of Universe after it was 10 to the power of -43 seconds old through Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, In my understanding. There are many other problems with Big-bang theory as well, it has certain loose ends which are in contrast with other accepted principals like Relativity etc which certainly are complicated and beyond the understanding of us general laymen [Even the science students below the Post-Graduate Level, I'd say]

We go from here where our mind will take us; that is an inherent aspect of evolution. ;)

Brilliantly put!

Good lord, another bright young man — that's another thing I love about TTF: all these bright articulate young people! They put us old farts in our place! Just wait until they start university!:D

Barley

[spirit]

The devil. ;)
Nive, but I don't believe in Devil.

[Astaldo]

Well I don know if you believe in God (and thta's your matter), but if you believe in Him then you must also believe in Devil. Because if there is God there is definetly the Devil ;)

[Inderjit S]

Astaldo-you can believe in god and not the devil. It's simple.

[Gothmog]

Astaldo-you can believe in god and not the devil. It's simple.
Though it Is a rather One-sided view of "Life, the Universe and everything" ;)

[spirit]

Well I don know if you believe in God (and thta's your matter), but if you believe in Him then you must also believe in Devil. Because if there is God there is definetly the Devil ;)
I believe in God, but I don't believe in the devil. It's simple!
But I believe that there has to be a balance between all things good and bad. God represents pure goodness, and there has to be evil in the world to balance that out, and since I don't believe in the devil, the only thing which can balance the good out is mankind. All this terrorism and violence that goes around in the world... :( just makes up for the devil.

Astaldo-you can believe in god and not the devil. It's simple. Exactly. :)

Though it Is a rather One-sided view of "Life, the Universe and everything" Not really. If you want to believe in the Devil, just think of him as the terrorists-type people in the world. :(

[Inderjit S]

I am not a man of science-science bores me. But when you state there are 'problems' with this or that theory, well they call called theories for a reason. I'm sure you could 'prove' as far as proof goes, one thing, and yet one person can prove another thing which contradicts your original thought. People come up with 'problems' with the Big Bang for example. But what if god was the instigator of the 'Big Bang'-I am sure that god does not care much about the laws of Quantum Mechanics of whatever. If you are looking at this from a secular point of view then you must exclude any such theological arguments and you go about proving and disproving theories which are impossible to prove or disprove. Whether or not the Big Bang took place is, in my opinion impossible to prove, though I have no doubt that somebody will claim I am wrong, and that such a thing is provable, it's just that we haven't been trying hard enough.

The same with evolution-I think god guided the process. There were animals before us. God takes as much pleasure in his Tigers, Bulls and Peacocks as he does in us, in my opinion. I guess he just got bored. :D

[Inderjit S]

Not really Gothmog-humans are able to do evil as well as good. That is not the devil's work, but the nature of humans and free will.

[Gothmog]

The "Devil" is a personification of an external (seperate from God) reason for Evil. No devil no external reason. *shrug* Personaly I don't have a problem with this view anyway as I don't ascribe either "Good" or "Evil" to a creator.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is wise to remember that Genesis is the Creator's "explanation" of His actions to a nomadic peoples in the Bronze Age. You cannot expect that He would use such expressions of physics and/or other sciences that might have been used had He decided to wait until the 21st Century to interact with mankind. The scriptural "history" of creation is a "teaching tool", a "parable" which contains a central truth presented in such a way as to be understood (and accepted) by those to whom God was speaking. What would have been gained by telling the Hebrews facts that they were simply not able to grasp? Indeed, Christ Himself continued this same method of bringing truth to the people when He taught in parables - remember, there was no "Good Samaritan". He was nothing more than an object lesson about the fact that actions, not bloodlines count with God.

Indeed, the early Christian Church - as continued by both the Orthodox East and for years in the Catholic West - did not literally define certain texts in Scripture unless they were "historical" in nature and intended to be translated literally. Rather, certain elements of Protestantism demand a literal translation of the entire Bible up to and including defining the "seven days" of creation as literally, seven 24 hour periods. Even many biblical miracles may be themselves "explainable" - Joshua's trumpets laying waste the walls of Jericho, for instance - by virtue of applied physics. Simply because something is proven to have "natural" causes does not remove God's hand therefrom since He is the Creator of all that is "natural".

There is no reason why there must be a divide between "science" (or at least as much as man is able to learn about the universe around him) and "God" - unless, of course, certain scientists demand the removal of any possible Cause simply because they as individuals believe otherwise. Many very great scientists - including Einstein - were of the opinion that creation and the universe strongly indicate a Causative Agent whom most of us call "God".

Certainly there is room for debate on the issue of whether or not there is an Original Cause (God), but it should not be centered around a literal translation of Scripture.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Well I don know if you believe in God (and thta's your matter), but if you believe in Him then you must also believe in Devil. Because if there is God there is definetly the Devil ;)

If you are a believer in any of the Judaio/Christian religions, yes. But there are other religions which stand entirely outside of this dichotomy. This is a purely Western concept; Eastern religions and "smaller local" religions (such as the Indians of North, Central and South America) are structured along entirely different lines.

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

It is wise to remember that Genesis is the Creator's "explanation" of His actions to a nomadic peoples in the Bronze Age.

That is Christianity's claim, not fact. Other religions have different mythos.

You cannot expect that He would use such expressions of physics and/or other sciences that might have been used had He decided to wait until the 21st Century to interact with mankind.

Again: you are assuming that what you believe is truth, and are proceeding accordingly. Not all people believe in Christianity.

The scriptural "history" of creation is a "teaching tool", a "parable" which contains a central truth presented in such a way as to be understood (and accepted) by those to whom God was speaking. What would have been gained by telling the Hebrews facts that they were simply not able to grasp? Indeed, Christ Himself continued this same method of bringing truth to the people when He taught in parables - remember, there was no "Good Samaritan". He was nothing more than an object lesson about the fact that actions, not bloodlines count with God.

Same comment applies.

There is no reason why there must be a divide between "science" (or at least as much as man is able to learn about the universe around him) and "God" - unless, of course, certain scientists demand the removal of any possible Cause simply because they as individuals believe otherwise. Many very great scientists - including Einstein - were of the opinion that creation and the universe strongly indicate a Causative Agent whom most of us call "God".

As I've said before: my belief (and the belief of many) is that the God of holy books is man's creation, created in man's image, and holy books are among the first of man's attempts to explain why we're here at all, and in being here, how best to behave.

Certainly there is room for debate on the issue of whether or not there is an Original Cause (God), but it should not be centered around a literal translation of Scripture.

Agreed. I'll go even farther: it shouldn't be centered around anyone's scripture.

Barley

[Mrs. Maggott]

Sadly, you are again making an issue out of a "non-issue". I doubt very sincerely that those atheists and agnostics who wish to drive the concept of God out of physics, biology and the rest of the sciences are addressing Buddhism or Bahai or animism. They are, in fact, addressing THE BIBLE and those faiths which originate therefrom.

However, even using your own criteria, it would seem that believers in such faiths as you mention are equally able to answer the question! Therefore, my admittedly limited response (see above) does not change - nor does it need to change - for a moment because of the considerations you have outlined.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Sadly, you are again making an issue out of a "non-issue".

Only to you, my dear. The issue/non-issue thing is your standard ploy.

I doubt very sincerely that those atheists and agnostics who wish to drive the concept of God out of physics, biology and the rest of the sciences are addressing Buddhism or Bahai or animism. They are, in fact, addressing THE BIBLE and those faiths which originate therefrom.

Umm...just who are these people? Give me names and sources. And why do you put "the bible" in upper case? What are you driving at?

However, even using your own criteria, it would seem that believers in such faiths as you mention are equally able to answer the question!

There are several questions on the table, to which do you refer?

Therefore, my admittedly limited response (see above) does not change - nor does it need to change - for a moment because of the considerations you have outlined.

I haven't the slightest hope or interest in changing anything you believe.

Barley

[Mrs. Maggott]

Sigh.... very soon I shall cease to post upon this forum. It ain't worth the agita.

Please tell me, o liberal scourge, what I said to which you take exception? I merely pointed out that not all Christians - even though you obviously view us as a monolithic mob made up of mindless idiots who are still living in the Middle Ages - believe in a literal translation of the Bible! Therefore, that being the case, it is quite possible to be a believing Christian and accept much of what has been posited by at least those "evolutionists" who are not using the theory of evolution - and it really IS a "theory" - as a means of negating any possibility of the concept of a Divine Creator!

And that is ALL I said! I made no claim for the truth of Christianity - even though I believe that it is true. I made no judgment about any other belief system - theist or atheist - even though I have my own opinions about them. I merely said that not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Bible. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong (yes, I said it, you are wrong!).

As for your question about those atheists and agnostics who use the theory of evolution to debunk God, I can't be bothered taking the time to look them up. I suggest that you do some reading on the subject and you will find plenty of them even if they do not necessarily make that position the most prominent of their public pronouncements. They are, of course, entitled (like myself) to their opinions, but it is to be remembered that it is nothing more than opinion since they have not been able to produce any objective proof of God's non-existence.

[greypilgrim]

I wish I lived back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. If I can't do that I want to go for a long trip through space, a really long trip through many galaxies and solar systems.

[joxy]

....a really long trip through many galaxies and solar systems.
There's a slight chance you might reach an odd solar system or two, though there's still no proof that any other such things in a form anything like our own even exist, but I'm afraid galaxies are out, as it takes light 2.2 million years to get to the nearest one, and if you travelled at anything like that speed you'd become extremely heavy and extremely small.

May I add just a note to the topic: "holy books" are all very fine, but in the Christian religion, or at any rate my "version" of it,
it's God-given faith that really matters - and that's a real mystery!

[Ol'gaffer]

Not really. If you want to believe in the Devil, just think of him as the terrorists-type people in the world. :(

But this raises the question that what is evil? I can't put it better than what Faramir asks in The Two Towers (PJ Version):

You wonder what his name is... where he comes from... if he really was evil at heart, or what lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there... in peace. War will make corpses of us all.

Just a side note on that. ;)

On the evolution/creation thing. I'm on two sides of it. I'm still looking for my faith, so I'm having difficulties just accepting the "God created everything" but then again, there are things that do seem odd, so odd that science cannot explain them.

I've been reading and looking into the old and ancient beliefs on the Gods of Nature, many of them that ran the world, took care of everything that grew and life around them. When Christianity began to spread, they were all lost, but from what has survived in text, is some material that I hold high in my beliefs, some more likely to be 'true' and some less.

[Ol'gaffer]

I wish I lived back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. If I can't do that I want to go for a long trip through space, a really long trip through many galaxies and solar systems.

It's a very romantic notion, to travel through space. One that I've dreamed of for the longest of times. Ever since reading stories about travelling through space, seeing films like "Night on the Galactic Railroad" and "Galaxy Express 999" I've had an obsession with space and the galaxy. It's entirely romantic, the way that it was centuries ago, not the kind of fascination that scientists have.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Sigh.... very soon I shall cease to post upon this forum. It ain't worth the agita.

"Agita." A new word for me! Thanks!:) And M — you threaten a permanent withdrawal with almost every one of your posts. It's getting a bit tired...you know you always come back for more!

Please tell me, o liberal scourge,

Only to you, m'luv! ("Liberal Scourge" — hmmm — has a ring to it!:D)

...what I said to which you take exception? I merely pointed out that not all Christians - even though you obviously view us as a monolithic mob made up of mindless idiots who are still living in the Middle Ages - believe in a literal translation of the Bible!

If you truly believe that, then you truly do not understand me. The only thing that's "obvious" about it is that you are in grave misunderstanding about what I have said.

Therefore, that being the case, it is quite possible to be a believing Christian and accept much of what has been posited by at least those "evolutionists" who are not using the theory of evolution - and it really IS a "theory" - as a means of negating any possibility of the concept of a Divine Creator!

The difference between us is this: When I believe something, I state it as my belief. And when it comes to the subject of divinity, you might say I have evolved my own personal religion. You might even say that I am a Devout Agnostic. ;)

But I am not trying to convince anyone that what I believe is the truth (except for me), or that anyone else's belief is wrong and mine is right, or make that implication. When you state your beliefs, you couch them in such terms as if they are the Truth (or "facts," as you so dearly love to put it) and by comparison, everyone else is sadly mistaken at best, or hopelessly unsalvagably wrong at worst. There's no denying it, M, your posts are everywhere on this board for anyone to see! As for God: I said it before and I'll say it again: it is my firm belief that the God described in the holy books of the several religions is the figment of man's imagination, made in man's image, the product of his early attempts to explain the great Perennial Questions. I could be wrong, and I could be right. I believe with everything I have (until I run across something that will change my mind) that I am right.

By this I do not state, nor do I mean to imply that you or anyone else is "wrong," although you seem to prefer to apply that meaning to what I say. Indeed "wrong" and "right" are not even relevant to the discussion of God, because Her existence can be neither proven nor disproven. I further believe to my own complete satisfaction that man's brain/mind/sensorium has not the capability to find out the truth of it, for the same reason that a dog (William James' simile), although he is in the courtroom and the trial is all about him for biting a man, hasn't the slightest idea of what's going on. I will also say — again — that I envy the person who has an unshakable faith that gets him or her through life's joys and tribulations, and which faith gives meaning and purpose to Why We're Here, and which even gives (unprovable) answers to questions of an Afterlife. Unfortunately for me, my life's experiences have led me to form other conclusions, much to my dismay and disappointment. But I will not live in denial of what I perceive to be the truth — surely you can understand that.

...And that is ALL I said! I made no claim for the truth of Christianity - even though I believe that it is true. I made no judgment about any other belief system - theist or atheist - even though I have my own opinions about them. I merely said that not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Bible. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong (yes, I said it, you are wrong!).

If this is what you truly believe, then my respect for you is to a great measure restored, because my take on the majority of your statements (and we've been jousting for a long time, m'dear) is quite otherwise. And no, I do not believe, nor have I ever said that "all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Bible." In fact, I am so far from ever having said that, that I can't understand how you ever came to that conclusion — save through your own biases.

As for your question about those atheists and agnostics who use the theory of evolution to debunk God, I can't be bothered taking the time to look them up.

Then I do not accept your statement (nor did I ever mention anyone who is trying to "debunk" anything). If you make as strong a statement as you did, and then refuse to support it, you are simply spouting a personal bias and weasling out of backing up what you say. There goes my newly-established respect for you! :(

I suggest that you do some reading on the subject and you will find plenty of them even if they do not necessarily make that position the most prominent of their public pronouncements. They are, of course, entitled (like myself) to their opinions, but it is to be remembered that it is nothing more than opinion since they have not been able to produce any objective proof of God's non-existence.

Nor of Her existence (and that is also what you would call opinion).

And I suggest you do some reading on the scientific end of as well. Try for openers Michael Shirmer's (who, among his many activities writes a monthly column for the esteemed "Scientific American") "How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God." (And we both know neither of us will ever take the others' reading suggestions.;))

Barley

[Astaldo]

I believe in God, but I don't believe in the devil. It's simple!

What I meant is that if there is a God there must be a Devil. And when I say you have to believe in Devil I do not mean to worship him but to accept him as an existence. Beacuse there cannot be a God for good and not a "God" for bad.
Hope you understood. :)

[Inderjit S]

Let me put it as lucidly as possible. God created man. Man is not perfect. Therefore man is imperfect. Man's perfection is multifarious. One of those is that man is not wholly good. Man is not wholly evil either. But man can do evil, to whichever degree. No man is without sin. Sin lies in choice. Choice lies in free will. Free will means we can do as we want. We are imperfect beings therefore we will often use our free will wrongly, to one degree or to another. So our ability to do evil lies not in the devil but in our free will. Our free will is a gift from god and our misuse of it lies in our imperfection. God is infallible and perfect. Therfore his gifts were not a mistake but what he intended.

[joxy]

Inder: I'm so surprised to find your new staccato writing style that I'm not sure yet whether I prefer it or its flowing predecessor.
However it contains a gem: "Free will means we can do as we want."
Wars have been fought over what free will means; you tell us the answer, in a nutshell.
St Augustine, Pelagius: the answer was there all the time; you needn't have troubled over it.
No, seriously, you've hit a crunch question here Inder, and if you continue to think as coherently as this you've a great contribution to make to that age-long discussion. Keep it going.

BB: You tell Mrs M that "When you state your beliefs, you couch them in such terms as if they are the Truth....and....everyone else is sadly mistaken at best, or hopelessly unsalvagably wrong at worst", and that the proof is all around us here to see.
The first half of the sentence is fine: of course Mrs M states her beliefs as Truths; so do I; we're both Christians; we share a set of beliefs; we are happy with them; we are proud to proclaim them.
But do we claim that everyone who doesn't share our beliefs is "mistaken" or "wrong", in whatever degree? Of course not!

[joxy]

On the evolution/creation thing. I'm on two sides of it. I'm still looking for my faith, so I'm having difficulties just accepting the "God created everything"....
Evolution is not opposed or contrasted to creation; it is part of it! Evolution is part of the "mechanism" of creation.
Until you find that faith you will find difficulties about everything. I can't guarantee that when you find it you will no longer find difficulties - you will find them, they'll just be different ones. I do hope though that you will find it, or more accurately that it will find you. I tried to find it by scientific means just as you're doing now, and as science developed it actually changed from being a hindrance to a help. However I realised that no amount of research will produce faith for you. When your state of mind - and spirit, if there is such a thing - is right, then faith will find you.

[Barliman Butterbur]

BB: You tell Mrs M that "When you state your beliefs, you couch them in such terms as if they are the Truth....and....everyone else is sadly mistaken at best, or hopelessly unsalvagably wrong at worst", and that the proof is all around us here to see.

I didn't say "proof," I said that her posts are on TTF for anyone to see.

The first half of the sentence is fine: of course Mrs M states her beliefs as Truths; so do I; we're both Christians; we share a set of beliefs; we are happy with them; we are proud to proclaim them.

I've no problem with that, this is what any believer does, no matter what religion or philosophy works for them.

But do we claim that everyone who doesn't share our beliefs is "mistaken" or "wrong", in whatever degree? Of course not!

Let me be clear: I have no quarrel with anyone who states their beliefs as the truth for them. That's axiomatic: we have to believe that what we believe as true is true, otherwise where is our sanity? On what can we depend? But to imply that "my beliefs are the truth and yours aren't" rankles with me, and that is the feeling I have gotten from M's many many posts over time.

Barley

[greypilgrim]

I like the idea of being created by a God better that coming out of some amoeba somewhere or being related to a monkey. I do think water has something to do with it, anyone else share that idea? (water)

[Aragorn21]

Evolution is not opposed or contrasted to creation; it is part of it! Evolution is part of the "mechanism" of creation.Well, it's important that you define evolution. When someone says "evolution," you might not be thinking the same thing. One might be thinking you mean Microevolution (evolution on a small scale, like adaption), and someone else might think you mean Macroevolution (evolution on a large scale over a long period of time, like one species change into another species). I do believe that microevolution happens, but never enough of it to add up to one species changing into another.



Please guys, I really don't want this to turn into "does god exist" or anything else theological. I meant for this thread to be creation vs. evolution, and I'd like it to stay that way. ;) :)

[joxy]

I didn't say "proof," I said that her posts are on TTF for anyone to see.
....that is the feeling I have gotten from M's many many posts over time
You said: "There's no denying it, M, your posts are everywhere on this board for anyone to see!". I used the word "proof" as a summary of your phrase "there's no denying it".

It's something that happens on these forums very often, so much so that I got used to it a long time ago, though it was a surprise to me at first, that people tell us about the "feeling" they get from others' postings. My response has always been that I prefer to take at face value what people actually write, rather than relying on any "feeling" that I may derive from what I read.
I also know that some people do in fact write with the intention of allowing people to take implications from what they write, and in those cases it is fair enough to allow the "feelings" to take over. I am not one of those people: when I write something it means what it says, and carries no implications. I believe that Mrs M's style of writing is in that respect the same as mine. I am interested in what she writes, not in the possibility, which I believe to be minimal, that she is trying to imply something more, or to add something different.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I believe that Mrs M's style of writing is in that respect the same as mine. I am interested in what she writes, not in the possibility, which I believe to be minimal, that she is trying to imply something more, or to add something different.

Fair enough.:)

Barley

[Triandra]

You know what I think? I think that there is a Creator, because if we look around us, we can see evidence of that. Right? and(in reply to an earlier post by someone) it wasn't literal 24 hour days. A 'day' could simple mean a period of time.

[Gandalf White]

and(in reply to an earlier post by someone) it wasn't literal 24 hour days. A 'day' could simple mean a period of time.
Actually, I believe biblical evidence points more towards a 24-hour day, not long periods of time. I don't have time to explain now, but perhaps later on I shall.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Please guys, I really don't want this to turn into "does god exist" or anything else theological. I meant for this thread to be creation vs. evolution, and I'd like it to stay that way. ;) :)

You will find, as you author more threads, that they indeed take on a life of their own, veering off in unexpected directions. Actually it's kind of fun to just sit back and watch what happens!:)

Barley

[Elessar II]

Actually, I believe biblical evidence points more towards a 24-hour day, not long periods of time. I don't have time to explain now, but perhaps later on I shall.

I agree with you GW. However, I don't want to steal your thunder, so I'll wait until you expound on the conclusions you've reached before I comment.

[Aragorn21]

You will find, as you author more threads, that they indeed take on a life of their own, veering off in unexpected directions. Actually it's kind of fun to just sit back and watch what happens!:)

BarleyYes, threads do tend to do that... but I do not wish this one too. :D ;)



yes, GW, please post your...stuff. :)

[joxy]

I like the idea of being created by a God better that coming out of some amoeba somewhere or being related to a monkey. I do think water has something to do with it, anyone else share that idea? (water)
We are created by God, and we "come out of" a whole string of beings going back to something smaller even than an amoeba; that's the way God's creation works - evolution is His mechanism of creation.
We are "related to" monkeys, and to every other creature on the planet. In some cases the relationships are very close, as the strong similarities between our DNAs demonstrates.
Water has everything to do with it. You won't find life beginning where there's no water.

[greypilgrim]

Water is awesome

[Inderjit S]

Inder: I'm so surprised to find your new staccato writing style that I'm not sure yet whether I prefer it or its flowing predecessor.

Well, I was just trying to make it as clear as possible, step-by-step-don't know if it is a new style! :D

[Triandra]

Actually, I am going to have to stick to my idea of long periods of time because God has no beginning and no end, and in the Bible there's a scripture that says that a thousand years is like a 'day' to Him. Judging from that, it would be logical to conclude that it was long periods of time.

P.S: I'm not infringing my beliefs on anyone but simply stating what I've read and learned. After this post, I am withdrawing from this thread.

[Gothmog]

TriandraP.S: I'm not infringing my beliefs on anyone but simply stating what I've read and learned. After this post, I am withdrawing from this thread.There is no need for you to withdraw from this thread. Such a question as posed here requires that each post from their beliefs. This is in no way an attempt to push those beliefs on others. If you have more to say please feel free to do so.

[Lindir]

Discussions such as these simply amaze me. I have never, in my whole life, had a discussion about creation versus evolution because I have never met anyone who didn’t believe in evolution. Ever the few religious people I know believe in evolution. I just can’t relate to creationism and I certainly cannot take it seriously. I mean no disrespect to anyone, it’s just so far removed from the world that I live in that it baffles me utterly.
I sometimes realise that the world is not as small as we think it is.

[spirit]

The Results so far:
Athiestic Evolution 3
Thiestic Evolution 3
Young-earth Creation 3
Old-earth Creation 3


Lol, 3 votes for each.

[Aragorn21]

Discussions such as these simply amaze me. I have never, in my whole life, had a discussion about creation versus evolution because I have never met anyone who didn’t believe in evolution. Ever the few religious people I know believe in evolution. I just can’t relate to creationism and I certainly cannot take it seriously. I mean no disrespect to anyone, it’s just so far removed from the world that I live in that it baffles me utterly.
I sometimes realise that the world is not as small as we think it is.I'm sure no one takes offence, after all, who can blame you, it's probably all you've heard all your life. Well I'm here to tell you otherwise. :cool:


About...ohhhh...15-20 years ago it seemed that all evidence pointed towards evolution. However, that has all been scientifically prooven to be false, saddly it is still taught in schools today.

If you'd tell me why exactly you believe the theory of evolution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. :)

[Inderjit S]

No it has not proven to be ‘false’- if the theory if proven to be false would have been rejected a long time ago. Creationism has not yet proven to be true. Certainly most of modern science contradicts parts of creationism. And whilst you condescendingly tell Lindir that it is not his fault as evolution is all he has ever heard you are unaware of the paradox-creationism is perhaps the only thing you have ever heard in your life.

[Aragorn21]

No it has not proven to be ‘false’- if the theory if proven to be false would have been rejected a long time ago. Creationism has not yet proven to be true. Certainly most of modern science contradicts parts of creationism. And whilst you condescendingly tell Lindir that it is not his fault as evolution is all he has ever heard you are unaware of the paradox-creationism is perhaps the only thing you have ever heard in your life.No no, you misunderstood sir. I meant the "evidence" of 15-20 years ago for evolution has, in the new light of science, been disproven.

And no, I have had a good amount of both. I used to wonder myself "is there really any evidence of creation? why does everyone tell me it's false?" Then I looked all over the internet, visiting websites dealing with both sides of the argument, and found creation to be by far the more plausable view.

[Triandra]

I respect everyone's beliefs. I just don't see how anything could come by chance, as in the theory of evolution. Everyone has the right to thier own beliefs. I'm sticking to mine on creation. There have been scientists that agree that there could be a creator

[greypilgrim]

Question: Chronologically speaking, when did humans (Adam and Eve, according to the bible) first appear on earth? Before dinosaurs?

[Barliman Butterbur]

No no, you misunderstood sir. I meant the "evidence" of 15-20 years ago for evolution has, in the new light of science, been disproven.

And no, I have had a good amount of both. I used to wonder myself "is there really any evidence of creation? why does everyone tell me it's false?" Then I looked all over the internet, visiting websites dealing with both sides of the argument, and found creation to be by far the more plausable view.

You remind me of me when I was 16. At 16 (or maybe it was 17) I had a divine revelation: it suddenly came to me that I knew everything I would ever need to know! I was unshakeably confident of this! (What a pain in the ass I must have been.:D)

Then as I grew older (and it can only come through growing older) not only did I add to my knowledge, but I came to realize that I didn't have enough knowledge to come to the sort of conclusion that I'd come to: that being utterly convinced I knew everything I would ever need to know was itself based on insufficient knowledge. And something happened to me that also has happened to many: At the time of my revelation, my father was one of the dumbest, thickest cretins on the face of the earth. As I grew older, he grew smarter!

Anyway, you go on believing the things that make sense to you — just be openminded and always be ready re-examine your beliefs periodically and be ready to change them in the light of new knowledge and your own growing maturity. :)

Barley

[Gandalf White]

If I may say, Barley, you still think you know everything. ;)

At the time of my revelation, my father was one of the dumbest, thickest cretins on the face of the earth. As I grew older, he grew smarter! This quote is so familiar it's bugging me. :confused: Didn't Mark Twain say something like this?

Question: Chronologically speaking, when did humans (Adam and Eve, according to the bible) first appear on earth? Before dinosaurs?
Humans were created last.

[Aragorn21]

You remind me of me when I was 16. At 16 (or maybe it was 17) I had a divine revelation: it suddenly came to me that I knew everything I would ever need to know! I was unshakeably confident of this! (What a pain in the ass I must have been.:D)

Then as I grew older (and it can only come through growing older) not only did I add to my knowledge, but I came to realize that I didn't have enough knowledge to come to the sort of conclusion that I'd come to: that being utterly convinced I knew everything I would ever need to know was itself based on insufficient knowledge. And something happened to me that also has happened to many: At the time of my revelation, my father was one of the dumbest, thickest cretins on the face of the earth. As I grew older, he grew smarter!

Anyway, you go on believing the things that make sense to you — just be openminded and always be ready re-examine your beliefs periodically and be ready to change them in the light of new knowledge and your own growing maturity. :)

BarleyI hope you're not saying that just because I'm not an old man (hehe ;)) I don't really know anything. Over the past, uh, 5 months at least I've been doing a lot of research on the matter, so I do think I know something. However, I will heed your advice..

[Barliman Butterbur]

I hope you're not saying that just because I'm not an old man (hehe ;)) I don't really know anything. Over the past, uh, 5 months at least I've been doing a lot of research on the matter, so I do think I know something. However, I will heed your advice..

I gave you my story because you really do remind me of me when I was your age. You just keep on going, you'll be fine!:)

The challenging thing about doing research is to keep from blocking out all the research that goes against what you would like to believe, and only letting in the things that support your hopes. It's tough to do genuinely objective research.

Barley

[Lindir]

I'm sure no one takes offence, after all, who can blame you, it's probably all you've heard all your life. Well I'm here to tell you otherwise. :cool:


About...ohhhh...15-20 years ago it seemed that all evidence pointed towards evolution. However, that has all been scientifically prooven to be false, saddly it is still taught in schools today.

If you'd tell me why exactly you believe the theory of evolution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. :)

I’m sure you did not mean to sound really offensive and condescending, but that’s the way you come across. Don’t presume I’ve never heard any views that contradict those I hold. I’m quite old enough to have formed my own opinions. I simply stated that this is not an issue in the world I live in and that I find the discussion about it fascinating and odd.

There are plenty of reasons why I believe that the theory of evolution is more or less correct but I think that two points would suffice to illustrate my take on this. Firstly, I’m an atheist. This obviously means that the thought of a supreme being creating the world just doesn’t work for me. Secondly, I’m an archaeologist. Studying archaeology gives one plenty of opportunity to see evolution at work. Not that I personally work with remains as old as early man and his predecessors but I know how the research is carried out and I trust archaeological methods and evidence.

So for me and for just about every person I know, evolution is a very rational and sensible way to explain the world.

[Eriol]

About...ohhhh...15-20 years ago it seemed that all evidence pointed towards evolution. However, that has all been scientifically prooven to be false, saddly it is still taught in schools today.

Far from it. It's one of the most well-established theories in the market.

If you'd tell me why exactly you believe the theory of evolution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. :)

Check the links at the beginning of this thread, provided by Gothmog. I have already posted on this forum (and others if you ask me) about this subject more than anyone could ask for :D. Check particularly the "Thoughts about Darwinian Evolution" thread.

And, just to reassure you, there is another thread in which I discussed with Thorin and BranMuffin and Elu Thingol (among others) this subject, trying to establish that Darwinian Evolution is not contradictory with the Bible or Christian Revelation. That most Christians in the USA (for this is not reflected elsewhere) believe that this is not the case is a bad sign for American education. (And I blame both Creationists and Evolutionists for this, the two camps have forgotten about science and indulged in ideology for far too long over there to keep an eye on the actual theory).

This old thread was opened by Estella and it began with a discussion on Genesis. This should help you find it.

I respect everyone's beliefs. I just don't see how anything could come by chance, as in the theory of evolution. Everyone has the right to thier own beliefs. I'm sticking to mine on creation. There have been scientists that agree that there could be a creator.

Case in point. Evolution has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with Creation. Sure scientists, and even evolutionists (like me) can agree there could be a creator. Evolution is silent about Creation. An evolutionist can be like Lindir, an atheist, or like me, a Christian, without any problem. Just like the Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, evolution is silent about metaphysical issues. It is neutral.

As for the role of chance -- I'll repeat an argument I once made for BranMuffin in the thread mentioned above. You are the product of one spermatozoon among roughly 100 million (undergenerous estimate). Any other spermatozoon and you'd be a different person. If we ascribe an average of 20 years for each generation (generous estimate), there had been 100 generations in the last 20 years. This means that, just by looking at the male side of your family, the chance that you would be born, estimated at 2000 years ago, would be:

(take a breath)

0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1 %

(That's 798 zeros).

And that ignores other, more trivial chances, such as the chance that a great parent met another, or the chance that it survived a disease, etc. And it ignores the (similar) chance events happening at the mother's side of the family during ovulation.

Now, you can believe, like me, that this only shows how God directed history so that you would be here. But then I ask you, why can't you believe that God was doing the same thing during evolution? "Chance" is no obstacle for God. The "chance" in evolution is exactly the same as in the example above, and I don't think you would argue that it is impossible for you to exist :D.

[joxy]

Lindir is amazed, as I am, that anyone is discussing evolution as being contrary to creation.
Eriol tells us that such discussions are quite usual in the US, but not elsewhere, and I can confirm the latter point.
Is there some explanation for this curious situation?
Is there still support in the US for other strange ideas, the flat-earth theory for example?
We are asked to define evolution; I ask for a definition of creation.
Is there a school of thought that says creation could happen but not be followed by evolution?
Isn't the idea of evolution as an instrument of creation accepted?
Does anyone believe that man was "created" in an instant, where nothing had gone before? :confused:

[greypilgrim]

Eriol, that's 799 zeroes (counted it) :p

Following joxy's last question...

If we "evolved" into humans, what were we before this?

[Gothmog]

If we "evolved" into humans, what were we before this?
We are humans therefore before this we were, quite simply, not

[Eledhwen]

Apart from evolution theory flying in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, there are so many gaps in the progression of evolving species, and such amazing claims made from the scantiest of evidence, that I'm surprised that it's gained such credibility. I think perhaps the word 'theory' should be writ larger.

I love the idea of creation, and find the arguments for it quite persuasive, compared to those offered for evolution.

[Gothmog]

However, for the most part, Evolution is only offered as Means Not Cause!

Could you please explain just how it flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

[joxy]

I love the idea of creation....
I quite like it myself, and I believe in it. I also believe in evolution as the mechanism by which creation progresses.
As you say, there are gaps in the evidence for evolution but they will be or could be filled.
What were we before this? A whole progression of beings gradually becoming more like the way we are now. The number of gaps in that progression is lessening all the time. The big question is at what stage, if any, did we become "human", with the powers of thought and reasoning and everything that goes with them, and many of us add to that a further question, when did we acquire a spirit or a soul, if there is such a thing?!

[Eriol]

Eriol, that's 799 zeroes (counted it) :p

798 zeros after the comma. Sorry for the imprecision ;). It's so common to list zeros after the comma that I neglected to specify it.

If we "evolved" into humans, what were we before this?

Non-humans :D. As Gothmog said. Darwinian evolution, properly understood, addresses only the biological part of our nature. It's been known for ages that we are animals. There is no dogma, no sect, no church that denies this.

If we are animals, why can't our bodies be the result of evolution? We are not talking about spirits. Biologists are not equipped to study spirits ;). There is no requirement that all evolutionists must be materialists, or that evolution entails that there is no soul, etc. etc. This is just the exaggerated claim of people who are materialists first, evolutionists second, scientists third.

Any scientist worth his salt knows that our science can't issue any statement about souls and spirits; and certainly no science, whether ours or from aliens :), can issue negative statements about these things. The scientists who do so are just confusing their own metaphysical prejudice with Evolution.

This is the main problem with the materialistic evolutionists as regards this subject. On the other hand, theists often confuse biological evolution with the origin of life, with creation of the Universe, and all sorts of unrelated things; and they often make bold claims about evolution without ever studying it in depth, claims like "there is no transitional fossil" (there are tons), "it is just a theory" (like gravity, and we don't see many people doubting that heavy objects fall), etc.

Oh, and I read now Eledhwen's comment about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Another good example of what I'm talking about. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics addresses closed systems. It is not evolution which defies the 2nd law, it is life itself which does that, if we forget the proviso about closed systems -- and even though life "defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", we don't see many people doubting that life exists.

[Gildor]

Whether it was God, a random stroke of lightning, or aliens treating earth as something of a Petri dish, life was created and evolved. We humans who try to muddle with the uncertainty of our origin (as with most other uncertainties) will often assign whatever figurehead best suits our belief system, and also whatever suits our egos.

No one has yet stepped forward in the visible world to assume responsibility for creating the human race, and I for one cannot quite blame them.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Whether it was God, a random stroke of lightning, or aliens treating earth as something of a Petri dish, life was created and evolved. We humans who try to muddle with the uncertainty of our origin (as with most other uncertainties) will often assign whatever figurehead best suits our belief system, and also whatever suits our egos.

No one has yet stepped forward in the visible world to assume responsibility for creating the human race, and I for one cannot quite blame them.

:::hearty applause::: :)

Barley

[Mrs. Maggott]

For the interested, intrepid and intellectually curious, I recommend an issue of Touchstone magazine to be found here:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76

It is entitled "Darwin's Last Stand" and is the July/August 2004 issue of the magazine (Volume 17, Issue 6). There are a number of articles of interest including the fact that some agnostic (not atheist) scientist believe that current knowledge of the matter spells the end of the "Darwinian" theory of evolution.

I present it as a matter of some interest in a magazine that is hardly "fundamentalist Protestant" in content or nature.

[Eriol]

Even scholars systematically misunderstand Darwinism, Mrs. Maggott. Take, for example, this excerpt from Philip Johnson's column on this issue of Touchstone Magazine:

"Can we possibly succeed in slaying the gigantic error at which we have aimed our logical slingshot, and thereby liberate the people of God from their bondage to the Philistine philosophy of scientific naturalism?"

Note, Mr. Johnson is a lawyer. I have his book, referred to in this column, "Darwin on Trial". His arguments are very cogent -- and completely irrelevant, for science isn't decided by trial arguments.

Anyway, the mistake here -- as I have said again and again in threads about this ;) -- is the conflation of Darwinism with "scientific naturalism". Note, even Darwin could be said to be a "scientific naturalist" in the pejorative sense used here; but that is, still, irrelevant, for the views of the original theorist on unrelated issues are of no importance. Darwin could have been a full-fledged atheist (he wasn't), or a Muslim; what matters is whether his theory is good or not.

It is.

What annoys Mr. Johnson -- and many people, including myself -- is that

(a) "scientific naturalism" is prevalent among scientists (and non-scientists, in this day and age);

(b) Darwinism is used as a pretext, or as justification, for someone to hold this view.

This is annoying. I agree. However, this doesn't have any relevance for the question "is Darwinism a good scientific theory?". It is sad that many people don't realize the (many) gaps in "scientific naturalism", and it is also sad that people (mistakenly) think that Darwinism is evidence for "scientific naturalism".

There is no better thing that intellectual honesty to dispel those errors. And intellectual honesty means accepting that Darwinism is the best theory we have for describing evolution; that it is, in fact, one of the best scientific theories around, period. And that the mistake is not in Darwinism, it is in the interpretation that people make of Darwinism.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Darwin has been the justification rather than the origin of the attempt to remove any involvement by a Creator in creation. Of course, after a personal tragedy, it is posited that Darwin became at the very least an agnostic and possibly an atheist, but it has been the efforts of atheistic "humanist" scientists since the time of Darwin to theorize that all life and, indeed, all that exists "arose spontaneously", that there was no "God" or "Creator" or "First Cause" to the universe.

However, their theories simply do not fit the facts. There are no "missing links" between species as posited by Darwin in his writings. Even the most aggressive atheist in science admits that there are no fossils or bones or photographs of creatures that show one group of living organisms "evolving" into another. Yes, there is the evolution of individual species - eohippus (dawn horse) to modern horse - but there is nothing to show how a reptile evolved into a mammal.

Yes, certain groups appear to have evolved into (been the ancestors of) other groups (dinosaurs to birds, for instance), but the original distinction between the two groups was itself man-made. Now there has been considerable proof rendered that dinosaurs appear to have been warm blooded - as are birds - rather than cold blooded as are reptiles and amphibians. Furthermore, birds did not "evolve" from winged dinosaurs as would have been the "Darwinian" point of view, but "appeared suddenly" as birds, replacing rather than "evolving from" their older reptilian cousins. And, of course, there are (or were) creatures - evolutionary "dead ends" who "shared traits" between species like the ancient synodont who exhibeted both mammilian and reptilian characteristics and lived at the time of the rise of dinosaurs.

Nor is there anything in the fossil record to show how life "appeared". Scientific efforts using the primordial "stew" of our planet's early atmosphere and oceans when stimulated by electrical discharge (lightening) did produce amino acids - the so-called "building blocks of life" - but not life itself! Yet suddenly - and very early in the "evolutionary day", the planet was covered with cyanobacteria whose photosynthesis of the light of the young sun turned earth's atmosphere from one of noxious gasses to the oxygen rich air which covers our planet today. Had it not been for these gigabillions of single celled blue green algae, no life at all would have "evolved" - at least not as we know it. The great question is, however, where did the algae come from? No one has ever been able to produce it in a laboratory even though it is the simplest form of life there is!

And what about the unusual but essential factors that support life on earth? Without our very large moon (1/4 of the size of the earth), our planet would have had an unstable rotation even to the point of wobbling all over on its axis. This would have prevented if not the appearance of life, than certainly its evolution into more complex forms. Yet the accepted theory is that the moon did not "evolve" with the earth but was the result of a collision between the earth and a body the size of Mars! Then, too, our sun is a very well behaved yellow dwarf star. Most such stars are very unstable sending out great solar flares which would have cooked the planet many times over during the course of its life. Yet, our sun is positively quiescent compared with the vast majority of its fellows at least as far as can be seen by astronomers. And we are the right distance from the sun. A little closer - no life. A little further away - no life. And there are so many other scientific - NOT "religious" - considerations which make this planet unique to the rise of life.

It may be that what is said in the Touchstone articles appear "irrelevant" in the debate about evolution - but it is not. For the greatest debate is not whether the cosmos was created in seven actual 24 hour days or over the period of eons, but whether there was in fact a "First Cause", a "Mind", a "Person" who designed and put into action all that has occurred since The Beginning (the Being called God), or whether all that there has been in the past, is at present and will be in the future is the result of nothing less - and certainly nothing more - than "random chance". This is the debate that Darwin started so many years ago - whether or not he meant to - and this is the debate which continues over the years albeit cloaked in scientific terminology.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Darwin has been the justification rather than the origin of the attempt to remove any involvement by a Creator in creation.

By whom? Name names.

Of course, after a personal tragedy, it is posited that Darwin became at the very least an agnostic and possibly an atheist, but it has been the efforts of atheistic "humanist" scientists since the time of Darwin to theorize that all life and, indeed, all that exists "arose spontaneously", that there was no "God" or "Creator" or "First Cause" to the universe.

And it has been the the efforts of religionists to allege/assert, via holy books written by men, that there is such a thing as God or Creator of First Cause to the universe. So far, the weight of proof belongs on the side of science.

However, their theories simply do not fit the facts. There are no "missing links" between species as posited by Darwin in his writings. Even the most aggressive atheist in science admits that there are no fossils or bones or photographs of creatures that show one group of living organisms "evolving" into another. Yes, there is the evolution of individual species - eohippus (dawn horse) to modern horse - but there is nothing to show how a reptile evolved into a mammal.

They are both vertabrates, M! And reptiles evolved into birds, scales became feathers. If you really believe what you seem to — and I will be kind here — then you are appallingly misinformed. If you doubt the "facts" the real ones, not the personal beliefs you so love to call "facts," then go here, (http://www.biology-online.org/10/12_mammal_ancestors.htm) and here (http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html) for starters. Good Lord!

Nor is there anything in the fossil record to show how life "appeared".

And so what? Are we to accept a holy book's myth? Science presents a far more convincing story, to those whose minds are not closed.

Scientific efforts using the primordial "stew" of our planet's early atmosphere and oceans when stimulated by electrical discharge (lightening) did produce amino acids - the so-called "building blocks of life" - but not life itself! Yet suddenly - and very early in the "evolutionary day", the planet was covered with cyanobacteria whose photosynthesis of the light of the young sun turned earth's atmosphere from one of noxious gasses to the oxygen rich air which covers our planet today. Had it not been for these gigabillions of single celled blue green algae, no life at all would have "evolved" - at least not as we know it. The great question is, however, where did the algae come from? No one has ever been able to produce it in a laboratory even though it is the simplest form of life there is!

And so what? Are we supposed to make a leap of faith that therefore the whole thing was done by "God" in a flash? I think not. Are you saying that where ignorance abounds the answer is a leap of religious faith? I think not! Science goes ahead and investigates, trying to find the real answers, no matter how long it takes. Science is patient.

And what about the unusual but essential factors that support life on earth? Without our very large moon (1/4 of the size of the earth), our planet would have had an unstable rotation even to the point of wobbling all over on its axis.

And this is what? Proof of the Hand of Divine Providence? Methinks that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this universe (let alone other universes and dimensions) under conditions that we wouldn't even recognize as life or intelligence. I believe devoutly (;)) that if there is life elsewhere (and I believe that the probability is 100%), it will take forms which are utterly alien to the human model (because it will need to survive the conditions where it finds itself), but is just as legitimate. Human life is indigenous to this planet and its conditions; other life will be indigenous to whatever conditions prevail where that life flourishes: conditions which we may never be able to imagine, understand, or even perceive. That's why they call them aliens!

This would have prevented if not the appearance of life, than certainly its evolution into more complex forms. Yet the accepted theory is that the moon did not "evolve" with the earth but was the result of a collision between the earth and a body the size of Mars!

That's one theory of several, and again, so what? What's your point, that it was all done the way it is because that's what God wanted?

Then, too, our sun is a very well behaved yellow dwarf star. Most such stars are very unstable sending out great solar flares which would have cooked the planet many times over during the course of its life.

Cite your source. Why in the world would stars with the exact qualities of the sun not display the same characteristics?

Yet, our sun is positively quiescent compared with the vast majority of its fellows at least as far as can be seen by astronomers. And we are the right distance from the sun. A little closer - no life. A little further away - no life. And there are so many other scientific - NOT "religious" - considerations which make this planet unique to the rise of life.

You make the totally unfounded assumption that life can occur only under the conditions that it has on earth. Why would you make such an assumption? Scientists certainly don't.

...the greatest debate is not whether the cosmos was created in seven actual 24 hour days or over the period of eons, but whether there was in fact a "First Cause", a "Mind", a "Person" who designed and put into action all that has occurred since The Beginning (the Being called God), or whether all that there has been in the past, is at present and will be in the future is the result of nothing less - and certainly nothing more - than "random chance". This is the debate that Darwin started so many years ago - whether or not he meant to - and this is the debate which continues over the years albeit cloaked in scientific terminology.

The problem is this: whether or not a human being is capable of knowing all that it is necessary to know about the question of the existence of a First Cause, let alone its purpose. As far as I'm concerned at any rate, a human being is not capable of even asking the right questions because of the limits of his mind and senses. As I have said before, there is a great possibility that other beings exist, the knowledge of whose presence will be forever denied us because they exist in a way imperceptible to us, who know more than we do about the Question, because they are made in such a way that they can actually perceive something of the Answer. That makes much more sense to me than depending on getting the answers (no matter how deep, profound and insightful they may be) from Man's comparitively "10-watt" brain/mind/sensorium. We are the way we are, because this is how we evolved to survive on this planet — not to wrestle with the questions raised by the Perennial Philosophy. That's a luxury item that comes with having evolved to a point where we have the time and leisure — and freedom from fighting for our existence — to consider other things. (I refer you to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM).)

Every year science discovers more, and in the wake of the discoveries lies the ever-present chaff of our ignorance. Every year the cutting edge of today's science becomes the obsolete science of the past. Science grows, religion must stay stagnant because it believes it is the Divine Word, and being Divine means it is perfect, and Perfection cannot change.

As far as I'm concerned, what the several holy books have to say about the origin and purpose of Reality comprise so many fairy tales, concocted from the minds of men who were 5,000 years even more ignorant than we are (and 5,000 years is but a fingersnap — we're pretty much as ignorant as they were). Science is closer to the truth, but science changes/evolves every time more facts (real ones) come in, not only supplying new answers, but generating new questions. Religion however is frozen: forever trapped like a fly in amber in its own assertion of Divine Perfection, and therefore becomes more and more obsolete and left behind (regarding the question of Origins) with every passing hour.

Barley

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am NOT good Sir, "appallingly ignorant". ALL LIFE has certain things in common but that doesn't mean that they are directly 'related' to each other except by the fact that they do in fact, live.

I do not intend to go through the business of "naming" names. Any study of "Enlightenment science" and especially of the late 19th and throughout the 20th Century will give you all the "names" you need including Drs. James Watson and Francis Crick, atheistic co-discoverers of DNA. As I have already pointed out, Dr. Crick was forced to admit that DNA could not have "spontaneously arisen" because it is far too complex. So when asked as to how in fact it did originate, this great "scientific mind" postulated that "alien life" had "visited earth" and left it here! Of course, that same mind was thorougly confounded when a mere minister of God asked the salient question: "But then, where did the aliens come from?!"

Frankly, when given the choice of explanations for the creation of the universe and life on earth between a Rational Creator and spontaneous generation and random selection - both of which have been disproven by "science" itself (see acceptable probability ratios) - I would choose the former. At least He has yet to be "disproved" while much of the postulations of "secular science" has been disproved over the years. Indeed, many intellectually honest scientists admit that the more they learn, the more they realize how very little they actually do know!

[Barliman Butterbur]

I am NOT good Sir, "appallingly ignorant".

You do have a serious propensity for misreading, don't you? I said "appallingly misinformed." I would never accuse you of ignorance. Bending things to suit your purposes, yes, but never "ignorant"!

ALL LIFE has certain things in common but that doesn't mean that they are directly 'related' to each other except by the fact that they do in fact, live.

I never made any such assertion of direct relation, except perhaps the implication of such in the example of reptiles evolving into birds.

I do not intend to go through the business of "naming" names. Any study of "Enlightenment science" and especially of the late 19th and throughout the 20th Century will give you all the "names" you need including Drs. James Watson and Francis Crick, atheistic co-discoverers of DNA. As I have already pointed out, Dr. Crick was forced to admit that DNA could not have "spontaneously arisen" because it is far too complex. So when asked as to how in fact it did originate, this great "scientific mind" postulated that "alien life" had "visited earth" and left it here! Of course, that same mind was thorougly confounded when a mere minister of God asked the salient question: "But then, where did the aliens come from?!"

What does this have to do with your main assertion, which seems to be that God created Reality? (And if what you say about Crick be true, had he been a bit quicker, he could have responded with "What aliens? Are you, a man of God, asserting that there are aliens??? Are you saying there are aliens among us? Do they talk to you? Is this a part of God's plan? And let's see the proof!")

Frankly, when given the choice of explanations for the creation of the universe and life on earth between a Rational Creator and spontaneous generation and random selection - both of which have been disproven by "science" itself (see acceptable probability ratios) - I would choose the former.

Michael Shirmer, one of the regular columnists for Scientific American would disagree, and so do I. However, since none of it can be either proven nor disproven, we our both entitled to believe as best fits our temperaments.

At least He has yet to be "disproved" while much of the postulations of "secular science" has been disproved over the years.

You so conveniently leave out the rest of it: that She has yet to be "proved"! And many scientific postulates have been corroborated and re-corroborated over the years until they have become axioms.

Indeed, many intellectually honest scientists admit that the more they learn, the more they realize how very little they actually do know!

Yes! Yes! And I will side with them every time, against holy books and their adherents, who solemnly intone that they have all the answers!

(And as usual, I notice that you have left large parts of my post simply ignored. I can only conclude that you haven't the desire, possibly the wherewithal, to deal with them. And weren't you going to stop posting...? Ah, but we've been through that before, haven't we? Be that as it may.

Until next time: your faithful "Liberal Scourge" excitedly awaits your next post!:D)

Barley

[Gothmog]

Mods Comment
I will ask only once that this thread be conducted in a calm manner

_________________________________________

Ok on a personal note. I find the argument that "Evolution" is an attempt to destroy religion a very strange one. I recall being exposed to a rough outline of this theory as a schoolboy of 12 years. The teacher was also a Christian, this fact I know because she quite readily informed us that she was a christian and had no problem with believing both in God and in Evolution. This statement came about because one of the other schoolchildren in the class asked about evolution against the biblical creation. Now at that time when I thought of this I could not understand why the church had any problem with this. As far as I could see a better answer from the church would have been to shrug its collective shoulders and say 'So What?'

It is now a couple of years later and I still cannot understand this argument. Since Evolution does not deal with the Creation of Life but its development after it cares not if there is a "First Cause" or not and I cannot see why the church cannot simply say that they are not interested in the Means but in the Cause.

[greypilgrim]

If we are animals, why can't our bodies be the result of evolution?
So, our bodies evolved from "what". That is my question. What do the evolutionists say to that? Eriol? Aragorn21?

Humans have evolved more in the last 100 years than the entire amount of time we have been in existanse on this planet (as humans), whenever that started. And in leaps and bounds since WW2 ended. I pose the question....are we finished yet?

[Gothmog]

Humans have not evolved noticably at all in the last 100 years. I think you are confusing "Material Advancement" or possibly "Progress" with Evolution. And while there is some very slight argument that there has been a material advancement, from what I can see humans have infact Regressed over the last 100 years. So perhaps there is some evidence not only for Evolution but for Devolution.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Mods Comment
I will ask only once that this thread be conducted in a calm manner

Looking into myself, I am calm. Your reading of my post may give you a different impression. If there is something you think I (or perhaps MM) can do to mollify you, please let me know; I'd hate to see this thread closed. But you can't expect a heated subject to be treated in serenity!

...Since Evolution does not deal with the Creation of Life but its development after it cares not if there is a "First Cause" or not and I cannot see why the church cannot simply say that they are not interested in the Means but in the Cause.

I have no quarrel with the internal problems of any church until their solutions impinge on me or impugn my own beliefs. They have no right to do that. My quarrel is with those who say, without qualification, that the explanation of the origins of Reality come from this or that holy book, and are therefore the incontestible unassailable Divine Truth, and anything else is just a mistake and by implication those who believe anything else are damned or doomed or "not saved" or just plain don't get it — that is something I cannot and will not let go by unchallenged.

And I agree with you Gothmog: we are not only in cultural devolution, but cultural regression/decay. The really frightening thing about it is, that now we are in possession of the means to destroy ourselves, and possibly all life on the earth.

Barley

[Gothmog]

Barly. So far there is not a problem. My post was and is intended to prevent the calm from being broken. :) I am well aware that these discussions will get heated, I only wish to avoid a meltdown. :)

The only thing that I read in the posts of you and Mrs M was the possibility of things becoming too heated. I thought that a post now would prevent a thread close later. I hope that it will achieve that and nothing more.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Humans have evolved more in the last 100 years than the entire amount of time we have been in existanse on this planet...

Humans have remained virtually unchanged for at least the last 35,000 years (see, for example, www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html). Don't confuse cultural/technological "advancements" with evolution, which is genetic, and which takes place over millions of years — the exception being the occasional mutation.

Barley

[joxy]

My quarrel is with those who say, without qualification, that the explanation of the origins of Reality come from this or that holy book, and are therefore the incontestible unassailable Divine Truth, and anything else is just a mistake and by implication those who believe anything else are damned or doomed or "not saved" or just plain don't get it.
If anyone did say that then I'd have a quarrel with them too.
So, who are "those who say....that....and....and...."?
What I say is rather simpler: Evolution is the mechanism for God's Creation.
I don't base that belief on any "holy book"; creation is a matter of faith for me; evolution is a matter of science.
I may believe that "anything else" is a mistake, but, as you know :rolleyes: , I never make implications about anything.

I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about the Theory. Isn't it by the "occasional mutation" that evolution actually happens,
rather than it being an "exception"?

[Astaldo]

Do you know what I do not understand? I don't know if it is mentioned before but...

Let's presume that there is the God and he created the Universe. Before this what was happening? There was something like the Timeless Halls? I really cannot understand. :confused:

[Barliman Butterbur]

Do you know what I do not understand? I don't know if it is mentioned before but...

Let's presume that there is the God and he created the Universe. Before this what was happening? There was something like the Timeless Halls? I really cannot understand. :confused:

That's one of the problems that is raised by presuming the existence of a God. And under that presumption, your question is valid — and unanswerable — in my opinion — by the human mind. I suspect that the question is the wrong one, or possibly even irrelevant, and we don't know the right one, or even if there is any right one.

A question much more to the point is: How well are you treating yourself and others?

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

If anyone did say that then I'd have a quarrel with them too.
So, who are "those who say....that....and....and...."?
What I say is rather simpler: Evolution is the mechanism for God's Creation.
I don't base that belief on any "holy book"; creation is a matter of faith for me; evolution is a matter of science.
I may believe that "anything else" is a mistake, but, as you know :rolleyes: , I never make implications about anything.

I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about the Theory. Isn't it by the "occasional mutation" that evolution actually happens,
rather than it being an "exception"?

The "they" I refer to are mainly those who hold that their religious beliefs are Divine Truth, and that they have a divine mission to force their beliefs onto others through conversion, proselytization, changing of secular law, etc.

I have no quarrel with anything you say, nor the questions you raise arising from your beliefs, because you state them as your personal beliefs. You do not imply that anyone who doesn't hold your beliefs is gravely mistaken, nor do you insist that your beliefs are the truth, and that anyone who holds otherwise is wrong.

Barley

[Mrs. Maggott]

Come, come good sir. I am 63 years old and have studied for many years that assault made in this country and elsewhere in the West by the elites of academia, science and other "pillars" of the Establishment. There has been an ongoing assault on "religion" (ie. Christianity) by the "intelligentsia" for many decades. It even began in the "entertainment industry" many years before one could say G-- ---n in a film!

You might not remember "Inherit the Wind", which was (I believe) film made in the late 30s or early 40s (I also believe) about the Scopes "monkey trial". In that film, atheist Clarence Darrow (Spencer Tracy) who defended Scopes is portrayed as a "hero" along with, of course, Scopes, the school teacher who (courageously) chose to teach Darwinian evolution to his high school class and was arrested for doing so. On the other hand, William Jennings Bryan (Frederick March) - a believing Christian - was portrayed as a fat, bumbling, bigoted fool who dies after having his whole belief system destroyed by the brillian rational cross examination of Darrow. Of course, this never happened - but it made a great film - and it got the point across! Also, all of Scopes' supporters were sympathetic idealists (mostly young and good looking) while all the townsfolk who "persecuted" Scopes were old, ugly, Christian and obviously too stupid for words (one particular scene showed them marching through the streets singing, "Give Me That Old Time Religion!").

Again, whether you choose to believe it or not, I can assure you that for many years Christianity has been under assault in many places in the public forum, including the field of science wherein Darwinian evolution has been used as a means of marginalizing both the Bible and those who believe it. By using the "debate" between "science" and those Christians who believe in a literal translation of the Bible, Christianity has been presented as a mere "superstition", something which is to be viewed in much the same way as modern man views the belief system of the Aztecs or the ancient Egyptians. Of course, those Christians who do not believe in a literal translation of Scripture are simply ignored or "lumped into" the same category as those who do - and thereby marginalized as well.

On the other hand, statements like Dr. Crick's about the alien origin of life on earth are passed over without comment as if they are perfectly rational and easily proven - though they are neither.

But I promised myself I would withdraw from these discussions. They convince no one of anything and they are too annoying for words especially when one must make the same points over and over and over again - only to have one's premise questioned as if the points had never been made. That's just silly. I came back to the site simply to give the information regarding Touchstone and its Darwin edition. Let those who wish to read it do so and those who don't wish to find something else to do.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I can assure you that for many years Christianity has been under assault in many places in the public forum, including the field of science wherein Darwinian evolution has been used as a means of marginalizing both the Bible and those who believe it...

I understand full well that in certain circles Christianity (and other religions as well) have been under "assault," as you put it, but I'm not at all sure that the assault has always been at the hands of Darwinians particularly.

Let me be clear with you: I have no objection whatever to your believing whatever fits for you as long as you don't try to tell me that what is Truth for you should therefore be Truth for everyone else. But that's what you do, and I'm sure that that very notion is part of what is Truth for you. As you say, you're 63, you're bright and inquiring, intellectually gifted — and you have spent many years delving into the depths of the branch of Christianity that appeals to you. That's fine, I respect and honor you for it — until you start talking like you have a monopoly on Cosmic Truth, and the rest of us, being bereft of that Truth, will have to pay for our monumental spiritual lack some fine day at the Great Reckoning.

On the other hand, statements like Dr. Crick's about the alien origin of life on earth are passed over without comment as if they are perfectly rational and easily proven - though they are neither.

Well, if Crick believes in aliens, he sounds interesting! And such beliefs are just as unprovable as any religious assertion.

But I promised myself I would withdraw from these discussions. They convince no one of anything...

I have never tried to convince you of anything. I have however, tried to show that there are other views which are, to my mind at least, as legitimate as yours, and which are, for me, more sensible.

...and they are too annoying for words especially when one must make the same points over and over and over again - only to have one's premise questioned as if the points had never been made. That's just silly. I came back to the site simply to give the information regarding Touchstone and its Darwin edition...

Which I found to be an interesting site. I'll have to look up Mere Christianity to find out what it is. But since it is a Christian site, it is IMO, self-constrained as I explained in my earlier post: religion is trapped, straitjacketed by its own claim to perfection: since a doctrine that claims Perfection can't by definition change, it becomes more and more obsolete.

As for your umpteenth megazillion threat to stop posting (at least on the subject of religion), I'll believe it when I see it!;)

Barley

[Eriol]

Darwin has been the justification rather than the origin of the attempt to remove any involvement by a Creator in creation. Of course, after a personal tragedy, it is posited that Darwin became at the very least an agnostic and possibly an atheist, but it has been the efforts of atheistic "humanist" scientists since the time of Darwin to theorize that all life and, indeed, all that exists "arose spontaneously", that there was no "God" or "Creator" or "First Cause" to the universe.

Not since the time of Darwin; since the time of Democritus :). But this has nothing to do with Darwinism.

However, their theories simply do not fit the facts. There are no "missing links" between species as posited by Darwin in his writings. Even the most aggressive atheist in science admits that there are no fossils or bones or photographs of creatures that show one group of living organisms "evolving" into another. Yes, there is the evolution of individual species - eohippus (dawn horse) to modern horse - but there is nothing to show how a reptile evolved into a mammal.

You pick an odd example. The reptile-mammal transition is one of the most documented you could ask for; we have plenty of intermediate fossils. It's an example mentioned in standard textbooks.

"Grand shifts", like this, are easily found in the fossil record; there is no grand shift in vertebrates (which fossilize easily) without plenty of fossil evidence. On the contrary; it is the "fine-tuning" that lacks evidence. There are missing fossils in small lineages (and horses are one of the exceptions to this general rule), but not in taxons like classes and orders.

Yes, certain groups appear to have evolved into (been the ancestors of) other groups (dinosaurs to birds, for instance), but the original distinction between the two groups was itself man-made. Now there has been considerable proof rendered that dinosaurs appear to have been warm blooded - as are birds - rather than cold blooded as are reptiles and amphibians. Furthermore, birds did not "evolve" from winged dinosaurs as would have been the "Darwinian" point of view, but "appeared suddenly" as birds, replacing rather than "evolving from" their older reptilian cousins. And, of course, there are (or were) creatures - evolutionary "dead ends" who "shared traits" between species like the ancient synodont who exhibeted both mammilian and reptilian characteristics and lived at the time of the rise of dinosaurs.

Sorry, Mrs. Maggott, but you don't know what you are saying. You are reinforcing Darwinian arguments; all of what you are saying here is classic Darwinian theory.

Don't you find it curious that, right after saying that there are no fossils of the reptile-mammal transition, you mention one?

Nor is there anything in the fossil record to show how life "appeared".

As Darwin mentioned in The Origin of Species; and as he specifically left out of his theory.

It may be that what is said in the Touchstone articles appear "irrelevant" in the debate about evolution - but it is not. For the greatest debate is not whether the cosmos was created in seven actual 24 hour days or over the period of eons, but whether there was in fact a "First Cause", a "Mind", a "Person" who designed and put into action all that has occurred since The Beginning (the Being called God), or whether all that there has been in the past, is at present and will be in the future is the result of nothing less - and certainly nothing more - than "random chance". This is the debate that Darwin started so many years ago - whether or not he meant to - and this is the debate which continues over the years albeit cloaked in scientific terminology.

And in this debate, to "debunk" Darwinism -- or to "establish" it -- is of no consequence. I don't say that this debate is irrelevant, I just say that it has nothing to do with Darwinism.

And to say that Darwinism is wrong because of a position taken in this issue is as wrong as to say that it is right. As all theories, it must be checked against the evidence (it was). Positions taken on side debates are irrelevant. If someone believes that Christianity is a superstition, let him defend that notion; and if someone believes that Darwinian Evolution is wrong, let him defend that notion. Confusing the issues is, well, confusing.

Since Evolution does not deal with the Creation of Life but its development after it cares not if there is a "First Cause" or not and I cannot see why the church cannot simply say that they are not interested in the Means but in the Cause.

Oh, but the Church said exactly that. And for that reason.

So, our bodies evolved from "what". That is my question. What do the evolutionists say to that? Eriol? Aragorn21?

From the bodies of apes (not from those of modern apes, though). Which evolved from the bodies of monkeys. Which evolved from the bodies of protoprimates. And so on.

[Malbeth]

I'll have to look up Mere Christianity to find out what it is.

It is a book by C.S. Lewis in which he tries to show that there is a very strong common ground between Christians of the major denominations and gives argument for the validity of the Christian position; I would guess Touchstone Magazine would feature articles by Christians of different denominations but that basically agree with what Lewis wrote.

[Barliman Butterbur]

It is a book by C.S. Lewis in which he tries to show that there is a very strong common ground between Christians of the major denominations and gives argument for the validity of the Christian position; I would guess Touchstone Magazine would feature articles by Christians of different denominations but that basically agree with what Lewis wrote.

Interesting. You probably know that it was Tolkien who turned Lewis from being an atheist into a believing Christian. One wonders what would have happened to Lewis had Tolkien been Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist...to say nothing of what would have been the nature of The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings...

Barley

[Malbeth]

One wonders what would have happened to Lewis had Tolkien been Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist...to say nothing of what would have been the nature of The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings...

I am incapable of imagining such a thing; I believe that this question is something very similar to what would have happened to Lewis if Tolkien was not Tolkien... not to mention the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings; so, in a short answer, I would say I don't know regarding Lewis (but he had other Christian friends besides Tolkien) and that the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings would simply not exist as anything like we know and love them today.

[greypilgrim]

From the bodies of apes (not from those of modern apes, though). Which evolved from the bodies of monkeys. Which evolved from the bodies of protoprimates. And so on.

so over how much time?

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Eriol

Oh, but the Church said exactly that. And for that reason.

If that is what the Church said then it would appear that I have been reading too much into the views of individuals (not just on this site ;) )

I thank you for correcting this error on my part :)

[joxy]

That's one of the problems that is raised by presuming the existence of a God. And under