It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is there such a fight over this??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
First off, I'll say that I am a Christian-turned-Atheist. I went to Church and was taught that God created the universe and everything else since I was born.

When I was little, around 5 or 6, I would ask the church people where did God come from? Who made God? And they would say one of two things, "You have to have faith" or "He's always been there". Now when I think of the origin of life I think of the origin of God as well, and that just didn't cut it for me, but I continued to stay with the church until I was seventeen and could no longer take the answers they just seemed to make up in front of me.

I do believe in evolution, but not as the origin of life.

Nor do I believe any other theory I've ever heard.

Bottom line: I don't know how something can appear out of nothing. And until mankind can figure that out, we will never know the origin of life. So this entire fued between Creationalism, Intelligent Design and Evolution, etc., is just pointless because like I said before, Until mankind can create something out of nothing, we will never know how life started.




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I don't know - and neither does anyone else. Fact is, we weren't there so we don't know.

The debate can go on forever, but neither side can prove anything so debating is futile.

I have my own idea's on how it all started, but so do many others. On this, folks should just imagine the 'possibilities' and leave well enough alone.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I agree with the 2 of you.

As to why there is such a fight, I think that's an interesting question. Why is it so important for either 'side' to 'sell' their beliefs to the rest of the people?

I mean, on other subjects, like the political situation in the USA today, I can see why people would argue their beliefs: to have more influence in future elections, to garner support for their chosen politician. But why argue about something that no one knows the answer to and cannot prove?

I hope you get some good responses, because it's an interesting question.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TenaciousGuy
First off, I'll say that I am a Christian-turned-Atheist. I went to Church and was taught that God created the universe and everything else since I was born.

[snip]

I do believe in evolution, but not as the origin of life.

Nor do I believe any other theory I've ever heard.

Bottom line: I don't know how something can appear out of nothing. And until mankind can figure that out, we will never know the origin of life. So this entire fued between Creationalism, Intelligent Design and Evolution, etc., is just pointless because like I said before, Until mankind can create something out of nothing, we will never know how life started.


Hi TG, welcome to the O & C forum...


Let me see if I can't clarify... the 'debate' is not about evolution vs. creation vs. ID per se.... While people do often opt for 'one-side or the other' in this debate... I don't necessarily believe this is the norm. In any case while people do often take sides, IMO this discussions can generally be broken down two ways.
  1. What is science and what is not science.
  2. A certain amount of data, otherwise known as 'evidence' has been compiled throughout science history. In the case of Origins 'science' the debate often revolves around interpretation and overall meaning of said evidence.
The discussions are not necessarily ET vs CT vs. IDT... they are more about philosophical issues and interpretation of evidence. In my opinion, both are important. So, I personally don't feel like these discussions are pointless.

Theories of biological origins don't generally revolve around creating 'something from nothing.' They do have several problems that seem to be unsolved thus far, but something from nothing isn't one of them. Have you considered the possibility that mankind may never 'solve' the problem of biological origins?

Just a quick question to keep the thread going in the direction you'd intended... sort of at least.... Have you also considered that your own atheistic perspective could cloud your judgement about what's important and what's not... I mean with respect to this particular issue? For example... of course you think the 'debate' is pointless. In your own mind there is no debate... God doesn't exist... thus there must be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life; we've just yet to discover it.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
omg i love this guy




do believe in evolution, but not as the origin of life.


exactly like me. wow. i have started to qeustion EVERYTHING ive ever 'learned' in church.

needless to say, my parents are not very happy.

i realized this the other day:
"non-denominational" is a denomination!!! wtf!



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Me too I am still in church but it seems as I get older I question more things and the people of the church just tell me to have faith and don’t worry. I’m 16 about to turn17 and I feel as if I cant handle the beating around the bush on the answers. I think that because they can’t answer the questions they tell me not to ask them so maybe in future generations the questions wont be there.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TenaciousGuy
First off, I'll say that I am a Christian-turned-Atheist. I went to Church and was taught that God created the universe and everything else since I was born.

When I was little, around 5 or 6, I would ask the church people where did God come from? Who made God? And they would say one of two things, "You have to have faith" or "He's always been there". Now when I think of the origin of life I think of the origin of God as well, and that just didn't cut it for me, but I continued to stay with the church until I was seventeen and could no longer take the answers they just seemed to make up in front of me.

I do believe in evolution, but not as the origin of life.

Nor do I believe any other theory I've ever heard.

Bottom line: I don't know how something can appear out of nothing. And until mankind can figure that out, we will never know the origin of life. So this entire fued between Creationalism, Intelligent Design and Evolution, etc., is just pointless because like I said before, Until mankind can create something out of nothing, we will never know how life started.


From what you have said, we have many similarities in our 'up-bringing'.
The 'have faith' answer never did settle my questioning mind either.
As far as 'knowing' about anything in this life, I believe we are out of luck.
The fued is fueled by our instinctual desire to know where we came from, you see this rage for the truth growing because of the obvious fact that we do not know where we are going as a species...
and many of us are not able to accept the direction we are travelling in.
Even if we were to somehow be 'found' by our creator, or an even greater miracle were to occur and we accepted our origin of life-this Earth,
the result would be very similar, Judgement Day.
One version would be conducted instantly while the other would last an eternity.

We have the choice to either settle on one set of 'belief's' or to remain lost, and I'm sure the other people like me agree that it is not healthy for the mind to remain lost eternally. On the other hand I do not believe it is healthy to accept one institution of belief's when there are so many conflicting aspects to our origin of life. It is one thing to live comfortably amongst the rest of the sheep, but not when their acceptability of one path in life is leading them to their own death because they trust the herder.

It's hard for me to accept that this universe originated from a 'nothingness' also, and the big bang theory is hard to swallow because it would mean that we are not as precious as we were led to believe. Eventho' we do have evidence that would lead us to believe that planets(or atoms) DO collide and new universes explode on a regular basis.
images.google.com...
For some reason our physical being is all that most of us are aware of, and eventhough the existence of 'God' in the bible is ONLY described to exist in the SPIRITUAL world, 'His' life in the physical is like the alchohol that will continue to burns all of us.
You see, to most people, their 'person' and the physical existence and health of their loved ones is the most important thing in their world, so they also have to worship a creator in the physical.
Our self centered ways can be blamed on many different influences throughout our lives but none of them will be a valid excuse when, or if we are to live eternally in the same environment that we helped destroy in order to preserve our desire to maintain this one physical existence.

If there is a heaven and those who are there can see the world they left behind, 'that' heaven is nothing to be desired.
The fight between conflicting religions will continue to grow at the same rate as our level of despair and fear of the unknown.
If we knew where we came from, we would know where we were going, and we would understand that we are either living like drones in 'some things' experiment or we are just a little chunk of this industrial process that we created.
Evolution provides us with the opportunity of free will, which I believe we certainly have.

The ultimate problem is, once we realize that we are not going anywhere and that our children will continue to suffer from our mistakes,
there is no way to stop it.

Or is there ?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I think that debating is an entertaining pastime for many people. And arguing is too. But the reason for that is what I am not sure of. My guess is that since basic needs are taken care of, people are bored, and a verbal joust is not very risky, yet can get their metabolism up. So, instead of hunting, they fight to get a release.
As to the importance of the answer.....I say zero importance. One post said evolution at least gives us free will. Well so does creationism. The free will concept is only invalid if you agree with Dr. Skinner and his psychological theories that we are just like rats in a maze, responding to stimuli and being conditioned by our environment, with no control over the process. He feels freewill is an illusion.
Natural selection is a practical, usable theory. It has been utilized to breed better foods, and to make plants pest resistant.
Creationism is an answer every bit as good as the big band theory of creation, in fact, I would think that were God the creator of the universe, he would have used the same universal laws we are learning, so he probably would have set up the big bang.
Atheists say, well then who made God?
Okay then, what happened before the big bang?
See any difference, I don't, and does it make any difference, not to me.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Why is there such a fight over this?

I think BG had good points, which I would add perhaps one more ...

IMO, it has a bit to do with how "invested" someone is in a particular view or belief ... if a person has had a belief for a long time, or is totally convinced of its validity ( for whatever reason ) ... then anything that seems to challange this "personal truth" ... would and often could seem to be a challange to the person themselves.

To clarify, it is not uncommon for a strong belief to permeate a person to the degree of becoming part of their personality ... this being the case, any "assault" on the belief becomes a percieved challange to the nature or integrity of the person holding the belief. Thus, it is no wonder that if push comes to shove, the person under assault tries to preserve the belief in the same way a submarine resists the pressure of the ocean.

... go to deep, or press to hard, and both the submarine and the human crumple under the pressure.

LCkob



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
the reason this is an issue is because of religious extremists.

these extremists feel insecure when science has a clear theory with a mountain of evidence behind it that undermines even 1 of the tennants of their belief.

this insecurity leads them too push their will on everyone else

so save science, stop ID



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the reason this is an issue is because of religious extremists.

these extremists feel insecure when science has a clear theory with a mountain of evidence behind it that undermines even 1 of the tennants of their belief.

this insecurity leads them too push their will on everyone else

so save science, stop ID


If you ask me it's people like you, or perhaps to be fair, comments like the above that are the problem. The folks that speak (read: preach/teach) from ignorance and blast all those who disagree with their position. You're no different, IMO, than those "religious extremists" you called out... you simply spout your accusations from the other extreme side of the spectrum.

This debate isn't old (Plato anyone) but the "new version" of design theory being proposed by design theorists claims to be able to seperate the philosophy (who/why/what designer) from the science (the design inference based on emperical data.) Regardless if they're right or not, this debate isn't bad for science imho... "so save science, stop ID" is a ridiculous statement to make and only serves to fuel the disinformation and pettiness that has infiltrated the debate.

There are some rational scientific rebuttals to intelligent design that don't resort to the ad hominum attacks and ideological rhetoric. I know i've learned alot about evolution theory and the design inference from these debates and discussions... i honestly believe that this debate, regardless of the outcome, is a positive thing for science.

Those who feel this is an effort to instill a theocracy in the U.S. or who think ID is anti(Darwinian)evolution just haven't spent anytime researching ID imo. Alot of the folks around here who defend the ToE and ridicule ID often know very little about either in my experience... certainly some notable exceptions of course. Being anti ID isn't an issue for me i can respect and appreciate the position. The reasons most people seem to state for said opposition however are often irrelevant strawman arguments imo. My point is that you can find some good objective (relevant) info, for or against ID, if you look around a little bit.

Just to be clear there's no "mountain of evidence" for naturalistic origins or an NDT model for the evolution of the protein structures being talked about by ID theorists... therefore ID isn't "anti-ToE" for the simple fact that there is no "theory" of evolution for these issues.... hence the debate. Evolution needs certain components/systems and information in place for it to work... there's no "theory" (NDT or otherwise) on the origins of that first "life." The ToE simply says ok we have life, now what happens? You can still believe that all life (plant and animal) evolved from a universal common ancestor and also be an "IDer." While it's true that many ID advocates have issues with UCA i believe those are seperate issues.

Kurt Vonnegut has an interview on NPR that you can listen to here: www.npr.org... It's not very long (@7 min) but i thought you may appreciate an opinion in support of ID from someone who wouldn't fit into the "mold" opponents like to think all ID advocates fit into... He's certainly not Christian (i believe he refers to himself as a secular humanist) and seems to think socialism didn't get a fair shake. You'll find, if you look, a broad range of world-views in the ID community including many agnostics. However atheism and ID do appear to be mutually exclusive... atleast i know of no atheist ID advocates.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic imho and if you can stear clear of the haters on both sides you can learn quite a bit... atleast that's been my experience.

Nice thread

-Rren



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
rren, i meant to write stop ID from entering the science curriculum, but i thought it was implied.

i think it serves as a valid PHILOSOPHICAL idea, but in no way a scientific one.

i've seen the arguments for both sides, and ID isn't science.

so, i'm not arguing against anyone who disagrees with evolution, i'm arguing with those that want to put ID into the class room.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
If time is a creation of God, many of our questions become meaningless. "Who created God?" is a very human question that puts human limitations on the nature of God.

The question for Science is whether we can really discover everything for ourselves or whether we need to be shown things by the designer. Darwin rejected God and built a creation myth that had no need of a divine initiator; Darwinian Evolution is intrinsically atheistic. This is why there is such lively debate between Christians (etc) and Darwinianists; they are different philosophies or religions and on a fundamental level diametrically opposed to each other. It's possible to find some surface similarities and areas where there is no need for conflict but underneath there is always a clash of foundational starting points; naturalistic versus theistic.

Inteligent Design is actually a scientific theory that is not coming out of Bible-based argumentation but from a realisation that Darwinian Evolution does not have adequate scientific support and over the past decade the discoveries have challenged rather than supported the theory (even if a positive spin has been put on much of it). Personally, I reckon that in a few decades' time we will look back on Darwinian Evolution as a historical curiosity that people used to believe despite the evidence; much in the same way as we view "Spontaneous Generation", a scientific view in vogue during Darwin's time.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
HeadLight:

If time is a creation of God, many of our questions become meaningless. "Who created God?" is a very human question that puts human limitations on the

nature of God.

LCKob:

I agree, after all the first question, as I see the context is "is there a mechanism to understand and extrapolate from ... to which I would reply, SM is doing IMO a reasonably good job of assessing causal observable phenomena for understanding and application.

Would it be fair to say that in the conventional sense, neither SM or Religion or philosophy have the "proof" to dislodge the others in regards to something like the Origins issue?

HeadLight:

The question for Science is whether we can really discover everything for ourselves or whether we need to be shown things by the designer. Darwin rejected God and built a creation myth that had no need of a divine initiator; Darwinian Evolution is intrinsically atheistic. This is why there is such lively debate between Christians (etc) and Darwinianists; they are different philosophies or religions and on a fundamental level diametrically opposed to each other. It's possible to find some surface similarities and areas where there is no need for conflict but underneath there is always a clash of foundational starting points; naturalistic versus theistic.

LCKob:

Well, if one takes the basic premise for SM (I promote this) ... which in essense is a data gathering and stepped assessment methodology for the creation of working predictor models for proposed ideas/hypothesis. In this context, I personally have no problems with the proposition of a hypothesis so long as it follows the accepted process and or methods used to support and reinforce a Theory with a consequent working model.

In this case, any such comparative assessment for validity between the present stance on evolution and ID would IMO be a good thing in regards to the very method itself .i.e. with the intended goal of Methodical, Repeatable, Unbiased, Assessment of data in support of/refutation of an idea/hypothesis or Theory.

Headlight:

Inteligent Design is actually a scientific theory that is not coming out of Bible-based argumentation but from a realisation that Darwinian Evolution does not have adequate scientific support and over the past decade the discoveries have challenged rather than supported the theory (even if a positive spin has been put on much of it). Personally, I reckon that in a few decades' time we will look back on Darwinian Evolution as a historical curiosity that people used to believe despite the evidence; much in the same way as we view "Spontaneous Generation", a scientific view in vogue during Darwin's time.

LCKob:

Well to the best of my knowledge, ID by defintion is a Hypothesis, as defined by MW: www.m-w.com...

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis

Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/

Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement



... or as elaborated on in as highlighted in MW Topic Broadast:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Theory vs. hypothesis

"A neighbor asked if we would address the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. Her thesis (if we dare use that term) is that people use theory when they more properly should be using the word hypothesis. A hypothesis, she says, names the “tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.” A theory, she says, refers to “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and that is accepted as accounting for known facts.”

Her point is valid in the scientific realm. Scientists are indeed careful to distinguish between hypothesis and theory: hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation; while theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth."




Thus the problem as I see it revolves around the real (and IMO valid) difficulty of promoting a Hypothesis without the validation or support of the required Scientific Methodological steps ... which is the key, so to speak to the door for idea submission (for peer assessment within the global scientific community)

The basic steps include:

1. Observe and question ...

2. Gather as much pertinent data as possible

3. Form hypothesis

4. Plan repeatable and documented experiment(s) with accepted standards and practices

5. Experiment (repetition is strongly recommended) and collect data

6. Analyze & Interpret raw data and draw conclusions

7. Communicate results (and raw data/compiled data) with scientific community for the purpose of information dissemination, peer review and cummunal assessment by way of SM to further reinforce or contend with the validity.



This site provides a good overiew of SM and important implications as they pertain to intended usage, misusage and ultimate goal.

teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...



... as to your last statement concerning what will happen in a few decades ... I think we are in basic agreement with one possible exception ...

I contend that in the the next few decades our views on many things will change ... and much of this change will be due to the use of SM ... so long as Scientific Methodology does not fall pray to the flaw of imperfect or misguided application.

LCKob





[edit on 29-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeadLight
If time is a creation of God, many of our questions become meaningless. "Who created God?" is a very human question that puts human limitations on the nature of God.

The question for Science is whether we can really discover everything for ourselves or whether we need to be shown things by the designer. Darwin rejected God and built a creation myth that had no need of a divine initiator; Darwinian Evolution is intrinsically atheistic. This is why there is such lively debate between Christians (etc) and Darwinianists; they are different philosophies or religions and on a fundamental level diametrically opposed to each other. It's possible to find some surface similarities and areas where there is no need for conflict but underneath there is always a clash of foundational starting points; naturalistic versus theistic.

Inteligent Design is actually a scientific theory that is not coming out of Bible-based argumentation but from a realisation that Darwinian Evolution does not have adequate scientific support and over the past decade the discoveries have challenged rather than supported the theory (even if a positive spin has been put on much of it). Personally, I reckon that in a few decades' time we will look back on Darwinian Evolution as a historical curiosity that people used to believe despite the evidence; much in the same way as we view "Spontaneous Generation", a scientific view in vogue during Darwin's time.


darwin didn't create a creation myth. darwin didn't even tackle the creation of life. the book is called "the origin of SPECIES" instead of "the origin of LIFE" for a reason.

why do people always assume darwin ever said anything about creation?

you can't attribute it to a creator if you can't prove the creator's existence, because that's just unscientific.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Why is there such a fight over this??


Spritual Patriotism.


Religion ingrained through childhood, due to nothing more than the chance geography of your existence and the degree of religious zeal of the parents, past down once again as the child becomes the overly zealous parent trying to impart a morality on their children the only way they now know how.


Much like why you support the sports team you do.


[edit on 29-1-2006 by kegs]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Why is there such a fight over this??


Spritual Patriotism.


Religion ingrained through childhood, due to nothing more than the chance geography of your existence and the degree of religious zeal of the parents, past down once again as the child becomes the overly zealous parent trying to impart a morality on their children the only way they now know how.


Much like why you support the sports team you do.


[edit on 29-1-2006 by kegs]


I totally agree with kegs, there are many who are frightened that if the bible is not word for word true, then their religion must fail. This situation is ascerbated by scientist who (like in a Discovery mag. article) claim that in a short time using RNA world models and such that they will be able to create life from chemical compounds and energy. Because people want absolute answers we are facing this problem. Just because we can create life does not mean that the method used was the one that started the ball rolling on the earth. Likewise, people fail to understand that the bible at best is inspired by God not written and thus we are stuck with incomplete concepts. Also, no matter how you look at the Bible, the Bible is still a book and thus subjected to the interpretations of the person reading it. That is why there are so many different view points when it comes to religious matters. Depending on your upbringing and your knowledge of the world, your interpretation will be formed.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TenaciousGuy
First off, I'll say that I am a Christian-turned-Atheist. I went to Church and was taught that God created the universe and everything else since I was born.

When I was little, around 5 or 6, I would ask the church people where did God come from? Who made God? And they would say one of two things, "You have to have faith" or "He's always been there". Now when I think of the origin of life I think of the origin of God as well, and that just didn't cut it for me, but I continued to stay with the church until I was seventeen and could no longer take the answers they just seemed to make up in front of me.

I do believe in evolution, but not as the origin of life.

Nor do I believe any other theory I've ever heard.

Bottom line: I don't know how something can appear out of nothing. And until mankind can figure that out, we will never know the origin of life. So this entire fued between Creationalism, Intelligent Design and Evolution, etc., is just pointless because like I said before, Until mankind can create something out of nothing, we will never know how life started.


I have been following this thread out of interest and have added (if somewha obliquely) ... after mulling it over for a while ... I am presently thinking ... that this "fight" can be distilled down to ... those who ask "why" and those who (for what ever reason) don't.

... as long as humanity remains as it is ... IMO this conflict will continue ... as evidenced by our historically documented actions revolving around such related topics.

LCKob



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
I don't know - and neither does anyone else. Fact is, we weren't there so we don't know.

The debate can go on forever, but neither side can prove anything so debating is futile.

I have my own idea's on how it all started, but so do many others. On this, folks should just imagine the 'possibilities' and leave well enough alone.



Evolution is a fact, you can easily debunk traditional religion in the same way as you can debunk the Alien/pyramid question:-

Create universe in six days.

have a sleep for a day.

make 1 planet and wait till it cools.

stick some life on it and again wait.

Hit with big rocks a few times (oh dont put that in the book,eh?)

create 2 people and let them shag each other until you have a sizeable population (incest anyone?).

wait for civiliseation, then flood the bastards because you don like them much (but save 2 of everything just to make sure theres someone to terorise).

Let your favorites be pushed around the middle east for a bit, then let the egyptians use them for unpaid work.

Rescue favorites with mad bearded man and send the locusts you luckily saved from earlier to scare egyptians (what a giggle).

Kill anyone who either dosent beleive in you or has too much sex...or does it up the pooper (sodom and gomorr..gamoor...that other place).

Turn people to salt at above.

Send down son and then let your favorites kill him...but this time let them off because you, all of a sudden love the hell out of everyone.

Love it when the natives bow and scrape to you and help support an institution that killed more than the nazis and is more corrupt than the mafia.

Happily sit about during death, suffering, hunger and the odd war (well, it makes good tv).

Listen to millions asking for help, or even a sign that you exist...do nothing.

...but if some of the natives kill each other in your name...yes, thats right, do nothing.

do nothing. Religion is for the navie and gullible morons that want to belive there is someone else in control of their lives.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
submersible said:



Eventho' we do have evidence that would lead us to believe that planets(or atoms) DO collide and new universes explode on a regular basis.

Which relates to something I've been pondering for awhile, which is; Why, if the big bang actually happened, why given the infiniteness of space could there not be other big bangs out there beyond the reach of our telescopes?

Why just the one? Then one could assume life in the Universe always existed, therefore never created?

LCKob said:



To clarify, it is not uncommon for a strong belief to permeate a person to the degree of becoming part of their personality ... this being the case, any "assault" on the belief becomes a percieved challange to the nature or integrity of the person holding the belief.

This made me think of religious beliefs like a blanket on a cold day with the atheist trying to steal their source of comfort.
To live in this world without god in unconsionable.

Why can't proponents of ID accept the possibility that ID and evolution can't co-exist?
I mean if god is so omnipotent, why would he create living things that could not genetically adapt to their environment. I mean do they really think nothing changes in time? If it didn't life would be gone, as the prototypes that led to a certain form are now obsolete and they no longer exist.
THINGS MUST ADAPT! OR PERISH!

Wolfs couldn't live with man very easily, and wolfs no longer needed to be wolves with man, so they became dogs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join