HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

43 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution? Creation?, What do you believe in?
What do you believe in?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 207
Guests cannot vote 
Chiyo
post Mar 10 2005, 07:01 AM
Post #16


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,073
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling



I suppose suggesting that we evolved rather than created threatens peoples religious beliefs. Because I have none I believe in science.

Gee isn't this very Ed and Rose?


--------------------

Avatar & Sig by me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 10 2005, 09:50 AM
Post #17


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 9 2005, 02:29 PM)
Evolution isn't an airtight theory, but it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than anything scripture has to offer.
[snapback]129030[/snapback]


This is about it for scientists and the typical person who's been raised on scientific methods. Evolution simply is the most reasonable empirical explanation. Does it mean it's right - no, but it does mean that it's rational to believe.

Creationism is a faith based belief system. Is it irrational - no. It's not irrational because of the fact that scientific theories are not necessarily always true. It's always possible that the universe puffed into existence as it stands today. Basically all scientific attempts at a cosmology assume that the laws that we know about today have existed since the beginning of the universe. It's entirely possible for it not to.

What's the result? Whatever your belief system, respect evolution as a reasonable explanation of why things are the way they are. But, if you're an evolutionist, don't be so high and mighty to put down the creationist. Macro-evolution in itself is quite contrary to normal scientific laws (entropy is not followed and usually involves some type of external intervention).

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 9 2005, 11:33 PM)
What really is the point of arguing over this thing? huh.gif  Clearly we all know what we think and what the other side thinks and no one's about to change their mind. Those who believe in God will always believe in God and those who don't will never do no matter how convincing the other side's facts are.

Cause we're all open-minded like that.
[snapback]129412[/snapback]


The point of these debates is to show that it isn't irrational to believe one over the other. Of course we won't convince the other person, but those who watch on the sidelines may be convinced. At the very least, we must show that each side deserves respect. If one view is completely irrational, then it will not withstand the criticisms and people will see that.

It's also fundamental to ask these questions and challenge our own beliefs. To do that, we must see the contrary belief and determine whether our beliefs can withstand the scrutiny of argument.

For what I believe - I am not convinced by macro evolutionary theory. Something outside the current laws recognized by science are required to actually make evolution happen. Based on current laws, it's more reasonable to imagine that the word was more complex and will degrade into single cell organisms (looking at teenagers these days, I'm starting to believe this more and more tongue.gif). I am not, however, prepared to say that I can prove that the world was created by God, but I will say that I believe by faith that it was. Before you criticise whether faith is rational, please note that it is quite legitimate for one to argue that only by faith do you even know that your own body exists (that there is a physical world) and as such it is by faith that we believe anything science says laugh.gif. It's too bad that I'm feeling lazy now, or I'd go further into thought on this.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prinz_Zoisit
post Mar 10 2005, 10:46 AM
Post #18


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,123
Joined: 30-May 04
From: World
Member No.: 30
Gender: Male



i chose a "creation" which could harmonize with the theories of apes.. that humans became "real thinking humans" since God blew this "special sprit" into them^^


--------------------
IPB Image

"Two things fulfill my mind with always new and increasing admiration and reverence the more frequently and continuously i think about it busily:
the sky full of stars above me and the moral law inside of me..." (Immanuel Kant)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
definingmind
post Mar 10 2005, 11:05 AM
Post #19


State Alchemist (Major)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 619
Joined: 14-December 04
From: the freezer aisle!
Member No.: 3,725



Prinz, just wondering, but have you read through the book of Genesis. I know in chapter 2 it states how man was created;

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Looking at this, I see no way that this coudl harmonize the theories of apes. From what I read, just reading without really chewing too much fat so to speak..It states that God created man from the dust of the earth and then breathed into him the breath of life. That could be translated as either God's spirit or oxygen. And within that verse I see no animals becoming "real thinking humans"...


--------------------
(Under Construction...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 10 2005, 11:48 AM
Post #20


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



I'm immensely rusty with my Pentateauch exegesis skills, but I do know that it is possible there is more to the verse than what it simply says. I'd have to look back at some literature regarding ancient near eastern text writing styles to see in what way this type of statement is taken. It may be the case that many ancient near eastern writers summarize long processes (history) into simpler statements like this one. It could be like the form of covenant where the lord of the contract (in a lord/vassal contract) is praised about all the things he has done prior to stating the conditions of the contract.

- not that I'm going to go nuts looking through this, however, tongue.gif...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 10 2005, 12:33 PM
Post #21


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



You know what? With regards to the origin of man, I believe that we're descendants of an extraterrestrial race that visited earth about half a million years ago.

Now tell me, how is this any less plausible than that hoodoo-voodoo creationism bullshit? biggrin.gif

People are too quick to look at things in black-or-white terms. I'm failing my Logic class right now, but even I understand something so simple as 'If A does not support B, where A is true and C is an alternative to B, that does not necessarily mean C is true.' Just because Evolution, as a theory, does not consistently stand up to scientific scrutiny does not give any credence to Creationism, which has no scientific backing of ANY kind. You can have all the faith you want, but when asked to provide specific evidence that supports the claim of Creationism, you're not gonna be able to come up with any.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 10 2005, 01:02 PM
Post #22


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



Who created the extra-terrestrials?? tongue.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 10 2005, 01:06 PM
Post #23


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(arche @ Mar 10 2005, 08:02 PM)
Who created the extra-terrestrials?? tongue.gif
[snapback]129834[/snapback]


They evolved from protoplasm. And that protoplasm was the phlegm of an mad Space-gnome who was the first being that ever existed. Duh! biggrin.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fayt
post Mar 10 2005, 01:14 PM
Post #24


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 251
Joined: 7-November 04
Member No.: 1,989
Gender: Male



If you're a christian then you will know who really created us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 10 2005, 01:17 PM
Post #25


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Fayt @ Mar 10 2005, 08:14 PM)
If you're a christian then you will know who really created us.
[snapback]129840[/snapback]


Right, because Christians are all SO in touch with the mysteries of the universe. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
definingmind
post Mar 10 2005, 01:23 PM
Post #26


State Alchemist (Major)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 619
Joined: 14-December 04
From: the freezer aisle!
Member No.: 3,725



QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 10 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know what? With regards to the origin of man, I believe that we're descendants of an extraterrestrial race that visited earth about half a million years ago.

Now tell me, how is this any less plausible than that hoodoo-voodoo creationism bullshit?  biggrin.gif

People are too quick to look at things in black-or-white terms. I'm failing my Logic class right now, but even I understand something so simple as 'If A does not support B, where A is true and C is an alternative to B, that does not necessarily mean C is true.' Just because Evolution, as a theory, does not consistently stand up to scientific scrutiny does not give any credence to Creationism, which has no scientific backing of ANY kind. You can have all the faith you want, but when asked to provide specific evidence that supports the claim of Creationism, you're not gonna be able to come up with any.
[snapback]129826[/snapback]




Wow, somehow I knew I was asking for an answer like this...

Anyways, this 'hoodoo-voodoo creationism bulls---' as you so like to call it, seems to stand up quite well. As for evidence of man being created by God; again, take a look at the site that my younger sister posted a link to. They have quite a few scientific facts there that support creation by the true living God.

@Arche: As for researching to see exactly what the orgins of this verse are, I can point you to a simple solution: John 1:1-5 "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Though the researching you're talking about does sound quite fun. biggrin.gif

Anywho, now that I've said that, I leave this discussion. I say good day! *bowes and takes my leave*


--------------------
(Under Construction...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prinz_Zoisit
post Mar 10 2005, 01:28 PM
Post #27


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,123
Joined: 30-May 04
From: World
Member No.: 30
Gender: Male



QUOTE(definingmind @ Mar 10 2005, 07:05 PM)
Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
[snapback]129786[/snapback]


.....it's as arche said.... that longer periods of time are shortened by blurry sentences....

as like the statement "out of dust".....-> there was much time between the "creation out of dust" and when he "breathed the spirit into him".....

-> this time could be the time of apes...


--------------------
IPB Image

"Two things fulfill my mind with always new and increasing admiration and reverence the more frequently and continuously i think about it busily:
the sky full of stars above me and the moral law inside of me..." (Immanuel Kant)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 10 2005, 02:11 PM
Post #28


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(definingmind @ Mar 10 2005, 08:23 PM)
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 10 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know what? With regards to the origin of man, I believe that we're descendants of an extraterrestrial race that visited earth about half a million years ago.

Now tell me, how is this any less plausible than that hoodoo-voodoo creationism bullshit? biggrin.gif

People are too quick to look at things in black-or-white terms. I'm failing my Logic class right now, but even I understand something so simple as 'If A does not support B, where A is true and C is an alternative to B, that does not necessarily mean C is true.' Just because Evolution, as a theory, does not consistently stand up to scientific scrutiny does not give any credence to Creationism, which has no scientific backing of ANY kind. You can have all the faith you want, but when asked to provide specific evidence that supports the claim of Creationism, you're not gonna be able to come up with any.
[snapback]129826[/snapback]




Wow, somehow I knew I was asking for an answer like this...

Anyways, this 'hoodoo-voodoo creationism bulls---' as you so like to call it, seems to stand up quite well. As for evidence of man being created by God; again, take a look at the site that my younger sister posted a link to. They have quite a few scientific facts there that support creation by the true living God.

@Arche: As for researching to see exactly what the orgins of this verse are, I can point you to a simple solution: John 1:1-5 "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Though the researching you're talking about does sound quite fun. biggrin.gif

Anywho, now that I've said that, I leave this discussion. I say good day! *bowes and takes my leave*
[snapback]129847[/snapback]


I'm skimming that site now, and it seems to hinge entirely on the presupposition that Religious 'Creationism' and evolution are the only possible explanations for the source of life, and that anything which does not support one explanation, automatically supports the other. This is faulty reasoning of the worst kind. It immediately discards any kind of advancement of biological processes without divine influence, and most egregiously, it makes the point that any god that might exist is necessarily perfect, and anything he makes comes out exactly as it is designed.
As a rational person, I can't possibly accept any of these premises for an argument. I can suspend my disbelief if there is a legitimate reason to do so, but once you start building your argument on a dogmatic foundation, you lose me.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 10 2005, 02:58 PM
Post #29


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 10 2005, 12:33 PM)
You know what? With regards to the origin of man, I believe that we're descendants of an extraterrestrial race that visited earth about half a million years ago.

Now tell me, how is this any less plausible than that hoodoo-voodoo creationism bullshit?  biggrin.gif

People are too quick to look at things in black-or-white terms. I'm failing my Logic class right now, but even I understand something so simple as 'If A does not support B, where A is true and C is an alternative to B, that does not necessarily mean C is true.' Just because Evolution, as a theory, does not consistently stand up to scientific scrutiny does not give any credence to Creationism, which has no scientific backing of ANY kind. You can have all the faith you want, but when asked to provide specific evidence that supports the claim of Creationism, you're not gonna be able to come up with any.
[snapback]129826[/snapback]



Ack - I missed the edit tongue.gif

One thing that you're point brings up perfectly is that it is not necessarily a bifurcation between creationism and evolution. There are possibilities of other options. So if one shows how flawed evolution is, it does not support creationism, but rather just shows that evolution is not necessarily true as written now. There are tons of other possibilities. I take a more skeptical view to this and say that we can't know for certain. My point is always that it's not irrational to believe in creationism, but even the creationist should respect the evolutionist.

QUOTE(definingmind @ Mar 10 2005, 03:23 PM)
@Arche: As for researching to see exactly what the orgins of this verse are, I can point you to a simple solution: John 1:1-5 "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Though the researching you're talking about does sound quite fun. biggrin.gif

Anywho, now that I've said that, I leave this discussion. I say good day! *bowes and takes my leave*

The λογος or "word" as it's translated, is an interesting word in the time John was written. The neo-platonists seemed to use it as the universal constant that connects human beings to the perfect God. In their mind, God is so perfect that he could not even think about anything but himself. So, the λογος concept comes in. So when John writes this, I find it interesting and wonder if he means the Hellenistic λογος or not. Given the overall method text of John, I would say that he was appealing a bit to the hellenistic mind.

Anyway, the genesis verse is definitely part of the covenant literature IMO, which shows the value and supremecy of the sovereign over the vassal (chapter 1 and early chapter 2 show parts of this). Unfortunately, the only resources I have at home do not touch on the aspect of whether this is condenced or not. It is a long standing theological method, however, to think of these types of things as condensed in some way. Unless I research it formally, I defer any actual belief on it and just say that it's possible the verse refers to either - instant creation or creation over time.

Lastly, aliens and phlem laugh.gif Well, we now have a infinite causal chain of regression. As an infinite causal chain of regression, we cannot even have a beginning, so therefore, it's impossible for the world to even exist unless there is some necessity to begin it all in some way biggrin.gif - but that's for another time laugh.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Username05
post Mar 10 2005, 03:28 PM
Post #30


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



I belive in Creation.

My grandfather was a preacher, they belive in both creation and evolution kinda.
They belive that God created all but he used evelution to do it, because something had to make things join together, a molecule is to complex to be randomly generated, the chances are imposible, and it would have to do it more than once, a cell can not creat a different type of cell only a replicant of itself.

I have seen no evidence of evelution true, and all that has been found has been a joke (Like the Nebraska man. (A pigs tooth they said came from a missing link, but was later proven to be a hoax.)) or people speaking with an ignorent tounge. (like the guy who found the Coelacanth fossil (A fish that still lives in the Indian ocean it has cartiledge apandages with fins on the end.))

Creation is hard to belive, but they have found alot of sites that were told about in the Bible, like that place that was destroyed by rains of burning sulfer. People found an ancient city that had been destroyed buy fire and traces of sulfer in wholes that went into the buildings and ground.
The temple where Samson was said to be at when he destroyed it by pushing the two main beams out and collapsing the building on everyone including himself.
Noahs ark, they have pictures and stuff of that, I need to ask my teacher about that one, I can get pictures and stuff for all of these probabley.


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

43 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th July 2016 - 08:07 PM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css