Both sides must have faith\belief in what they believe because no one side has 100% proof that they are right.
But it does keep certain people on the gravy train for life
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Both sides must have faith\belief in what they believe because no one side has 100% proof that they are right.
But it does keep certain people on the gravy train for life
God to many Christians is the alpha male form, God is a male and many angels or spirit creatures that God created are of the male form.
God may have been a hermaphrodite? oh and angels are not nice they have 3 heads and a bad temper.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,446
Because it's a fact backed up by mountains of evidence. If you don't accept evolution, then you simply don't understand it.
Some believe 'Gods image' should be taken literally, which was the intent when the scripture words were writen. As science progressed, teological scholars began adapting the interpretions to fit the discoveries so 'Gods image' became a metaphor which refers to the human spirit or soul or whatever. When we find a strong theory explaining the origin of life/the universe, they'll further adapt their interpretations. Superstition is deeply rooted in the human psyche but the process of removing it has started, it's just a matter of time until it becomes a rare oddity rather than the norm it is today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Please provide proof of macroevolution (not microevolution).
As a Christian I believe in the evidence of microevolution (peppered moth etc), although I wouldn't call it evolution but simply in that example the moths that were more tree coloured didn't get eaten so those were the ones that survived and more likely to beed similarly coloured. There is no physical evidence for macroevolution which would support (to the evolutionist) their belief.
It isn't physical 'image' but more of intellect, mind and soul - these of course were corrupted at the fall.
Last edited:
That's something which really surprised me. The Christians do have 100%, irrefutable proof that they are right. Those who aren't at risk of de-converting anyway. After all, they'd have to be crazy to live their lives based on the religious teachings without proof, and they're not crazy.
It isn't a standard of evidence anyone
edit: In the spirit of balance, scientists don't have "100% proof" either. Scientists can however spot the inherent absurdity in the statement "100% proof" so don't worry too much about this. The method is the best thing we've found so far, so we'll stick with it for now.
Linguistically the words (as in the original text, the contextual analysis of the Hebrew and Koine basis of Scripture) simply do not support the idea that Gods Image is speaking of anything other than the Spiritual Nature of Man....the literal interpretation is something that is very new in fact, first coming into use during the 19th Century and gaining ground during the 20th Century mainly in Conservative Evangelism particularly in the United States partially in reaction to what they perceived as threats to their beliefs from state secularism.
Historically literal interpretations of Genesis are very rare indeed and almost unheard of in Early Christianity, where the predominant emphasis was on the spiritual relationship of Man with God. You have actually gotten the entire thing backward.
Last edited:
Hybridisation in plants is probably the biggest single chunk of evidence gathered so far. Biological reproductive barriers are weaker in plants than they are other lifeforms, and are more likely to break - meaning plants of two different species can reproduce and produce a hybrid, which provided the conditions are correct can also reproduce, if the biological barriers are replaced, you have a totally new species that didn't exist before, this happens all the time and is well documented. There's also plenty of evidence with other hybrids such as some species of ducks, but it's far rarer overall compared to it happening all the time in plants.
I mention Hybridisation because it's to do with genetics, which is pretty rock solid evidence - there's tonnes of other pieces of evidence like whales with residual back legs, but if you're a creationist you'll probably go "SHOW ME A WHALE WITH LEGS"
To be honest, there's so much good and tested information out there - if you say there's no evidence, then you haven't tried very hard in looking, and have just formed a conclusion based on what you want, rather than what's actually going on.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
When discussing matters of the bible, I always find it best to answer scripture with scripture. Look at Philippians 2: 6-8 (KJV):
Php 2:6 [Jesus] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God [i.e. pre-incarnation]:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men [i.e. flesh incarnate]:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:6 [Jesus] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God [i.e. pre-incarnation]:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men [i.e. flesh incarnate]:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Last edited:
Brilliant discussion here guys:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5t97VkSnDjg&desktop_uri=/watch?v=5t97VkSnDjg
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5t97VkSnDjg&desktop_uri=/watch?v=5t97VkSnDjg
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Sorry but hybridisation isn't proof of macroevolution - good article here
Merging of varieties within species, yes (i.e. dogs, cats, fish etc) but lizards and frogs are both reptiles but you don't see evidence of these mid-evolution?
Oh, and show me a whale with legs
Last edited:
Very true.
Human vestigality is a key area of evidence also which many ignore.
If you look at the plica semilunaris on the inside corner of the eye (below).
This is a remnant of the nictitating membrane, the third eyelid which many animals still posses (but our ancient ancestors had).
Even goose bumps are a vestigial reflex, dating back to the raising of fur to make the creature look bigger.
That's ignoring the genetic evidence in chromosome 2, created via the fusion of two chromosome 2A and 2B - this given strong evidence by the additional centromere (which could only be there as a result of two chromosomes fusing).
The evidence is there, as you say - but many are unwilling to look.
That is not a good article.Sorry but hybridisation isn't proof of macroevolution - good article here
Oh, and show me a whale with legs
Also, here is a Whale with legs (small internal ones mind).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
Both sides must have faith\belief in what they believe because no one side has 100% proof that they are right.
But it does keep certain people on the gravy train for life
We do with regards to evolution, at least.
Sorry but hybridisation isn't proof of macroevolution - good article here
Merging of varieties within species, yes (i.e. dogs, cats, fish etc) but lizards and frogs are both reptiles but you don't see evidence of these mid-evolution?
Oh, and show me a whale with legs
If you're making statements like that then you should probably learn a bit more about evolution.
Indeed, I've yet to hear a cogent argument against evolution which isn't founded in either a profound lack of understanding of the weight of evidence in it's favour or it's fundamental mechanics.
While this video would be most helpful to some of the posters here, I doubt they will watch it.
Last edited:
There's obviously no way to determine the intent of the writers so the statement you bolded could be wrong. What you need to realise, Castiel, is that superstitious people don't see religion or any other unsupported belief as a philosophical idea. They are superstitious not because they believe it's the wisest position or because they want to nurture their souls. Instead, they are superstitious for purely practical reasons.
Christianity was adopted as a state religion because the cult had grown so much, especially among the poor, that it could no longer be ignored. In order to consolitate his power, Constantine adopted it and no metaphysical soul searching was part of the process.
The peasants who laboured 15-20 hours a day during the Dark Ages took what the priests read from the Bible literally. Most were unable to comprehend the concept of an allegory, let alone make complicated interpretations of the words they heard. Obey the Word = get better crops, male children, kinder nobles, salvation after death etc. Disobey = earthly plitght and eternal suffering. Again, no metaphysical soul searching was part of the process.
Nothing has changed in our days. The superstitious now take homeopathic sugar pills to heal themselves, they see fortune tellers for better earnings and to find partners and they pray for a win in the next Man. U. match.
That's my problem with superstitions (including religions) and that's why I strongly dismiss them all. If most believers were like you and had an open mind towards all philosphically sound ideas, things would be great. We both know that's far from being the case, don't we?
There are indeed ways to determine the intent of the author., analysis of the text is something I do everyday. What you stated in that post regarding the literal interpretation and intent of the words is demonstrably incorrect.
The rest of this post has nothing to do with what you originally stated so has no baring on it, other than to say that what you say about the dark ages assumes far too much and is again not supported by historical evidence. The teaching of Scripture historically doesn't support what you are saying, quite the opposite..allegory was widely used to convey complex theology in simple terminology.
I am not religious btw...your post seems to imply that I am.
Last edited:
The key difference is that Dawkins is actually correct and preaching truths.