God or Evolution?

Well said … I would have more hope in an ideology based on good orderly direction. Any attempts by science to undermine spirituality and healthy morality I would not welcome
I also would not welcome any attempt by religion to suppress facts

^^God ain't there.. so for now, I'm going with evolution. It's a scientific fact.

No, Angelina, it's a scientific theory.

The fact that you and I both believe it holds merit does not make it a conclusive fact. It's the best thing we have to explain how we and all other forms of life on earth came about until a better theory comes along.

God. Its just my personal belief.

Then you have been incorrectly tutored on the subject.

There may be evidence to support evolution but the mechanics of the theory is yet to be indefinitely proven.

It's very much like trying to prove life on other planets. There has been one piece of evidence for microbes on Mars, but as for other solar systems? It's just a thoery. I believe it to be true, but it's still a theory none the less.

If evolution is a black and white indellable fact, why is there an argument/debate?

I just read this interesting snippet:

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

“God ain't there.. so for now, I'm going with evolution. It's a scientific fact”.

Sometimes it is easy to look into the night sky and say the sun is not there because the earth has turned away from its heliocentric light source. Or to look at a cloudy mass in the sky that may be a billion or more suns larger than our sun and believe it has nothing to do with creation. The infinite number of chemicals to make the universe possible seem less important to me than the chemicals it takes to make one human life possible. I have looked at a mass of chemicals lying before me as the shell of someone I once knew and said to myself there is no life in him Is a mass of chemicals the personification of who we are, or our essence? I heard someone say they believed God was in prison, because he knew a lot of people who said they found God there. What is a prison but a human zoo designed for people who break the law? Well that may not be here, nor there. Just some random thoughts from someone who believes God cannot be confined to science, which is the observation of natural events

And you want to deny these desperate people their last source of intangible comfort? Let it go. If it's not hurting anybody...

I don't blame god for 9/11 or war or any of the atrocities on earth. That's human evil. or natural disaster. and I can't say I brought this third world war on ourselves. I didn't vote for the bastard.

if there is a god, who is truly loving and good, and in these attempts god would want to support 'free will.' as it is better to allow your children to go through life and experience the ups and downs for themselves than to always fight their battles for them. (I have a tendency to associate god to both a fatherly and creative spirit, so I say 'children' in the sense of both 'creations' and maybe semi-literal 'children' if this is wrong, please correct me). but, after all, people have people to guide and instruct them through life too, so we don't all walk through this world dumb, deaf, and blind. I think an 'all-knowing' 'all-seeing' god would understand that. 'god' in a sense, simply oversees it all to make sure things don't get too out of control. intervention is not something he does. according to early scriptures, it seems like he did, and found that it lead to further conflict. or maybe he still does. maybe god is talking to both Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. playing both sides against the other for some god-knows reason.

but the thing is, I don't trust anybody who claims they have heard god, because, even if god is trying to communicate with us, I don't think we would have the mental capacity to understand it properly. More likely we would just interpret what he was trying to tell us for our own ends. good or bad.

I'm not saying god doesn't speak to us, or is a totally indifferent bastard, but he's just a little more subtle.

^ I agree

Angelina, isn't this supposed to be a subjective discusssion?

I fully believe in Evolution, but evolution does not discount the belief in god. 9/11 does not prove the non-existance of God. "Where was your God then?" God doesn't work that way, never has.

"ah, ignorance is bliss" I can almost see your personal blinkers. What happened to you to make you hate the very idea of God so much?

"There is no possible evidence you can offer me to let me believe in a god." That's exactly what faith is all about.

The only argument people like you have for denying the existance of God boils down to the fact that you're just as brainwashed by what you have been taught as the kindly old lady who believes only what her minister and the bible tells her.

It's not a personal attack, you're a bright kid, but seriously... all this venom?

Didn't mean to delve into your proverbial depths, I do that sometimes and I apologise, but you can see what I mean right?

^I choose the facts, not the myths.

Again, like I (and most of the world's scientific community) said evolution is not a fact, but still a theory proven only up to a point. Filling in the blanks with suppositions is what makes evolution a theory still.

It's like saying Einsteins principle theory of relativity and general stance of physics is fact when it doesn't work in every part of the universe.

GOD!

By Leakey I can only assume you meant Adam's Ancestors, a book by him on evolution. Unfortunately it's a theory regarded to be primarily flawed by the branching he takes backed up the finding that Piltdown man was a fake in the mid fifties.

Leakey played with the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle and got a few pieces jammed in to suit his ideals, which is why it's still a theory, nobody can get all of the pieces to fit perfectly just yet.

I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm saying he was close.

Since you asked Angelina I don’t believe that God is in the hearts of men that would bring harm to innocent people. My concept of humans is that they have a human nature that is capable of accepting a divine nature. All the religious corruption is well documented in recorded history. Christ was crucified by the Romans but at the demand of religious zealots. Even if I agreed with you that mankind would be better off without religion I seriously doubt that we will live to see the day of perfect unity in diversity through natural means

It is just more difficult for me to imagine a infinite number of failures in the natural selection theory than it is for me to imagine a law or Creator that always was and always will be

“Michael - I really don't know where you're going with this, but the only thing I can tell you is that Jesus was killed not for religious crimes, but for crimes against the state. That's why he was crucified and not killed with stones.”

I agree that from what I have been taught Jesus was innocent of any crimes. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of His blood. Many see that as affirming His innocence. Although there were many Pharisees who wanted to get rid of Jesus, and repeatedly accused Him of breaking the ‘Law of Moses’ they never stoned Jesus, according to any record I am aware of
But according to the gospels it was the ‘High Priest’ that put a price on His head

I think when Bret was talking about 'believing what you're taught,' he was refering to college, or later education, or online, not how you were raised, persay. Higher-education brainwashes too. The cliche, 'People hear what they want to hear' goes both ways. Others know what faith is, and what it's worth.

nah

but other people should be given the opportunity to make the same kind of decision too.

the one that makes sense to them.

Building on what A Beautiful Lie said, Angelina, I was suggesting that you went from one belief that is faith based and lacks proof to another system that is still to be proven, but that you take as 'gospel' anyway. It doesn't make sense to me that you would go from one to the other in such a partisan way unless it was an emotional decision rather than one of learning. I'll stop there and apologise now as a precursor.

Regarding Mary Leakey, she only goes so far back into history and fails to determine the link between man and other hominids like Orangutan, Gibbons, Chimpanzes etc. Her work is a great start and is definitely something to build upon, but not definitative proof of turing theory into fact.

The one thing that gives Mrs Leakey weight is the fact that she rarely (if ever) postulated evolution as a theory. This rare lack of ego in the field is what gives evolution a backbonme in the first place.

Regarding the fossils, both 'Lucy' and 'Java Man' also build upon this theory but again, neither acts as a bridge between one species and another. Also, neither has been scientifically labled as the missing link by any notable geneologists or archaeologists.

It is indeed a highly evolved ape that is social and tolerant of old ideas I think it may have been you [Angelina] that provided a link to the theory of why humans are bipedal. The theory suggested that a group of apes began to use their forelimbs to carry food, and after a period of time this change in posture was passed to its off springs. These are my own thoughts and interpretations, but it seems from either viewpoint we become what we believe. It seems there is as many interpretations of who God is and what God should expect from His image and likeness as what His image and likeness expects from Him I feel that I must assume that because we were born that our forefathers must have done many things right to insure their bloodline would survive. Healthy organisms have organization while unhealthy organism has disease, or a lack of ease. Death and rebirth is a fact of nature. People have believed in something long before they believed in nothing. Feelings and understandings come in many forms. Attitudes can be contagious. For centuries mankind has placed emphasis the land and not the people, the flesh and not the spirit, and unfortunately religion has caused division. My serenity depends on accepting the things I cannot change

Well do you even know anything about evolution? Becuase in my opinion you shouldn't go around calling people "crazy" if you don't even understand what they believe in.

Especially when the theory of evolution goes back to single cell organisms.

Cell becomes two cells, cells become separate working organisms, organisms develope organs and limbs to get more food than their competitors, organs and limbs become more economic, advanced and complicated allowing effective methods of swimming, swallowing and absorbtion and convertion of oxygen into energy etc etc untill you have birds, bees elephants shrews and everything inbetween.

The division comes when it comes to including man into the mess.

Theoretically from the evolutionist point of view many classes share a common ancestor. It is logical that if someone found the skull of an extinct ape it would cause much speculation. So you don’t believe primates share a common ancestor?

edit I apologize for any assumptions. I was not sure what your point was

“The "Scopes Trial" (Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925), often called the "Scopes Monkey Trial") pitted against each other lawyers William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow (the latter representing teacher John T. Scopes) in an American court case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." This is often interpreted as meaning that the law forbade the teaching of any aspect of the theory of evolution”
[source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Perhaps I will have time to research when the above law was overturned in my home state
edit; On the first business day of trial, the defense moved to quash the indictment on both state and federal constitutional grounds. This move was at the heart of the defense strategy. The defense's goal was not to win acquittal for John Scopes, but rather to obtain a declaration by a higher court--preferably the U.S. Supreme Court--that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. (That goal, however, would not be realized for another 43 years, in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas ). As expected, Judge Raulston denied the defense motion.
source; http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

I am amused by the thought that one thing creationist and evolutionist have probably never disagreed on, is that man gave names to all of the animals

I have had the honor to meet Vince Ambrosetti, face to face. He was named Catholic Artist of the Year in 2001 and performed at the Vatican for Pope John Paul II in the first English Mass ever sung at St. Peter Basilica. He also composed and sang a song for the funeral Mass of Mother Teresa and has been nominated for three Grammy awards.

He is a very talented pianist composer, and lyricist that has a very different attitude and feeling towards God than you do Angelina. While he was at our parish he performed several of his hymns for us and told us about his experience at Calcutta where he was with a lot of very important people to celebrate the life of the late soon to be beatified saint. He said of all the very important people he met that day he was most impressed with the nuns that took care of Mother Teresa. I remember hearing a comedian say that every one in this world has an angle. Even Mother Teresa had an angle, we just have not figured out what it is yet. It would be very arrogant of me to believe I had the power to change the world and I don’t know any true Christians that believe that power belongs to them. I know what is like to seek acceptance from those of greater faith than me. I have struggled with faith and reason nearly all of my life. I believe that fact has led me to poetry.

Nobody has 'figured out' the 'angle' Mother Teresa had because nobody wants to. They're afraid it would be the equivalent of 'looking a gift horse in the mouth.' which it is. but, Martyr complex, co-dependency, the 'cardinal sins' of modern ideology, and human loneliness, could apply. Who knows? maybe she, and all so-called saints were trying to be the next Jesus. which is pretentious at best, and un-saintlike. but the Christian ideology, at its core, holds Jesus as an example, and as long as most saints don't go so far to actually state or put such comparisons in writing, they get beatified. Trying for, but coming to terms with falling short of that goal, seems like the crux of Catholic faith. They call it humility. True humility. not just selling yourself short, which goes back to Martyr-complex.

Okay, we've wandered really far from the original topic so many times and back again. Don't you love religious discussions?

The truth is that Mother Teresa's angle was that she didn't have an angle. She just helped the poor kiddies and those that needed help.

No one seems to mention the hoarde of nuns at her disposal who did most of the caring in the first place.

Sure she was a bright spark in these dark days and I'll not forget her example, but there were more people than just her doing good work in Calcutta.

it is God for me because i didnt see a monkey evolve into human this 18 years lolz and i havent heard at all to my parents hahaha for me its god theres no galaxy without God