Evolution vs Religion

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I WILL admit that many people that claim to be Christians...

 

Ah yes, here we go. So at exactly what point in time did god choose you as the person that gets to decide who is and who is not a REAL Christian?

 

Christians love to scream about how the US is a Christian country based on the majority of people identifying themselves as Christians. But they are quick to reject that majority when it comes to each individual's claims as to who is and who is not doing it right!

 

... teach hatred. This is true of most every religion, or religious faction,

1) the bible specifically promotes hatred against everyone, especially non and "other" believers. Thus when someone "claiming" to be a Christian preaches hatred, esp if they use biblical passages (such as the gay hatred so popular in a lot Christianity right now), they ARE promoting Christian values.

 

2) yes, this is common in many religions. Esp revelation based mon-theistic ones.

 

For example, YOU claim to be non-religious, you even raised your children as atheists, and they were picked on by horrible Christians, right? While you have never categorically stated your hatred for God in general,

can't hate what does not exist

and Christianity specifically, there are probably few on this thread that doubt your hatred. Your hatred seems evident to me in the very condescending way you state your replies, your lack of respect for the opinions of anyone who believes in God, and your *intentional?*

 

My "lack of respect" is aimed at the "lack of" mature reasoning skills exposed by those trying to justify their religious beliefs. Especially when that person starts out by claiming to possess mature reasons, based on provable facts. Then fails to be able to supply ANYTHING of value. I can not respect such intellectually dishonest approaches to discussion..

 

misquoting and misrepresentation of Christian ideas and beliefs.

 

When have I EVER misrepresented "Christian ideas"? There is not a single "Christian ideology" that I have presented that can not be validated by going to some Christian group's web site and seeing it for yourself. While some of what I post as Christian Ideology may not agree with YOUR invention of Christianty, that does NOT mean it does not accurately represent OTHER Christians. And they are as ready and capable of supporting their claim to being Christians with the bible as you are.

 

This goes far beyond a belief in the thoery of evolution in science. It is an obvious hatred being perpetuated by YOU, cloaked in the guise of 'reality' and debunking Christian/religious myths. You post replies with an air of superiority that far surpasses any other in this forum, yet you continually accuse Christians of a superior attitude. And you call <i>us</i> hypocrites? C'mon!!!

 

If my posts seem to contain some level of superiority, it only comes from my using a higher level of requirments for acceptance of claims. I have no qualms in exposing the anti-intellectual nonsense spewed as some claim of support for baseless assertions made. Yes I do feel validated when once more another Christian fails to provide ANY valid support for their antiquated and harmful superstition.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

"She does not like being called a GIRL friend "

 

why my girlfriend calls me her boyfriend and i don't care

 

Well, there you go! I guess my lady is an absolute idiot! How could anyone in the world possibly be correct if they disagree with your personal opinion?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> And it is interesting that you do not consider woman to be human. That you classify them along with OTHER needs/ possessions. ..... no, but by your thinking if humans evolved, it would have been the male of the species that would be that killed for such things. i'm all about equality but nature is nature, and thats how it was. </i>

 

Ok, this brings up a question that I never found a realistically plausible answer to, so maybe one of you guys can enlighten me...

 

If some form of evolution is correct, and man evolved from the same line that apes did, how did we get WOman? Did she evolve right along with man, at the exact same time and the exact same place?... Does anybody have an answer?

 

Of course. And no suprise as to whom would.

 

Evolution of our species refers to homo sapien sapien. There is NOTHING in the designation of our species that is gender specific. Such artificial prejudices are left to antiquated patriarchal prejudice based superstitions such as Christianity.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

to count her opinions and feelings as valid even if ...

 

ANY opinion should only be treated as "valid" if it can be PROVED to be valid. It does no one any good to pretend to accept idiotic nonsense as a valid opinion. In fact it can cause a great deal of harm to the individual and society in general for superstitous nonsense to be treated as valid. Kids die every year because their parents are allowed by Religious exemption to refuse simple medical treatment for very curable illnesses.

 

But according to you, these child killers should be granted acceptance of their opinion. Lest we hurt the feelings of the parents holding their personal opinion!

[IrishEyes]

ANY opinion should only be treated as "valid" if it can be PROVED to be valid.

 

OPINION: (from Webster) 1 a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter; 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

 

How can you propose that only things that are 'provable' should be treated as valid? The very definition of the word OPINION refutes your statement. It is a view, formed about a particular matter, stronger than impression but less than positive knowledge. Why should this have to be a definitve proof situation? Opinions are subjective.

 

It does no one any good to pretend to accept idiotic nonsense as a valid opinion. In fact it can cause a great deal of harm to the individual and society in general for superstitous nonsense to be treated as valid.

 

If my youngest child will probably not live to see her 10th birthday, how is it harming her or society to make sure she feels that her thoughts, feelings and opinions are valid? Am I saying that everyone has to accept everything she says? NO, I'm not. However, I am saying that treating her feelings and opinions with respect, because they are HERS, is something that I would like for others to do. And this attitude has helped me to do the same when dealing with others.

[IrishEyes]

If some form of evolution is correct, and man evolved from the same line that apes did, how did we get WOman? Did she evolve right along with man, at the exact same time and the exact same place?... Does anybody have an answer?

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

 

Of course. And no suprise as to whom would.

 

Evolution of our species refers to homo sapien sapien. There is NOTHING in the designation of our species that is gender specific. Such artificial prejudices are left to antiquated patriarchal prejudice based superstitions such as Christianity.

 

So your answer is what, exactly? Nothing in the thoery of evolution is gender specific. I understand that part. How does that answer my question? IT DOESN'T! I was asking a question, hoping to get an answer. Based on evolution (pick whichever specific theory you want for this), did a human female evolve at the same time and in the same place as a human male? Or did a group of primates become geographically separated and evolve together?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

So your answer is what, exactly? Nothing in the thoery of evolution is gender specific. I understand that part. How does that answer my question? IT DOESN'T! I was asking a question, hoping to get an answer. Based on evolution (pick whichever specific theory you want for this), did a human female evolve at the same time and in the same place as a human male? Or did a group of primates become geographically separated and evolve together?

Your construction is utter obfuscation mumbo jumbo. It's like asking if the negative side of a battery is made at the same time as the positive side. Until they are assembled as a complete matched pair, there is no positive or negative. Just like there can not be a male "human" unless there were female humans. And there can be no one exact spot where the transition is made. It is a gradual process.

[IrishEyes]

Your construction is utter obfuscation mumbo jumbo. It's like asking if the negative side of a battery is made at the same time as the positive side. Until they are assembled as a complete matched pair, there is no positive or negative. Just like there can not be a male "human" unless there were female humans. And there can be no one exact spot where the transition is made. It is a gradual process.

 

Thanks for your explanatin, but I could have done wihout the sarcasm. It truly was an honest quest for an answer.

 

This begs another questions though...

 

How do evolutionists feel about homosexuality? Is it ok, or not? I mean, if 'there can not be a male "human" unless there were female humans', how does this mesh with homosexuality? I'm only asking because you made some statements concerning Christians and their intolerance of homosexuals, yet you failed to mention your own view. I was just wondering if the altruistic, freethinking atheist will condone homosexuality while it violates his own scientific stance of human origin (all males would mean no further evolution, right).

 

Oh, and for the record, don't even try to imply that I am homophobic. If you take the time to re-check the posts, you will notice that YOU are the only one that made a blanket generalization for Christians being against homosexuality.

[Ragnarock]

well, ive been reading all these comments between freethinker and Irish eyes and i thought i might say something. i was just thinking about some biblical stories and i even had a science project where we had to conduct a debate about Evolution vs. Religion. so here it is.

 

Maybe this isn't with Christianity but Noah's Ark...

Lets think for a second. Every species and seeing from a creationist's view that would mean the same species as today. and since many species die each year, there would probably be an extra 15-20% of species. so Noah builds this huge ark that supports billions of species. next we have to think of suitable enviornments for each species. then we have to prevent the animals from eating each other. we also need food and water for each animal. how do you persuade the animals to get on in the first place???

 

Now lets think about the stars. NOTE: some of the information about the Bilble may be wrong and if it is please dont start attacking me and commenting about it. just say that its wrong and ill try to get more accurate information from someone who reads the bible more.

 

The bible states that the earth was created approx. 10,000 years ago. the earth came before the stars. however, this fails to explain how we can see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away.

 

i'll probably be posting more if anyone cares...

besides, i'm thirteen! how long am i supposed to type this when i should be doing hw?????

[Ragnarock]

also, i did not read everything in this topic(too long) so if i am repeating someone, please tell me

[IrishEyes]

Maybe this isn't with Christianity but Noah's Ark...

Lets think for a second. Every species and seeing from a creationist's view that would mean the same species as today. and since many species die each year, there would probably be an extra 15-20% of species. so Noah builds this huge ark that supports billions of species. next we have to think of suitable enviornments for each species. then we have to prevent the animals from eating each other. we also need food and water for each animal. how do you persuade the animals to get on in the first place???

 

hi, and thanks for joining this very lively discussion!

 

I'm going to answer the Ark question first, according to what I have studied. Granted, it is from a Biblical pov, but hey, that's the info i have handy.

 

The Ark would have been a three story, 450 foot long, 75 foot wide, and 45 foot high structure, that had approx. 100,000 sq. ft. of deck space. The volume would have been 4,500,000 cu ft., with tonnage over 14,000 tons.

 

Gen 6:19 - 7:3 has God commanding Noah to bring two of every KIND of animal, one male/one female; and to gather food for ALL his passengers, as well as 'clean animals' by 7's.

 

As i understand this, that implies that Noah is to build a HUGE boat, and load up a pair of each type, not each particular species. In other words, a pair of dogs would have sufficed, not a pair of each breed.

 

Your other questions I can only answer according to my opinion. I believe that God could quiet the animal's spirits enough to get onto and live on the Ark. I mean, if you believe the rest, we're talking about a God who created the whole world, right? Why is it difficult to believe that he could calm animals?

 

However, you brought up some good questions, and I thank you for the chance to respond with my POV. Please notice that i have not claimed to give any 'facts' or 'proof', but I did state this was my POV. I know it goes against the FAQ here, Tormod, sorry, but I think we already covered the 'fact/proof' of God in the other topic.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Thanks for your explanatin, but I could have done wihout the sarcasm. It truly was an honest quest for an answer.

Let's see what I responded to. First a question was posed. To which I provided an answer, how was my answer addressed intitially?

Does anybody have an answer?

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Of course. And no suprise as to whom would.

So before my answer is even addressed, I am attacked. Then where do we go? My reply is quoted, followed immediately with...

So your answer is what, exactly?

Ya, now that is a very friendly tone! Followed by...

How does that answer my question? IT DOESN'T!

And you are surprised that I respond in kind?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<blockquote>How do evolutionists feel about homosexuality? Is it ok, or not?

What does it matter how an indivual feels about homosexuality when discussing Evolution? My, your, Frank's, ... personal opinion about homosexuality is not directly related to Evolution.

 

I mean, if 'there can not be a male "human" unless there were female humans', how does this mesh with homosexuality?

 

Nature is filled with examples of homosexual behavior, including lifetime commitments, in the rest of the animal world. Again, so what? Obviously some percentage of a species being involved in homosexual activity does not stop continuation of the species. This is a non-issue, except by humans wishing to force their narrow minded prejudicial views on others.

 

I'm only asking because you made some statements concerning Christians and their intolerance of homosexuals, yet you failed to mention your own view. I was just wondering if the altruistic, freethinking atheist will condone homosexuality while it violates his own scientific stance of human origin (all males would mean no further evolution, right).

 

And at exactly what point in time did "Homosexuality" become a male only species? The concept is absurd.

 

FWIW, my personal view is that it is none of my business (or anyone elses) if two people of the same or opposite sex find love and comfort in each others company. In fact I congradulate them on their good fortune. Too many people go thru life never finding such happiness.

 

Oh, and for the record, don't even try to imply that I am homophobic. If you take the time to re-check the posts, you will notice that YOU are the only one that made a blanket generalization for Christians being against homosexuality.

 

I never make a blanket generalization regarding ALL Christians. No two of you can agree on what is or what is not Christian. The best one can do is post things where some of the primary justification is biblically based and thus can be directly associated with the Christian source of revelation.

[Tormod]

<blockquote>Quote

<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>IrishEyes</b></i>

 

I am asking how a human man can reproduce without a woman? Or if a male and female human evolved at the same time, in the same place, and mated to produce offspring. At what point did speciation happen to produce a man that could no longer mate with it's ancestors, and did this also happen to a female at the same time in the same geographic location? Or is it that a group of animals were separated and evolved together, producing males and females that were able to mate?<hr></blockquote>

 

I think someone must have stolen IrishEyes' identity...or there is a momentary lapse of reason here.

 

Sex does not differentiate between two species, but it is two of a kind. Some species even have three sexes. Some are born as one sex and develop into another (prawns do this). Some creatures are hermaphrodites (both sexes) and can actually reproduce on their own (like jellyfish, corals, parasitic worms).

 

There is no reason to assume that the "first" species was male and that the "female" developed later. Sex most likely came about as a short term solution for survival long before advanced creatures had evolved.

 

Why? Because sexual reproduction is seen in just about every single living organism above cellular level. So it is an inherited trait in all mammals, reptilians, birds, marsupials, fish, crustaceans, insects...and plants.

 

So the first sexual production happened between two individuals of the same species. The evolution of "male" and "female" varieties varies from species to species.

 

There are some very important advantages for species when it comes to sexual reproduction:

 

1) it lets species reproduce with half of the genes from each parent. This makes the population consist of a variety of combinations of genetic material, which makes the population safer against infections, viruses and bacteria (= short term gain)

 

2) it makes a diverse population which will show different traits depending on which genes are inherited, and which will depend on living conditions, climate, and other variable factors (= long term gain)

 

(And if one ever wanted a proof of evolution, sexual reproduction is really a key element).

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Your other questions I can only answer according to my opinion. I believe that God could..."

This is why a god explanation is completely incompatible with a scientific discussion. At any point they wish, a believer merely inserts "god happens" and we are to just accept and move on.

 

But the problem this causes is, if this god can do anything it wants at any time, why torture all the people and creatures on earth, including all the "unborn babies" which there had to be quite a few of at the time, in the flood, if all this god had to do was "WISH" things to be different. Instead he only uses his nose twitch magic to calm the animals, or keep them from eating each other, not have to crap for months, or other MINOR trick?

 

If your answer to questions that show the absurdity of the flood myth are "god happens", where is there any value in intellectual discussion?

[IrishEyes]

If your answer to questions that show the absurdity of the flood myth are "god happens", where is there any value in intellectual discussion?

 

You are *absolutely* right.

 

My intention was to show that according to the Bible, the Ark would have been HUGE. Also, attB, the pairings represented each 'kind' of animal, not neccessarily every breed. I should have stopped there, as the rest was my opinion, and not based on fact, but personal feelings. Thanks for the reminder!

[Tormod]

This is amusing. If God decided not to bring on all species but just a sample of each kind of animal (there would still be quite a few), then I wonder why Christians have a problem with evolution?

 

Since there are many species of, say, dog and cat today, have these been created *after* the flood?

 

And where do plants and insects fit into the equation? Did they somehow just disappear only to reappear later? (Like - where did the olive branch that the dove found come from? Surely all olive trees would have drowned during the flood).

 

It seems to me the only way to explain the variety of species which have come about after the flood would be endless acts of creation, which implies that God is never happy with what he makes so he keeps trying (and that he in fact was not finished after the sixth day).

 

Or that evolution is right.

 

Tormod