I'm in no way qualified to talk about the universe before the big bang, so I can't rule out the possibility of a demiurge.Well, Stephen Hawkins believes in God. As did Eintsein. In fact a lot of our greatest minds come to believe in God from their study of the macro or the micro of our universe.
Here's an interesting link on that very subject.
Excerpt:
Einstein himself, it turns out, was a pantheist. In his own words:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:
Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.
We began by asking "Did Einstein believe in God?" The answer, as Hawking pointed out, depends on what you mean by "God". In one sense (the Pantheist sense), Einstein did believe in God. But in another sense he didn't. Indeed, except for his deciding to use the term "God" in a way that is unfamiliar to most people, his views are indistinguishable from those of someone who is an unabashed atheist.
|
I had a question. Can atheism be a 100% thing or is there always going to be a little bit of doubt or lack of doubt?
I just read your post about Einstein's belief, or what he meant by God (I guess evoked by the statement that "God does not play at dice") and I was wondering if any two peoples' personal definition of god could truly be the same thing.
I also steadfastly believe that there is no human being of faith on the roster of existence that did not doubt, so by some form of belief system transitivity (this is not a veiled attempt to call atheism a religion), I wonder if atheism works the same way?
Now I've reread my statement 5 times and I don't think I could have offended anyone by it, and it wasn't my intention if I did; it just seems to somewhat lack lucidity due to the fact that I'm not entirely awake yet...
I had a question. Can atheism be a 100% thing or is there always going to be a little bit of doubt or lack of doubt?
I just read your post about Einstein's belief, or what he meant by God (I guess evoked by the statement that "God does not play at dice") and I was wondering if any two peoples' personal definition of god could truly be the same thing.
I also steadfastly believe that there is no human being of faith on the roster of existence that did not doubt, so by some form of belief system transitivity (this is not a veiled attempt to call atheism a religion), I wonder if atheism works the same way?Now I've reread my statement 5 times and I don't think I could have offended anyone by it, and it wasn't my intention if I did; it just seems to somewhat lack lucidity due to the fact that I'm not entirely awake yet...
Not offended at all. I think we're all doing a great job here. We're all curious, and most of us aren't approaching this conversation with malice or anger... and I've learned a lot thus far. This thread is almost a social experiment showing that sensitive, brilliant people can talk sensitively and brilliantly about a very touchy subject. Personally, I'm trying to stay away from talking about my disbelief. I'm more just trying to speak up for certain generalizations regarding atheists and atheism.
Though certain peoples' practices, beliefs, and definitions of their belief in God or their disbelief in god do indeed seem to be rather snowflake like... I can tell you that there isn't one tiny bit of doubt within me that I disbelieve in a godhead.
Not having any belief whatsoever in an afterlife shields me handily from worrying about eternal damnation or salvation. I'm good because it feels good to be good, as I was taught to do by my atheist mother (who eventually became a Unitarian... I had no interest in following her).
It seems clear to me, to me mind you, that telling someone "Don't overthrow the king or bring animal anarchy to the streets with rape and theft and homosexual marriage and you'll get into heaven where it's like footrubs and really good TV 24/7, no repeats" is a clear attempt at societal mind control. Perhaps it is a necessary element to keep people in line. The Jewish God is a bit of a judgemental kick ass and the Christian God is a kinder happier recruiter... thus the bible is very much written in the language of recruitment. I've had lots of people try to recruit me to a lot of things pretending to have the answers to the unanswerables.
BTW, I kind of stumbled into becoming a mischeivous teen cult leader. I'm serious. I'm writing a book about it now. Starting from about age 8 I made up a wildly complex mythology (thanks Deities and Demigods! jk), practiced with a few magic kits, and sold my particular brand of BS to the smartest kids I knew from the ages of 11 to 16 and they bought it. I'll tell you my secret. I played to their vanity, not my own. I made them the messiahs. Out of boredom I even pulled it out of the closet and tried it one last time on a girlfriend in college and it worked on her as well. Frightening.
I was such a schmuck.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I don't think I ever posted any comment regarding your personal religious convictions, Jade. My comments about atheism were not meant towards any individual. If they offended or got your hackles up I apologize.
Instead they were meant to clarify the term "atheism." I think that term is misused. Usually "agnostic" is more appropriate for most people. IIRC you claimed to be an atheist and now you seem to be connecting your belief to "pantheism." This is still a form of believing in a divine power. To find God in the beauty, complexity, and laws of nature and the universe is NOT atheism. It may not be Jesus Christ, the bearded old guy you mentioned previously, or any other image any other human attaches to the divine. But it's not atheism.
One should have a personal relationship with the divine. One should not parrot what another person says. But as one should not automatically agree with everything other people say one should not automatically disagree with everything other people say.
This happens in academia, politics, and religion and it pisses me off to no end. But we want open-mindedness and in this particular debate the religious are often called close-minded. By close-minded non-theists who are unwilling to listen. I'm glad that on this particular forum people are at least reading.
I don't think I ever posted any comment regarding your personal religious convictions, Jade. My comments about atheism were not meant towards any individual. If they offended or got your hackles up I apologize.
Oh, dear man... I'm so sorry... That was Einstein's quote!!!!
I hear your point about atheism or agnosticism amongs these scientists. Michio Kaku once explained his understanding of God pretty much the same way... the law that holds the universe together and the idea of creation itself. They don't believe in a manlike deity with manlike concerns and his plan for us and our morality. I think that's safe to say. But perhaps you are right... that looking at the universe's creation force so intently is a sort of agnosticism.
Right there is a supposition... that the universe was created. I know the observational science behind why scientists think they know the start date of the universe. But it presupposes that that there was a big bang and not that the cosmos work as a lung... it presupposes that big bangs do not dot the endlessness of space like an eternal slo-mo fireworks show. It presupposes that the arena was not always here. Although things do rise and fall... a macro picture reveals processes to be cyclical. A buried body's nutrients nourish all that surrounds (delete one coffin for this to be true). New stars born within dead ones.
I'm not pretending to have any answers. I just don't confuse a brilliant and persuasive speaker for a brilliant and persuasive argument.
I had a question. Can atheism be a 100% thing or is there always going to be a little bit of doubt or lack of doubt?
I just read your post about Einstein's belief, or what he meant by God (I guess evoked by the statement that "God does not play at dice") and I was wondering if any two peoples' personal definition of god could truly be the same thing.
I also steadfastly believe that there is no human being of faith on the roster of existence that did not doubt, so by some form of belief system transitivity (this is not a veiled attempt to call atheism a religion), I wonder if atheism works the same way?
I honestly do not know. At this point I am prepared to say that the christian god (the all powerful all good overlord type god in general) does not exist with 100% certainty. Other gods, like the hindu Brahman, or the greek pantheon. Might actually exhist but I feel no need to worship them. Buddhist monks and many hindu gurus have my utmost respect as a positive force towards non violence in this world. But don't think their way is right for me. I might change. Or maybe I am not really as steadfast in my convictions as I think. Maybe I'll be lying in some hospital bed soon in critical condition and the last thing that ever passes my lips id a prayer for Jesus' forgiveness.
I do not see that happening but I am not so arogant as to deny the possibility. I think that is one of the more important parts of trying to stay open minded.
|
Putting words into my mouth does not seem like you Moff so I assume you misread some peice of my argument. I do not want God to do anything. I want people to stop assuming everything amazingly fortunate is a blessing but when tragedy strikes no one bothers to ask god why he cures cancer but not step in to avoid train wrecks. Anyone who does gets hit with "mysterious ways" ect.
Sorry about that. On one hand you said that you didn't want God to do anything and on the other hand you were asking if God did anything. Came across as a bit contradicting and confusing to me.
You are right. I think that far too many people (perhaps myself included) want to say that God had a hand in anything/everything "good" and that people or the devil had a hand in everything "bad". I, again, think that this is as much a lesson in psychology as much as religion. Why do people (in general) feel that if they get promoted it comes from their own doing, while if they get fired it was because of what someone/something else did or didn't do? Personally, I think that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
What does God do? I think that he keeps things running, gives us the means to provide for ourselves, and gives us free-will to do with our knowledge as we see fit. I really think that there is a rather fine line between divine intervention and free-will.
The movie the Matrix implied that people can't survive without bad things happening to them. That, in itself, can make for an interesting philosophical/psychological discussion.
Putting words into my mouth does not seem like you Moff so I assume you misread some peice of my argument. I do not want God to do anything. I want people to stop assuming everything amazingly fortunate is a blessing but when tragedy strikes no one bothers to ask god why he cures cancer but not step in to avoid train wrecks. Anyone who does gets hit with "mysterious ways" ect.Sorry about that. On one hand you said that you didn't want God to do anything and on the other hand you were asking if God did anything. Came across as a bit contradicting and confusing to me.
I don't desire god to take action. I still would like to know if he does though. Since I do not believe he exists it is easier for me to ask believers what his role is. Sorry about the confusion.
What does God do? I think that he keeps things running, gives us the means to provide for ourselves, and gives us free-will to do with our knowledge as we see fit.
Obviously, as one without faith, maintaining the status quo is not really something I'd call evidence of the divine. Now if this is simply a matter of faith then I respectfully disagree and there is no point in continuing. But if it is at all possible to extrapolate on how god "keeps things running", or "gives us a means" or evidence or theories as to why you believe these please post any that might be discussable.
Either way thanks for at least providing an answer to the question. You are one of a handful of christians that have out of many dozens I have asked.
Well, Stephen Hawkins believes in God. As did Eintsein. In fact a lot of our greatest minds come to believe in God from their study of the macro or the micro of our universe.
The Universe is pretty freakin' amazing. Whether that's indicicative of something, I'm not ready to say. I will say that it is a jump from aknowledging the existence of god to worshipping said god. And a further jump to choosing a specific manner in which to do so.
I think at this point I should mention that one of the religions I practice is Progressive Judaism. In my opinion, the benefits of religion are not reliant on extraphysical elements in either the practitioner or the religion.
I'm thankful for my existence even if I'm not sure who (if anyone) to thank.
Anybody have any hardball type questions for atheists?
......it's a really slow saturday.......
Anybody have any hardball type questions for atheists?
......it's a really slow saturday.......
Not at the moment, but I would like to say that I think pantheism is a term that is thrown around a lot, not always accurately. While it could technically apply to an otherwise scientific person who has a feeling of the numinous when they contemplate the universe, I would say that feeling is much better described as an atheist feeling curiosity, wonder and amazement over the workings of the universe, like a toddler with a toy.
Pantheism means you actually think the universe is a deity, that it is alive and fulfills all of the functions that a deity normally does. A pantheist is like an animist only instead of thinking that everything has it's little spirit, they think there is one big spirit and everything and everyone is part of it. I don't think that describes Einstein, Hawking, or any scientific atheist I can think of, and I think to say it does is wishful thinking from thieists who want the "smart guys" on their side.
If you just imagine for a second, really imagine, what it means for the entire universe to be God then you'll see that the concessions Hawking and Einstein make are not the same thing. For one thing there is no point saying you believe a deity exists and then ignoring it and behaving exactly as if it isn't there. A real pantheist would feel the need to make offerings or give thanks or meditate or otherwise communicate with this universal spirit. A real pantheist would be considered just as superstitious as a shinto priestess propitiating a mountain by a real atheist.
EDIT:
At this point I am prepared to say that the christian god (the all powerful all good overlord type god in general) does not exist with 100% certainty. Other gods, like the hindu Brahman, or the greek pantheon. Might actually exhist but I feel no need to worship them
That's an interesting thing to say. Might I ask you the reverse of the question I asked erian_7 earlier, ie. what makes you think that one god doesn't exist yet concede that others might? Deity always seemed an all or nothing thing to me.
EDIT AGAIN: The later Hindu concept of Brahman is a form of pantheism, if anyone would like an example.
That's an interesting thing to say. Might I ask you the reverse of the question I asked erian_7 earlier, ie. what makes you think that one god doesn't exist yet concede that others might? Deity always seemed an all or nothing thing to me.
Not so much the gods themselves but the idea of an all loving just god it unacceptable to me.
A pantheon of fickle fallible yet powerful beings like the Greek gods (even if you excuse the fact that they aren't quite as active as they used to be), explains the universe better than a faith such as the hebrew, christian, or muslim god. Brahman makes no claim at being just so it is just as likely to be true as anything else. It is not that I regect some gods and accept others. I reject the claim of a just god and therefore any religion that boasts one.
Anybody have any hardball type questions for atheists?
......it's a really slow saturday.......
ugh; why is there air? hehe gotta start somewhere and this one is loaded :) ok; so I dont really have a question. I really have a lot of trouble even trying to concieve of a world with no God; been thinking about it since that John Lennon song and still, it is very hard. I just dont understand how a proclaimed athiest makes life decisions any more than I dont understand why scientist dont really follow the science they proclaim; its all a mystery to me; but, I guess having a personal God isn't.
Besides this game we all play; am wondering what common ground we might have. I certainly am willing to converse about any whys or what ifs or how comes. Can you as an athiest believe it is possible that a sea creature like a whale or something could swallow a man who fell overboard; then carry hime a bit and spit him out unharmed? Never heard of it being tested, but doesnt seem that hard to specualate; have seen some wierd things, but that one has always in the thousands of years of the Judeo and the Judeo-Christian history been the hardest one for people to swallow. Can you believe that the fish story of Jonah could be true? That such a thing could happen even one in a billion.
Can you as an athiest believe it is possible that a sea creature like a whale or something could swallow a man who fell overboard; then carry hime a bit and spit him out unharmed? Never heard of it being tested, but doesnt seem that hard to specualate; have seen some wierd things, but that one has always in the thousands of years of the Judeo and the Judeo-Christian history been the hardest one for people to swallow. Can you believe that the fish story of Jonah could be true? That such a thing could happen even one in a billion.
Sure. I have no information as to why it couldn't happen so I'll certainly not discount the possibility. Although as a short logical leap I would call one in a billion a generous estimate.
I'd think you'd be surprised what we might have in common Val. Except maybe our sunday scheduals.
I really have a lot of trouble even trying to concieve of a world with no God; been thinking about it since that John Lennon song and still, it is very hard. I just dont understand how a proclaimed athiest makes life decisions any more than I dont understand why scientist dont really follow the science they proclaim; its all a mystery to me; but, I guess having a personal God isn't.
I guess for me it comes down to a few things. Mostly it comes down to creation not doing what it's supposed to. Granted different people have different ideas about what the universe is "supposed" to do--though that makes me even more dubious that there is a set purpose. I mean, if there was, wouldn't it be pretty clear?
We're pretty much alone, on the one planet where life didn't abort in the observable universe, our continued existance precarious in the extreme. Our neighbors likely had life at one point, but conditions changed and everything died.
We ourselves are animal, not created vessels of spirit as it seems we should be. We sweat and poop and periodically malfunction--losing our memories or going on shooting sprees. There are animals around that are obviously related to us. We have tailbones and vestigal fingers on our feet. Our bipedalism creates back problems and exposes our most vulnerable parts to direct attack by predators. Guys have nipples. We feel unfinished, like the product of an ungoing process rather than a perfect creation.
It turns out we're not even self-contained creatures. We're colonies of cells organized into tissues and systems under the relative tyranny of our central nervous system. What's the role of a soul, when your body isn't even a well defined thing? You can take those cells and culture them, you can even get heart cells to beat together on their own. You can remove a limb and keep it alive. With the right equipment you can even hook up the nerves and get it to move. So where is the soul? It seems to be a relic of cavemen poking their dead friend with sticks to see why he doesn't get up.
Its questions like these that plagued me as a believer, and eventually lead to my leaving religion. It just falls apart when you examine it closely. I'm a lot more comfortable in a universe that makes sense.
Erian, I'd just like to say that I enjoy reading your posts. You obviously have a gift of expression that allows you to communicate with clarity and wisdom.
I admit that my opinion of your abilities is affected by the apparent similarities in our beliefs but nonetheless I think it's fairly obvious that you have represented your faith here on these messageboards with intelligence and diplomacy. You have my respect.
Erian, I'd just like to say that I enjoy reading your posts. You obviously have a gift of expression that allows you to communicate with clarity and wisdom.
I admit that my opinion of your abilities is affected by the apparent similarities in our beliefs but nonetheless I think it's fairly obvious that you have represented your faith here on these messageboards with intelligence and diplomacy. You have my respect.
Just wanted to chime in that, for what it's worth, great respect for Erian is not limited to Christians.
Grimcleaver,
I'm glad to read that the universe makes sense to you because I've been dying to ask someone who thinks so various questions. Seriously.
Some of the examples you give I see as further evidence that a supreme being must have a hand in all this. It's the illogical aspects of life (or, more accurately, the things I for one perceive as illogical) that defy the "logic" of evolution or chance. I'm not meaning to imply that God is at all illogical - only that there are things that I can best explain as the whim of the Almighty.
Let's talk, for example, about nipples on male mammals. What is the evolutionary reasoning for that? Not just humans, mind you, but all male mammals developed non-functional mammaries? While we're talking about it, why do women have breasts? Sometimes quite large ones. The nipple is the only part that really matters. What's the point of all this extra baggage?
If humans are more highly evolved apes then why can an ape tear a human a new one any day of the week? Where is my fur? I'm the only "animal" on the planet that has almost no defenses against the elements. Where are my fangs and claws? Retractable ones would be nice so I could do fine motor-stuff with my delicate fingertips and then flip them out to defend myself. My highly-evolved brain might allow me to fashion tools and weapons - it has to -I'm gonna need them to defend me against even the smallest creature - rats, rabid weasels, you name it; let alone if a large predator comes along.
Humans have one of the longest gestation periods for a creature our size. Human babies are helpless ten times longer than any other creature - including apes. What is the evolutionary benefit to that?
Over 70% of the earth is covered in sea water but we highly evolved humans can't drink it, can't breathe it and though born with the instinct to hold out breath when submerged we still have to learn to swim.
Highly evolved brains but no where near fast for a predator. Our eyesight sucks, our hearing not nearly as refined as other animals. We can't track by smell (not well anyway) nor see a blessed thing in the dark.
If this is the top of the evolutionary chain then I want my money back - humans must work hard just to survive, we're susceptable to hundreds more diseases and ailments, we don't have the best senses or abilities (outside of thought processes). We can't live unaided almost anywhere in the world.
I've got hundreds more questions but let's just start there. Some might call it a lame defense, but I find it more logical that God made us the way we are (or animals the way they are) just because it was pleasing to Him. If we look and behave the way we do because of chance - boy, did evolution screw us over!
Natural selection might provide some solution to the large breast quandry, because you could breed a dog to have ample bosomage if you were really inclined to do so. Poor things wouldn't be much good at fetch though. What a pitiful sight that would be.
Then again, large breasts may actually suggest divine planning. I think I'm changing my vote to agnostic.
I don't think evolution screwed us over. We rule the planet with an arrogantly merciless grip and it isn't too often us humans get torn apart by chimps or are required to use panther-like nightvision to hunt down a box of Kelloggs. We've remade the world to our own specifications. Concrete horizons.
Let me also jump on the Erian Respect Express.
Natural selection might provide some solution to the large breast quandry, because you could breed a dog to have ample bosomage if you were really inclined to do so. Poor things wouldn't be much good at fetch though. What a sight.
Then again, large breasts may actually be proof of a divine being. I think I'm changing my vote to agnostic.
Natural selection is actual the answer to pretty much all of Lady Aurora's questions.
Sociologists figure that the reason women have larger breasts is because we as humans started walking upright. When we were on all fours, the female of the species presented their backsides to potential mates. When we started walking upright (better to see predators coming above the high grasses of the savanna) that presentation was gone. But the male of the species still was looking for something "pleasing" to look at (in an "who is gonna give me the best offspring" sort of way) so females with larger breasts were "selected" (naturally).
In fact we are the "top of the evolutionary chain" not because of our strength, or our speed, or anything physical. Its because of our brains. We are the only species able to adapt any environment to make it livable. How many panthers live at the south pole, and how many penguins on the equator? Yet humans live in both places. Its our brains that makes us the top of the evolutionary chain. Sure it'd be cool to be the fastest, strongest, meanest creatures on the planet. But a long time ago, our ancestors saw brains as better than brawn. And you know what? They were right.
Greg
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Then again, large breasts may actually be proof of a divine being. I think I'm changing my vote to agnostic.
Natural selection is actual the answer to pretty much all of Lady Aurora's questions.
So is common sense.
A super clawed, ultra-night vision, aqua-human would not be an evolutionary triumph. Evolution does not equal the ultra-bestest creatures ever. Humans have adequate resources without resorting to underwater exploration (and, to be fair, there are already highly intelligent creatures in that environment with whom humans would have had to compete). The reason humans take so long to mature is because natural selection has favored a larger brain, and a larger brain takes a long time to develop. In fact, all the questions posed are answered in the most elementary evolution text book. Heck, wikipedia probably covers most of these questions.
I'd trade in brains for working wings any day of the week.
Ever see the movie Birdy with Matthew Modine and Nicholas Cage? Loved it.
I'd trade in brains for working wings any day of the week.
Actually, if you believe the Darwin Awards, there are people who trade in their brains every year and get very little in return...
Greg
|
|
Never saw Birdy.
Okay "I'd trade brains for the ability to fly under my own power much as eagles do," Mr. Intelligent Britches. ;)
I think it's a mistake to consider Homo Sapiens the be all and end all of evolution. Sharks have us beat by a looooong time, and are only now going to possibly pay the ultimate price for being "scary to homo sapiens." Roaches will never go extinct.
I think it's a mistake to consider Homo Sapiens the be all and end all of evolution. Sharks have us beat by a looooong time, and are only now going to possibly pay the ultimate price for being "scary to homo sapiens." Roaches will never go extinct.
Nobody said we are the "be-all and end-all". Not by a long shot. We are still pretty damn flawed creatures, IMHO. But lets put it this way, if the world were going to explode (a la Krypton-style natural disaster), which species on the planet has the most likelihood of building a spaceship, getting off this rock, and finding a new home to repopulate the species?
We aren't the best that there will ever be, but we got what it takes to make it the farthest.
(And, yes, I am aware of the "nuclear weapons" irony about blowing ourselves to kingdom-come, but that is actually a measure of our intelligence. Just not of our wisdom.)
Greg
I'm glad to read that the universe makes sense to you because I've been dying to ask someone who thinks so various questions. Seriously.
Rather than a message-board conversation, it might be instructive to take a certified course in evolutionary biology somewhere. Even if you just "audit" it, or sit in, you'll get a better view than people can likely present in this kind of a limited forum. Of course, for this bit I mean at a university known for science and engineering, not one known for theology.
You're first mistake is assuming humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We're just one branch.
Human babies are helpless ten times longer than any other creature - including apes. What is the evolutionary benefit to that?
We traded instant instict for the ability to learn and adapt.
Over 70% of the earth is covered in sea water but we highly evolved humans can't drink it, can't breathe it and though born with the instinct to hold out breath when submerged we still have to learn to swim.
You can't make fire underwater. Save one notable exception, every human culture has relied on fire, or its modern equivalent electricity. There's nothing for humans in the water.
Highly evolved brains but no where near fast for a predator.
It's that instinct versus intellect thing again.
humans must work hard just to survive, we're susceptable to hundreds more diseases and ailments, we don't have the best senses or abilities (outside of thought processes). We can't live unaided almost anywhere in the world.
And this is different from any other organism (included said diseases) how?
Some might call it a lame defense, but I find it more logical that God made us the way we are (or animals the way they are) just because it was pleasing to Him.
And we should worship this joker?
If we look and behave the way we do because of chance - boy, did evolution screw us over!
I'm a choa-determinist; for me chance doesn't enter into it. Evolution can't give you everything. Going back to gaming as an example, no amount of tinkering will ever give you a universal system, because different genres have different paradigms. A grim-n-gritty combat system will not work for a light-hearted comedy game. Ditto organisms. Each ecological niche has its own paradigm. What works for a squid, doesn't work for a person. There is no pinnacle of evolution, just like there is no one perfect game system. Each bloodline adapts to its environment, just like each game revision adapts to its audience.
PS Like a rules-heavy game system, an organism designed for every function and every environment would keel over from the weight of its extraneous organs.
You're first mistake is assuming humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We're just one branch.
While it is true that we are just one branch (and I know that I'm going to catch hell for this one) but I happen to think that, on this rock, we are the "pinnacle of evolution".
We are at the top of the food chain. Who are our predators? Which other species on this planet relies on humans for their sustenance? (Aside from cats and dogs, that is :-)
We are the only species that can adapt to any climate - hell we are living in outer space for crying out loud! Now, I know that we have a long way to go as a species, but we're the only species on this planet capable of doing things like what we are doing now on this board. Communicating, sharing ideas, without sound, over vast distances, electronically, in a "virtual" environment. One we created.
Ok, enough rah-rah for the home team. We're a screwed up lot, us humans. We do nasty things to each other, and to the other species on this planet. But we are also capable of recognising those problems and trying to do something about them.
We are far from perfect. But at least we can imagine perfection and someday maybe hope to acheive it.
There's far too much amazing stuff (poetry, music, achitecture, technology) to ignore. We humans are capable of amazing heights. We just happen to chose the gutter a few too many times for my tastes.
Greg
No, natural selection doesn't answer all those questions because at the moment of supposed evolution all the technology we enjoy today was still millenia away. Weapons, clothing, architecture weren't just lying around waiting for some slightly more sophisticated ape to pick up. How did the ape with less hair have some immediate advantage over the ones fully furred?
I'm a more evolved ape because I can stand straighter and see over those grasses? Yes, but now I've got the whole mating problem, exposure of my vital organs, slower pace, etc.,etc. Or did humans just fully evolve all at once - Zip, Bang! I hope so, because taller and smarter still equals dead without a whole lot of related factors being solved.
I'm sorry but however many years ago when humans supposedly evolved I doubt the survival mechanism or natural selection deciding factor was if we could break free from earth's gravity and thereby evade planetary catastrophy thousands of years later.
Natural selection works because one mutated gene produces a slightly different characteristic in one single organism that allows that particular organism to survive better than its companions. Longer, healthier life means more opportunities to produce offspring that also carry said mutated gene until that mutation becomes the norm and the entire population is now better adapted for longer and healthier life. There are thousands of differences between us and apes that represent characteristics that, at least initially, would be more apt to see said mutated organism die a hideous death rather than enjoy a longer, healthier life in comparison to his ape bretheren.
Which begs the question, if we evolved from apes through natural selection then why are there still apes around? Didn't get the memo, I guess. That goes double for single-celled organisms - why are these guys still around if they're at the bottom of the evolutionary web. And if they're still around because they're fine the way they are, in their simple form, then its counterintuitive that natural selection was responsible for more complex creatures.
And Kirth, thank you kindly for your suggestion but in fact my degrees are in biology and chemistry. I've heard more than my share of evolutionary experts. I don't deny that natural selection exists nor that said selection doesn't account for a host of adaptations in a variety of creatures. That's not evolution. One creature morphing into another completely new species - that's evolution. The continuous and total disregard for the laws of physics (so much so that they would lose their status as "laws") is evolution. I admit that the belief in creation also breaks the laws of physics - but only once - I only have to believe that God always existed, that He created the laws of nature and set things in motion. Before whatever caused the Big Bang to begin with, where did the elements to which life began come from? Those nebulous space gases or whatnot. Have they always existed? How does that work? So now there's elements that have always existed and energy from unknown origins and some kind of chemical reaction that is caused by unknown forces. Okay, after all that - BANG! But still we reject the laws of nature because rather than a progression from order to chaos (the "natural order of things") we have chaos organizing itself into incredibly complex order. There goes that pesky law again. But since evolution is an ongoing process over millions of years this same order from chaos keeps happening over and over. That's evolution. And that's supposed to be more believable and logical than religious faith? And, though my detractors obviously strenuously disagree, I just find the whole concept ridiculous.
No, natural selection doesn't answer all those questions because at the moment of supposed evolution all the technology we enjoy today was still millenia away.
I think you missed my point. Natural selection wasn't about getting us here. The goal of natural selection has always been "look around, and take what's best". My point was that all of those millions of evolutionary steps led us up to this point. For whatever reason, we got the fast track on the big brain train, and our species was the one that came out on top. It's what we do with that now, that's important.
I'm sorry but however many years ago when humans supposedly evolved I doubt the survival mechanism or natural selection deciding factor was if we could break free from earth's gravity and thereby evade planetary catastrophy thousands of years later.
Your are absolutely right. Natural selection millions of years ago was not about saving the human species from extinction from an asteroid. But at one point, it was about saving the human species from freezing death when the mutation amounted to someone discovering fire. Natural selection is small steps. Not big ones. But a million small steps can take you a long way.
Which begs the question, if we evolved from apes through natural selection then why are there still apes around?
Because they found a different way to survive. We got lucky, no doubt about it. But all the species on this planet show that there is more than one way to survive. For the cheeta, its speed. For the chameleon, its camouflage. For us, its brains. It just turns out that we are able to use our brains for more than just eluding predators or finding food. We get to do a whole lot of stuff with our big heads.
And that's supposed to be more believable and logical than religious faith? And, though my detractors obviously strenuously disagree, I just find the whole concept ridiculous.
Just to be clear, I was never trying to pass judgement on your beliefs. I was only addressing the question of natural selection itself. There are religious doctrines in this world that don't deny evolution. One does not necessarily preclude the other. But there is a significant amount of evidence for natural selection. So if someone wants it to be religion or evolution, one has to have a lot of info to back up their claim. I personally think that there is room for both in the discussion, and one doesn't have to say "evolution or religion".
Greg
I've recently come to believe that evolution is not what it appears - it is not about the survival of each particular species in a giant contest, it is about survival of Life as a whole. Our idea that it is some sort of a fight for supremacy to see which species is "the best" is small-minded and humanocentric.
Humans have intelligence so that we can fear things. We understand the ramifications of terrible catastrophes for ourselves, those we love, and all humans and animals, to the extent where we fear death so much that we can imagine it, almost taste it. So we look into the future and try to prevent and limit natural disasters, to the accidental benefit of the entire biosphere of earth as a whole.
Other animals do not do this. They may recognize when they or (in some species) their children are in immediate danger, and try to avoid it, but they don't seem to carry the gloomy knowledge that we will all die one day and that this is a thing we should actively resist. They don't face existential crises the way humans do, and I think it is that crisis which drives us to calculate odds, make sacrifices, and fight to the bitter end the way we do. Along the way we use other animals and resources, or we create religions to blunt our fear, but always at the back of our minds is our attempt to delay the inevitable. I think that in our doomed attempts to protect ourselves from harm we incidentally protect the whole earth along the way.
I think every creature in the biosphere has evolved to fill a particular niche, not to "win" evolution. Each niche, each organism is an expression of Life as a whole. I think we evolved to be the species that is most efficient at surviving natural disasters, and we drag the others along with us because that is the job we unwittingly have. In a way we DID evolve to evade that asteroid, or whatever. Evolution is bigger than any individual species. Earth is like an ant's nest and we humans are the soldier ants. Life itself is the queen, the one important thing being carried along by the stream of evolution. I think there is only one thing really in the universe, and that is Life. Everything else is merely it's absence.
I hope that made sense. Just my personal theory on Life, evolution, and what it's all about.
PS Heathy - in order for the cockroaches to escape the asteroid there have to be humans to build a ship for them to stow away on...
Thank you, GregH, for your thoughts. While I don't agree, you've stated your case in a clear and logical manner.
My point was that natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. No matter how many small steps you take there is a point when you are a completely different species. You believe that's entirely possible, I do not. And I still don't think that explains why the unevolved creature would still exist - many tiny but time-consuming steps away from the evolved creature.
Kahoolin, you make an interesting point. Again, I don't agree necessarily but at least you have a philosophy to support your beliefs. Thanks for sharing it. It's very interesting.
Thank you, GregH, for your thoughts. While I don't agree, you've stated your case in a clear and logical manner.
Thanks to you to. This takes me back to my college days when Friday evenings were invariably spent at the local tavern, drinking beer, and arguing over ideas like this. :-)
My point was that natural selection and evolution are not the same thing.
I agree with your statement, but probably not with the idea behind it. Evolution is the name given the overall process. Natural Selection is how it was implemented.
No matter how many small steps you take there is a point when you are a completely different species. You believe that's entirely possible, I do not.
Well, to be fair, I wouldn't characterise my view as a "belief". The way I look at it is this. The fossil records show that, at one time, millions of years ago, there was nothing but single-celled organisms on this planet. Over the course of the intervening years, (again, from the fossil records) there is a clear progression of developing species, some very similar to others, yet just different enough that they aren't the same. It got to the point where today, there are thousands of different species of plants and animals on this planet, when at one time there was not.
There are really only two ways this could have happened. Either, over the course of millions of years, the native species on this planet slowly changed (evolved, if you will) in many different ways, and in many different directions, so that we now have the menagerie we have today.
The other possible solution is that over the course of millions of years, new species instantly came into being, with no physical mechanism, they just were there. Now one can believe that, but there is absolutely no physical evidence that this happened. We have never seen a new species appear before our eyes where there previously was nothing. For me, that rules that option out. So we're only left with option one.
And I still don't think that explains why the unevolved creature would still exist - many tiny but time-consuming steps away from the evolved creature.
I think that's because you're assuming that mutations that cause changes always mean the original species is non-viable. That's not the case at all. A bacteria which mutates such that it can subdivide and create a two-celled organism doesn't necessarily mean that the first, original one-celled bacteria (say, it's "relatives") are doomed to extinction. It could keep on living just fine. But this new mutation may make the new bacteria able to live in a different environment (or create some other beneficial "improvement"). So we have two new types of creatures, where there was previously one. Natural selection improves, but doesn't create obsolescence.
And remember, the mutations which cause these changes are largely random. So some mutations will actually create new creatures which are less favourable. But natural selection means that these, unfavourable options will die out. It's actually more likely that a mutation will result in extinction than no change at all (because the parent had to survive to create the offspring in the first place).
Greg
|
I hate throwing in my 2 cents here but it looks like you guys are fighting about whether we evolved or were created by god. Just FYI I have heard that the Catholic Church has decided that evolution has too many facts backing it so has decided to incorporate evolution as God's way of "creating" us instead of the "POOF", hello Adam, Creation. The Church is also taking a more flexible stance on the whole "God made everything in seven days" thing by suggesting that "days" as seen through an immortal, all-knowing, all-seeing power could be construed as 100s of thousands of years each or even millions of years each. So by this reckoning if on a certain "day" god created man and molded him is His image the creating and molding may have taken several 100,000 or even millions of years of "molding" (sounds like evolution to me). If Genesis was written by someone who was told by the voice of God what had happened I would think that God may have dumbed-down the facts so we could absorb them better with our limited intellect (comparatively). Kinda like telling a child how a certain process works (think photosynthesis or something similar and how much vastly overwhelming science you would need to leave out to make a 5 year old understand a bit.)
Just some stuff I read and opinions of mine. Hope I contributed well.
* edit * I like this theory because it allows everyone to keep their personal belief systems in place.
FH
The continuous and total disregard for the laws of physics (so much so that they would lose their status as "laws") is evolution.
Only if you're quoting the much-rebuked Discovery Institute pseudodcience. I'd like to believe in magic divine creation, but the evidence suggests otherwise. As was pointed out, that evidence convincved the Pope, too. Only in the U.S. is there an organization whose sole purpose is to attempt to discredit science because the members fear any threat to their own fundamental brand of Christianity.
You're first mistake is assuming humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We're just one branch.While it is true that we are just one branch (and I know that I'm going to catch hell for this one) but I happen to think that, on this rock, we are the "pinnacle of evolution".
We are at the top of the food chain. Who are our predators? Which other species on this planet relies on humans for their sustenance? (Aside from cats and dogs, that is :-)
Greg
Our viral an bacterial masters that use as food, habitats, breeders, and waste disposal systems - lay us low, control our weight, etc.
And then there is an argument for agricultural crops - do we cultivate them to serve our needs - or do they cultivate us to spread their seed and protect them from rival species even rival strains of the same species.
Point is much of all of these arguments is hugely dependant on perspective - and time frames.
I hate throwing in my 2 cents here but it looks like you guys are fighting about whether we evolved or were created by god. Just FYI I have heard that the Catholic Church has decided that evolution has too many facts backing it so has decided to incorporate evolution as God's way of "creating" us instead of the "POOF", hello Adam, Creation.
Actually, I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools, and in high school I was taught that evolution was a fact by my biology teacher. Now this was over 20 years ago (god I'm old...) so this isn't anything new.
The Church is also taking a more flexible stance on the whole "God made everything in seven days" thing by suggesting that "days" as seen through an immortal, all-knowing, all-seeing power could be construed as 100s of thousands of years each or even millions of years each.
Maybe I went to an extremely progressive high school, but the nuns taught us that Genesis was not literal fact. But, actually an allegory meant to get a point across ("God created the Universe! It's not important how!").
If Genesis was written by someone who was told by the voice of God what had happened I would think that God may have dumbed-down the facts so we could absorb them better with our limited intellect (comparatively). Kinda like telling a child how a certain process works (think photosynthesis or something similar and how much vastly overwhelming science you would need to leave out to make a 5 year old understand a bit.)
Or just like any other creation myth, be it Inuit, Native American, Aztec, etc. Just another way for humans to try and figure out why we are here, with their limited vocabulary and scientific knowledge at the time.
Again, not saying that God (or "a god") isn't out there somewhere, just that the Judeo/Christian creation story is just one of many out there.
Greg
We are at the top of the food chain. Who are our predators? Which other species on this planet relies on humans for their sustenance? (Aside from cats and dogs, that is :-)
Greg
Our viral an bacterial masters that use as food, habitats, breeders, and waste disposal systems - lay us low, control our weight, etc.
Fair enough. Although, in a lot of cases, I think it's technically a "symbiotic relationship" for many of these. However, you have a good point on the virus issue (at least the ones that do kill us). I have to go away and think about that one...
However, we have been capable in the past of finding ways to deal with them. But then they mutate. Seems like a pretty even fight.
And then there is an argument for agricultural crops - do we cultivate them to serve our needs - or do they cultivate us to spread their seed and protect them from rival species even rival strains of the same species.
That's an interesting perspective. Never thought of it that way. Of course, we introduce free will into the equation (we decide to cultivate and hybridize, whereas they are at the mercy of our whims). But an interesting idea, nonethess. Are we just over-acheiving bees to them?
Greg
I don't know that it helps but my understanding of the theory of evolution, is that it is well still evolving - for example the changes in species are not a smooth progression but rather occur in fits and starts with long periods of limited or no change - I am no expert but I have read that.
Also I think the conversation, and the simplified language used with students is that evolution is a "survival" mechanism - my understanding is that evolution is about incremental in advantages in exploiting niches. This difference in defination (to my reading - I'm not a biologist) means that the original species does not need to die out or that it even at risk - but that a new niche (or strategy) can be exploited.
For what its worth - I beleive in evolution (though I don't beleive we understand it as perfectly as we pretend. And I believe in god. From my view life (and all other aspects of the universe) are the medium god the artist works in - evolution is the tool he uses to manipulate life - to and ultimate design, or simply because he loves variety I couldn't say. I would like to think that we are all prototypes and drafts of future wonders. I beleive in evolution, but evolution with an intelligence behind it - but the intelligence of an artist rather than that of a cost accountant (no offense) striving purely for what is most efficient.
|
|
Or just like any other creation myth, be it Inuit, Native American, Aztec, etc. Just another way for humans to try and figure out why we are here, with their limited vocabulary and scientific knowledge at the time.Again, not saying that God (or "a god") isn't out there somewhere, just that the Judeo/Christian creation story is just one of many out there.
Greg
Which falls in perfectly with my thoughts that all religion spring from a central source and over tens of thousands of years of man's misinterpretation and customization has changed into the different beliefs that are currently around now. I am Catholic but do not believe everything I am fed. The idea that my God is better than the Jewish version of God or the Muslim God or Krishna or whatever isn't one I even entertain. I believe they are all the same, but that man has altered their appearance and the means to worship them to fit their own culture and lifestyles. That is why if I tell the Hindu practicer down at my local liquor store that his sick child is in my prayers I don't feel like I am trying to uproot his belief or force a conversion to my "style" of religion.
Acceptance of all who lead a goodly lifestyle is my way of thinking regardless of what version of God you may subscribe to.FH
At the risk of offending the countless Catholics out there, the vascilations of the Catholic church have absolutely no correlation to "evidence" that proves/disproves the Bible's account of creation.
I agree, at least on this one point, with some of the previous posters that the various religions are largely based on central precepts that are then developed by different groups according to wildly variant interpretations. God is infallible. His Word is infallible. Humans are terribly fallible (including the Pope, despite his protestations to the contrary). I am certainly willing to admit that it's entirely possible that my ultra-literal interpretation of scriptures might be way off base. Might God have used evolution; could the days be instead millions of years? Possibly. I don't personally agree with that interpretation but I don't have any problem with those who do. We can agree to disagree.
GregH, I think I understand what you're saying about natural selection not requiring the non-evolved creature to die/go extinct. I respectfully disagree. However much people might like to avoid the concept of some kind of competition; when it's all boiled down natural selection *is* survival of the fittest. Survival being a key word.
Take the classic example in high school textbooks, the short-necked giraffe. Here is the picture of the happy short-necked giraffe family. They seem to be doing quite fine, maintaining their population without apparent trouble. Then along comes the mutant giraffe with the slightly longer neck. Let me just inject here that the giraffe didn't suddenly develop scales or feathers or something completely uncharacteristic - just one body part was slightly longer than usual. So our long-necked newcomer can reach just that much higher in the tree than all the short-necked giraffes. He can see danger coming that much better and his new trouble of bending down to get a drink is relatively easy to overcome with a simple behavioral adjustment. This spreading of the front legs in an awkward stance, of course, is a behavior he would have to adapt as soon as he is weaned or die of dehydration. He adjusts properly and prospers. Maybe a drought occurs or maybe there are just too many animals that can reach the lower branches versus the upper branches but our long-necked friend has a definite and IMMEDIATE benefit over his short-necked family. Natural selection occurs and the short-necked giraffes die out in favor of the superior long-necked giraffes. Now why did the short-necked giraffes die when they were doing just fine before Mr. Longneck showed up? Well, because that's what natural selection is all about. The fittest, the best, eventually "breed out" the weaker version of said organism. Now maybe, in scenes we're not privy to, a shorter necked giraffe was born one day. So why didn't the short necks take back over? Well, because shorter necks don't serve the giraffe as well as long necks. Therefore, we now enjoy long-necked giraffes instead of short necked ones.
Another textbook example: the speckled moth in industrial England. A certain species of moth's survival is reliant on its ability to camoflage itself from predatory birds. The light grey, brown-speckled moth is doing fine until the Industrial Revolution hits and the moth's surroundings are suddenly blackened by soot and pollution. Suddenly, only the fortunate moth whose colorings are slightly darker has a chance. The lighter colored moths are easy pickings. Light colored moths die in droves, dark colored moths live and reproduce other dark-colored offspring. This is observable over just a few years - light colored speckled moths are gone, new darker moths (of the same species) are here. Time goes by. Then technology advances and pollution is brought under control, suddenly dark colored moths are in jeopardy. Now that the environment is returned to its light-colored origins, the dark colored moth sticks out like a sore thumb. Birds are feasting on "dark" meat and the odd light-colored moth can suddenly live the carefree life. Within just a couple years there are no dark colored moths and all the moths are back to their original lighter coloring. Yet there is almost no overlap when both light and dark colored moths exist (a matter of years or just months). That's natural selection at work. Only one shade is superior at any given time, so only one moth variation exists at one time.
Back to the argument about religion versus science, I agree that sadly the church (and by church I mean the universal Christian church) has often chosen an adversarial stance in response to science. A specific denomination of the church will often promote its own human interpretations of scripture as the only real truth and attack anything it views as a threat to its own ideals. I think this is really unfortunate. Case in point, I tutored my home-schooled nephew in Biology and Chemistry. After graduation, he attended a christian college in Canada. I asked him how he was doing in his college level science courses and he told me that there were no science classes offered at the college. This kinda ticked me off to think of people choosing ignorance (by avoiding learning anything about the world around them) rather than take the chance of having to defend their beliefs. This kind of thing certainly implies that Christians "know" they're wrong and choose to attack or avoid science rather than understand it. This does a terrible disservice to God, I think, since He's the one who created the world - why shouldn't Christians want to understand it? Science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive, though sadly many Christians act as if they are.
One does not have to ignore logic to have faith. There's room for both. Scientific investigation is a process rife with error. So is scripture interpretation. Both sides have moments where you have to say "it just is" and take a chance that later experiments might cause you to reevaluate the situation.
At the risk of offending the countless Catholics out there, the vascilations of the Catholic church have absolutely no correlation to "evidence" that proves/disproves the Bible's account of creation.
No risk of offending me. As a "former" Catholic, I probably have more problems with the Church and the Pope than you do. (Don't get me started on the travesty that is the Church's stand on birth control in developing countries.) (edit: removed nasty comment to avoid offending people.)
GregH, I think I understand what you're saying about natural selection not requiring the non-evolved creature to die/go extinct. I respectfully disagree. However much people might like to avoid the concept of some kind of competition; when it's all boiled down natural selection *is* survival of the fittest. Survival being a key word.
Lady Aurora, I think you and I are a lot closer on this topic that either of us think. Survival of the fittest definitely does have a part to play in the history of life on this planet. In many cases changes had to occur or species would have just died out. But some changes did occur that, while an improvement, were not necessary for survival (humans vs apes).
Mutations aren't prophetic. They don't know when they are needed. They just happen. Sometimes they prevent extinction, and sometimes they don't. (I'm sure the dinosaurs would've liked some nifty mutation that allowed them to survive their extinction.) In many ways, it was/is a crap shoot. Quite frankly, I think the existence of intelligent life on Earth was not pre-ordained. And in fact, exists pretty much by chance. If that asteroid hadn't hit the Yucatan all those many millions of years ago, and gotten rid of most of the dinosaurs, I really don't think we'd be here today having this conversation.
Greg
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Only one shade is superior at any given time, so only one moth variation exists at one time.
Incorrect. The white moths that did not dwell in areas contaminated by pollution continued to thrive. Different environments breed different adaptations. The apes that went to the plains became humans, the apes that stayed in the jungles stayed apes. The two different environments shaped two different species.
If humans are fallible, and humans wrote (or at the very least, translated) the bible, how is the bible not fallible? There are multiple versions of the book, how did you determine which one was literally true and which ones contained inaccuracies?
A bigger mystery to me than why apes aren't evolving is why god doesn't put on any big light shows anymore. Where are the burning bushes, the parted seas, the Voice from on high. 3/4 of the world is non-believers, where's the divine wrath? Seems to me that if you are bothered by a lack of evidence of evolution in modern times, you should be just as bothered by the lack of evidence of divine action in modern times.
Incorrect. The white moths that did not dwell in areas contaminated by pollution continued to thrive. Different environments breed different adaptations.
That was the very point I was trying to make in an earlier post
The apes that went to the plains became humans, the apes that stayed in the jungles stayed apes. The two different environments shaped two different species.
Actually thats not correct, at least according the theory of evolution as I understand it - humans did not evolve from apes - both lines evolved from a common ancestor which is not the same thing. And I think an important distinction.
If humans are fallible, and humans wrote (or at the very least, translated) the bible, how is the bible not fallible? There are multiple versions of the book, how did you determine which one was literally true and which ones contained inaccuracies?
This is an even greater issue when one considers that the holy books of both christianity and judaism were created by committees editing selections from collections of scriptures known to religious scholars at the time and compiling them into a more or less coherent book - nominated as the official book of each faith. The stories themselves were generally written down well after the events described and often it seems by other than those than the participants in those events - with the probability that they were recorded second or third hand artistic licence changing details each time. Oddly these councils occured for both religions at roughly the same time.
I don't pretend to know the thought processes, agendas, or criteria of the men on those councils - but I think that even then the criteria for scholars was the development of character, the lessons of faith, the manner in which we treat each other - for these reasons among others I think the bible is a poor biology text - the stories are chosen to be instruction as to life, behavior, and the role of religion in life - not husbandry, farming, chemistry, or paleoarcheology. My belief is that the themes of these stories remain in tact, relevant, and instructional. It seems reckless to me to believe that the editing decisions of religious scholars hundreds of years ago - were better capable of identifying and capturing from a collection of religious texts hundreds years older still - written by men who knew little biology and less chemistry the true and accurate account of the origin and subsequent development of life on the planet.
A bigger mystery to me than why apes aren't evolving.
I think they are - those who have chosen and to dwell in the most remote and inaccessible regions - have the best opportunity to survive. The threat they face is encroachment by a more aggressive species - by no means a new threat - humans are just better at it. The other thing to remember is time frames - measured in generations not years - the number of generations the great apes have had to respond to this newest threat man is miniscule - not a fair assesment of the process of evolution (at least as I was taught).
is why god doesn't put on any big light shows anymore. Where are the burning bushes, the parted seas, the Voice from on high.
The nature of storytelling especially to make a point is exaggeration - did Jesus turn water into wine or was the force of his personality such that those present were intoxicated and revelled as if drinking wine - a scribe could easily take such a liberty. Healing? There are faith healers today. Miraculous events. Most importantly though I would like to think that we have evolved outr thinking has evolved - the need for miracles diminished. Though not the need for faith. Faith is a source of character and moral strength - something we desperately need (IMO). But ironically, miracles diminish faith - they may enhance belief, but not faith. An interesting topic for discussion - but I am too poor a typist.
3/4 of the world is non-believers, where's the divine wrath?
Where did you get that most people believe in some sort of higher power - when you add christians, jews, and moslems together you have far more than 1/4 believing in the same god and mjuch of the same philosophy - and even practice.
The days of wrath are presented as over - no commitment - plenty of room for interpretation - and as I said before I am no scholar - but the god of the New Testement - tells a story of inclusion (look at who Jesus hung out with and there roles in society at the time - prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, fisherman), of mercy and of a personal relationship with god as source of strength. At least that the christianity I practice.
Though plenty of religions have taken different tacks on the words - sometimes it hard to beleive they've even read them.