Questions about creationism vs. evolution

[joelr]

Originally Posted by servantofone

And where do you get that figure and where is it derived from? Even a resource would be nice.

Well mutations occur about 1 in 10^8 (one hundred million) bases. But I don't think there is a mathematical model of what to expect DNA to do from any given point. Starting with pre cell life up to current day life forms we can only observe what HAS happened and how long did it take (3.8 billion years).

The thing in question is what is the probability of simple life forming. Recent studies in RNA have shown the probability to be reasonable and creationist probability equations to be mis-leading.
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

More recently in science news, RNA has been found that replicates itself repeatedly.
Scripps scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely | Eureka! Science News


I find the Universe appears to be a created structure but the emergence of life on Earth will likely be fully explained by natural process.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui in some other thread

Information is not arithmetic. You cannot count bits of information and add them all up into a total sum. Similarly, you cannot subtract information from a whole such that there is less information.

Good job Michael. I was looking for an example to illustrate this idea and you put it very clearly before I could!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by aelle

This is what I mean by the lack of purpose of the evolutionary process: species are not progressing towards an ideal state.

Who said they were? But, surely they evolve to be more 'capable' (for want of a better term) of surviving in a particular environment.

E.g. if a species without fur is exposed to a climate which is gradually getting colder, then the species that grows fur will survive, and the ones that don't will die out. Every organism has an innate drive to live. That is its purpose.

Why do you think a dog seeks the shade when it gets too hot? It's not a random action. It has a purpose to it.

Why would a dog dive into water to save someone's life? Is that just a random, genetic mutation, or is it possible that something else could be at work - something outside of the blinkered, scientific, dissecting, microsope poring, laboratory paradigm?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

So God tells us all this stuff but expects us to realize that some of it isn't true!? Why would he say it at all then, and confuse us on purpose?

Why does evil exist, if God wants us all to be good? Why does pain exist, if God heals all wounds? Why do we have free will, if God wants us to make the right choice?

Christians have carried the burden of these questions for centuries. There is little enough difference, in spirit (to use Jesus' words), between these questions and yours. Not just Christianity, of course: Cicero said of astrology, "But now on my own initiative I put the following questions: Did all the Romans who fell at Cannae have the same horoscope? Yet all had one and the same end. Were all the men eminent for intellect and genius born under the same star? Was there ever a day when countless numbers were not born? And yet there never was another Homer." (Source)

Every belief system must be so challenged, and every believer must have her own answer.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I don't like seafood and I try not to eat pork only because it isn't very healthy, but I don't eat them or not just because of what the bible says...what does it matter to this discussion?

Because the Bible does command you in these matters. This is important: if you want to assert that the Bible is God's mandate in every chapter and every verse, then you need to follow it on every chapter and every verse.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I think mankind as a whole will never agree on what is true because some are people of faith and some are people of science and some try to blend the two.

Faith and science are not remotely incompatible. Asserting that they are shows that you don't understand either.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

As far as researching the subject matter, you can research your life away and still be unsure or still find information to validate your beliefs.

Yes. So why are you joining this debate? You said it was because you are human and you want to know where you came from, and so on. If you want to go by established belief systems, then go by them. Christianity is as fine a belief system as any, as long as you keep your wits about you, as you should with them all.

And as far as I'm concerned, there is no requirement in Christianity that the Bible must be the holy word of God. So if you choose to be a Christian who thinks evolution is fine and dandy, then fine. Don't get in the way of creationists unless they plan on time travelling back to stop Eve from eating that apple; that might be problematic. And if you choose to be a Christian who believes that Genesis as read is literally true, then fine. Don't get in the way of scientists who are only working with what they've figured out based on what's clearly God-given evidence for whatever reason. Evangelise to them and ask them to accept Jesus, if you like, but try to be nice, from their perspective, if they disagree with your views.

As for the debate, as I said from the beginning, so what?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Every organism has an innate drive to live. That is its purpose.

That, or all who did not have this drive died out.

Originally Posted by Cantando

E.g. if a species without fur is exposed to a climate which is gradually getting colder, then the species that grows fur will survive, and the ones that don't will die out.

But they don't purposefully grow fur because it's the best adaptation to the cold. Most will die, and if by chance some have a trait that is more suited to the cold, they'll mutliply. But if no individual has that trait, the species might just die out. And that trait may not be ideal at all - the optimist view on adaptation goes against the available evidence.
Think of the example of the genetic disease known as sickle cell anemia. It comes with a buttload of chronic ailments and sometimes lethal complications. Not a nice disease. However, it's become very common in malaria infected regions, as the difformed red blood cells don't carry the malaria parasite very well. Sickle cell patients live a sucky life, but at least it's long enough to procreate - longer than that of malaria patients.
Does that fit the theory of a benevolent higher power who'd grant adaptations of choice? Hardly. Does that fit the theory of evolution as understood today? Very much so.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by aelle

Does that fit the theory of a benevolent higher power who'd grant adaptations of choice?

Hey, that's not a theory. *ducks*

5 Things You Love That Are Also “Just a Theory” « neoSprockets

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hey, that's not a theory. *ducks*

5 Things You Love That Are Also “Just a Theory” « neoSprockets

I didn't want to get into the whole talk about the use of the word "theory" because as a scientist it makes me want to pull my hair out. Buuuuut in this case, Cantando's belief sounds quite close to Leibnitz's theory of optimism ( theory that has been proved wrong, but a theory nonetheless - for one thing it can be proved wrong, which is more than one can say for dogma), don't you think?

[aelle]

If you're going to doubt a scientific theory, at least pick one that's hotly debated... gravity, for example.

[Betrade]

What determines whether a mutation is good or desirable and why do they tend to remain when they're advantageous??

Good and bad, desirable and undesirable are relative things, so why do these favorable traits seem to remain and what ultimately makes that "decision"??

How often do negative traits thrive and if so, what makes them negative or undesirable??

If the answer is survival, then I go back to another point. If the universe is random, why does survival even matter and why is it desirable?? What advantage does life have over non life??

I mean, non life would be far more simple, Rocks don't need to eat, breather, etc. Wouldn't everything be far more simple if life didn't exist or have any NEED to survive?? At the most basic level, life and non life are still made of the same "stuff", so why is life advantageous over non life?? It seems to me that preserving life is far more difficult than something just existing as an inanimate object.

I know there are no real, concrete answers for these questions, but I'm still wondering about them.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Why does evil exist, if God wants us all to be good? Why does pain exist, if God heals all wounds? Why do we have free will, if God wants us to make the right choice?

The only logical answers to these questions are either 1) God isn't what you think he/she/it is, or, 2) God doesn't exist at all. Or I suppose you could also say that God is testing us, but, it doesn't feel right to me that God would like to play games and mess with our heads like that.

Because the Bible does command you in these matters. This is important: if you want to assert that the Bible is God's mandate in every chapter and every verse, then you need to follow it on every chapter and every verse.

See! Another rule! Telling us something else we can't do! How can it feel good (or make sense) to live by so many petty rules?! And these aren't the same moral rules like 'do not kill' and 'do not lie', but 'do not eat bacon'. Same goes for the "do not eat meat on Fridays during Lent." If you can eat meat from Saturday to Thursday, then eating other animals is ok in the eyes of God, and pork is meat. And Jesus ate fish too. I know there's that 'cloven hoof' rule but if killling is wrong then why would killing a different type of animal be ok?

Yes. So why are you joining this debate? You said it was because you are human and you want to know where you came from, and so on.

Why isn't that reason enough? I like to talk about this kinda stuff, it helps me see others' points of view and it sure beats talking about the latest celebrity scandal! Why are YOU joining this debate?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Betrade

Good and bad, desirable and undesirable are relative things, so why do these favorable traits seem to remain and what ultimately makes that "decision"??

How often do negative traits thrive and if so, what makes them negative or undesirable??

No trait is inherently good or bad, they are only suited or unsuited to survival.

Originally Posted by Betrade

If the answer is survival, then I go back to another point. If the universe is random, why does survival even matter and why is it desirable?? What advantage does life have over non life??

It does not. I realize it's a difficult shift of paradigm! We see individuals today who have a drive to reproduce and are efficient at surviving not because it matters, not because it is desirable, not because it was intended that way, but because all the individuals that did not have these characteristics died out.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by aelle

No trait is inherently good or bad, they are only suited or unsuited to survival.



It does not. I realize it's a difficult shift of paradigm! We see individuals today who have a drive to reproduce and are efficient at surviving not because it matters, not because it is desirable, not because it was intended that way, but because all the individuals that did not have these characteristics died out.

Well, that makes sense, but.......

If the universe is completely random, than when you boil it down, life is meaningless; if not even absurd.

What's the point of morality, love, honesty, or any other characteristics that we (most of us anyway) view as positive?? If all is random, then everything is relative, including things like truth and morality. Therefore, it's all completely pointless and meaningless; and it really doesn't matter if we kill one another 9which we do), or lie, cheat, steal, etc.

Why have we deemed these things as bad and why do we recognize and honor certain individuals as "good" or even "saints" and label others as "evil"?? What makes saints any better or more desirable than child molesters, rapists and murderers?? If morality is relative, then why do we spend so much time and energy enforcing a certain moral code??

We DO legislate morality despite the opinion of many that we don't, or that we can't. making murder illegal is legislating morality. we can't legislate moral behavior, but we can and do punish those who we catch doing what we have deemed "bad". If all is random, then we shouldn't even care one way or the other.

Again, I don't have the answers, but I sure hope that there is some point and some meaning to this whole experience of life.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Betrade

Again, I don't have the answers, but I sure hope that there is some point and some meaning to this whole experience of life.

No dice, I'm afraid, Betrade.
The computer print out from my latest test tube experiment says that it is all random and meaningless. So, it must be true. Might as well throw ourselves off the nearest cliff - like lemmings do!

Now, I wonder why lemmings evolved to do that?

[aelle]

Betrade, I don't really see the link between randomness in the way we came to be what we are today, and our purpose (or lack thereof). In a game of cards, it's not because the cards are dealt randomly that we can't get pleasure in playing the game and respect the rules.

My personal belief is that we indeed are not handed a ready made purpose and set of morals. I don't believe those are external. I believe and feel and see everyday in my life that we create our own purpose and choose our own ethics. I enjoy playing the game of life, and I enjoy it a lot more when I do no harm.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by aelle

Betrade, I don't really see the link between randomness in the way we came to be what we are today, and our purpose (or lack thereof). In a game of cards, it's not because the cards are dealt randomly that we can't get pleasure in playing the game and respect the rules.

My personal belief is that we indeed are not handed a ready made purpose and set of morals. I don't believe those are external. I believe and feel and see everyday in my life that we create our own purpose and choose our own ethics. I enjoy playing the game of life, and I enjoy it a lot more when I do no harm.

I agree. I like life too. I just like the thought of existing for some purpose as opposed to just popping into existence randomly for no reason.

I guess the meaning of life is up to us individually. If it has meaning to us, then that IS meaning. If someone feels meaningless, then maybe they are. in their own eyes anyway. I guess we've all felt that way at one time or another; but very few remain in that state of mind.

WE sure do have a huge number of medicated people walking around and suffering from anxiety, depression and other "disorders" these days though. I wonder if these problems would be so prevalent if there were no drugs to treat them?? Somehow I don't think that they would be.

If one of my children felt that their lives were meaningless, I would be quick to point out the reasons WHY their lives DO have meaning and purpose from my perspective. If my children's lives had no meaning, that would be even worse than my own life being meaningless IMO, because they have absolutely given me an incredible purpose just by virtue of coming into this world.

[gigij]

OK here goes – not sure I’m ready for the responses to this but anyway….

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If one accepts that consciousness is the driving force behind creation (thoughts create reality) – then it’s not really a big jump to accept that consciousness is also the driving force behind evolution. Small changes in perception and belief over time altering the course of life on earth. We are creating this as we go along.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by Betrade

I agree. I like life too. I just like the thought of existing for some purpose as opposed to just popping into existence randomly for no reason.

I guess the meaning of life is up to us individually. If it has meaning to us, then that IS meaning. If someone feels meaningless, then maybe they are. in their own eyes anyway. I guess we've all felt that way at one time or another; but very few remain in that state of mind.

WE sure do have a huge number of medicated people walking around and suffering from anxiety, depression and other "disorders" these days though. I wonder if these problems would be so prevalent if there were no drugs to treat them?? Somehow I don't think that they would be.

If one of my children felt that their lives were meaningless, I would be quick to point out the reasons WHY their lives DO have meaning and purpose from my perspective. If my children's lives had no meaning, that would be even worse than my own life being meaningless IMO, because they have absolutely given me an incredible purpose just by virtue of coming into this world.

Evolution by natural selection is anything but random. This is a HUGE misunderstanding. The mechanism for Evolution by natural selection is random mutation. That part is random, but the actual selection is anything but random. The organisms are selected by any number of natural factors based on what mutations are of the most survival benefit.

Purpose, on the other hand is a human construct, a construct that is probably a result of evolution. So in a sense we give the universe purpose just be being here, and we are here not by random chance but because we are best adapted to our environment. I find all of this absolutely amazing, wonderful and beautiful without needing to be cheapened by some man in the sky who somehow just poofed it all into existence.

If we were all just brought into being by some "god," that would be pointless to me. We would be the result of the whim of some other intelligence. He could just have easily made intelligent jello to inhabit the earth. Instead we have the fortune of being the result of billions of years of evolution. We are the amazing, intelligent, beautiful, and flawed descendants of countless generations of survivors, and winners. I see much more purpose in that.

[servantofone]

Originally Posted by joelr

Well mutations occur about 1 in 10^8 (one hundred million) bases. But I don't think there is a mathematical model of what to expect DNA to do from any given point. Starting with pre cell life up to current day life forms we can only observe what HAS happened and how long did it take (3.8 billion years).

Well, you can't prove it HAS happened, so I don't like that assumption being in there... That's like me saying, well the Bible is true, so the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old based on the the Biblical chronology. I can't prove to you the Bible is true, so what good is building my argument to you on it?

Where do you get the number 3.8 billion years anyway?

The point I have in wanting the probability behind it is the fact that I really think that if you worked it out, it would be much longer than 3.8 billion years to get to the amount of life and complexity of life we have today.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by servantofone

And where do you get that figure and where is it derived from? Even a resource would be nice.

Try google.
Precambrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life before the Cambrian

For more details on this topic, see Origin of life.

It is not known when life originated, but carbon in 3.8 billion year old rocks from islands off western Greenland may be of organic origin. Well-preserved bacteria older than 3460 million years have been found in Western Australia.[6] Probable fossils 100 million years older have been found in the same area. There is a fairly solid record of bacterial life throughout the remainder of the Precambrian.

Excepting a few contested reports of much older forms from USA and India, the first complex multicelled life forms seem to have appeared roughly 600 Ma. A quite diverse collection of soft-bodied forms is known from a variety of locations worldwide between 542 and 600 Ma. These are referred to as Ediacaran or Vendian biota. Hard-shelled creatures appeared toward the end of that timespan.

A very diverse collection of forms appeared around 544 Ma, starting in the latest Precambrian with a poorly understood small shelly fauna and ending in the very early Cambrian with a very diverse, and quite modern Burgess fauna, the rapid radiation of forms called the Cambrian explosion of life.

The point I have in wanting the probability behind it is the fact that I really think that if you worked it out, it would be much longer than 3.8 billion years to get to the amount of life and complexity of life we have today.

Can you even fathom that? 3.8 billion years isn't enough time??? Can you even imagine 1000 years??? What about a million? That is a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg gggggggggg time. I can't even fathom 1 million years, let alone a billion!

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Evolution by natural selection is anything but random. This is a HUGE misunderstanding. The mechanism for Evolution by natural selection is random mutation. That part is random, but the actual selection is anything but random. The organisms are selected by any number of natural factors based on what mutations are of the most survival benefit.

Purpose, on the other hand is a human construct, a construct that is probably a result of evolution. So in a sense we give the universe purpose just be being here, and we are here not by random chance but because we are best adapted to our environment. I find all of this absolutely amazing, wonderful and beautiful without needing to be cheapened by some man in the sky who somehow just poofed it all into existence.

If we were all just brought into being by some "god," that would be pointless to me. We would be the result of the whim of some other intelligence. He could just have easily made intelligent jello to inhabit the earth. Instead we have the fortune of being the result of billions of years of evolution. We are the amazing, intelligent, beautiful, and flawed descendants of countless generations of survivors, and winners. I see much more purpose in that.

I totally agree! When you put it that way, it makes you feel like you won the greatest race of all and you did it with the help of the best team!!

[Rockchick26]

I just had a thought, about the Earth. If the Earth is always changing and renewing itself, how can they even get an accurate reading on it's age? I mean, things decompose, layers shift, fire destroys things, air and water errode surfaces, the Earth is a living thing which is always changing so how can any part of it be the same as it was even a few years ago? Look at the human body...every cell dies and the body totally regenerates itself every 7 years. So you couldn't tell how old a human body is, how can you tell how old the Earth is?

I know this goes against what I have been saying all along, but it just crossed my mind and I had to ask!

[servantofone]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Can you even fathom that? 3.8 billion years isn't enough time??? Can you even imagine 1000 years??? What about a million? That is a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg gggggggggg time. I can't even fathom 1 million years, let alone a billion!

Alright, thanks for the resource.

Can I fathom that amount of time? No, absolutely not. Especially for what a short period of time human's are alive.

On the other hand, probability wise, I have seen calculations on how long it would take for cells to mutate. Now maybe the figures were wrong, but the time needed was already in billions of years. Tell me this, do we know how many mutations would be needed to go from a single cell to a human as we have them today? I'd like to know that.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I just had a thought, about the Earth. If the Earth is always changing and renewing itself, how can they even get an accurate reading on it's age? I mean, things decompose, layers shift, fire destroys things, air and water errode surfaces, the Earth is a living thing which is always changing so how can any part of it be the same as it was even a few years ago? Look at the human body...every cell dies and the body totally regenerates itself every 7 years. So you couldn't tell how old a human body is, how can you tell how old the Earth is?

I know this goes against what I have been saying all along, but it just crossed my mind and I had to ask!

Each cell regenerates following the informational patterns of its parents. So they inherit characteristics that continue to reveal information.

That's one problem with illness. The idea with energy healing is to get the cells to get new memories and stop repeating the unhealthy patterns.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by joelr

Each cell regenerates following the informational patterns of its parents. So they inherit characteristics that continue to reveal information.

That's one problem with illness. The idea with energy healing is to get the cells to get new memories and stop repeating the unhealthy patterns.

Ahhh...,makes sense!

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by servantofone

Alright, thanks for the resource.

Can I fathom that amount of time? No, absolutely not. Especially for what a short period of time human's are alive.

On the other hand, probability wise, I have seen calculations on how long it would take for cells to mutate. Now maybe the figures were wrong, but the time needed was already in billions of years. Tell me this, do we know how many mutations would be needed to go from a single cell to a human as we have them today? I'd like to know that.

I'd be interested in seeing those calculations. I wonder if it's even possible to determine the exact amount of mutations necessary. I doubt it. We don't have enough data and don't know every single species that ever lived. I'm sure there were billions of mutations. It's not like anything is inevitable. Look how many different species there are today, and we're discovering new links constantly. This just popped up today.

World's oldest human-linked skeleton found

Pretty amazing stuff. A 4 million year old hominid has been discovered, which means the split between primates and homonids occurred much earlier than we originally thought. See, science adapts and changes just like evolution. The more evidence we find, the more we learn. "Missing links" are turning up all the time.

If you think about it, homo sapiens have been on the earth about 200,000 years. If in 200,000 years we can change and become so diverse in our physical and mental features, imagine what a million years would do? The T-rex went from being 9 feet tall to around 40 feet in 60 million years. I think it's very plausible.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by servantofone

Well, you can't prove it HAS happened, so I don't like that assumption being in there... That's like me saying, well the Bible is true, so the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old based on the the Biblical chronology. I can't prove to you the Bible is true, so what good is building my argument to you on it?

Where do you get the number 3.8 billion years anyway?

The point I have in wanting the probability behind it is the fact that I really think that if you worked it out, it would be much longer than 3.8 billion years to get to the amount of life and complexity of life we have today.

The proof I'm using is the fact that life is here and it is measured at 3.8 billion years old. That has happened. I know science changes but for now the most accurate version is the scientific one. The only other version I know of are from the 5 different creationist groups. That includes scientists who are creationists and are attempting to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with science.

I have seen those groups cook probability data for a non-science purpose. Maybe it was unintentional?

The calculations never take into account that we are talking about the molecular level, that the interactions take place on a nanosecond time scale and there are billions of molecules.
I've seen creationist websites that have a few references and a few equations but I have never seen an actual paper with any good evidence.

It is likely that deism may have the upper hand on theism.

For example:
"On the Use of Probability Calculations in the Critique of Evolution."


It is not easy to test evolution experimentally, mostly due to the near impossibility of controlled experimentation and, consequently, the lack of reproducibility. Thus the evolution theory is not universally accepted even among scientists. The crucial concept of evolution is the spontaneity of evolutionary changes: life as we observe it today emerged and evolved as a result of interactions between environment on one side and biomolecules or, later, cells and organisms, on the other side. No intervention of an intelligent designer is necessary at any point. Scientists opposed to this notion argue that life is so complex, especially at the molecular level, that it is statistically impossible for it to rise and evolve spontaneously by small evolutionary steps. To support their claims they often use probability calculations that invariably lead to the conclusion that the odds against emergence of, e.g., the eye, a biochemical pathway, or life as a whole, are some ridiculously high number. Consequently, organism s and their constituents could not have evolved spontaneously, but must have been designed by a goal-oriented, prescient intelligent designer.

rest of paper at:
On the Use of Probability Calculations in the Critique of Evolution. - Free Online Library

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

The only logical answers to these questions are either 1) God isn't what you think he/she/it is, or, 2) God doesn't exist at all. Or I suppose you could also say that God is testing us, but, it doesn't feel right to me that God would like to play games and mess with our heads like that.

Indeed. I figured it was #1 a while back. Christians, to me, have tended to treat God as if he were Santa Claus and after a while, I couldn't stand that anymore, so I stopped telling people I was a Christian. I still am one in the ways I care about, but I'd be pretty hard-pressed to convince a churchgoer of that.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

See! Another rule! Telling us something else we can't do! How can it feel good (or make sense) to live by so many petty rules?!

You'd be surprised. Well, actually, you obviously are surprised.

Meaning comes from shape, and shape comes from boundaries. Everything is governed by rules; that's what science is: figuring out what the rules are. When rules are imposed externally, when they're expressed oppressively, they destroy shape, and thus, destroy meaning: it's like a sculpture made of sand: when crushed, it is gone.

But when rules come from yourself, when you decide where they lie and how they work in concert, then it enhances the richness of your life. You might go for a walk every day, not because the doctor says you have to do that in order to stay healthy so you live a long life, but because you like moving your muscles and seeing the city and waving hello to the passerby.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

I know there's that 'cloven hoof' rule but if killling is wrong then why would killing a different type of animal be ok?

An acquaintance of mine once convinced me that homosexuality wasn't actually a violation of God's mandate (he was a dedicated Christian himself), because the rules instated by God were put down to keep people alive. In the case of homosexuality, it was a corollary to "be fruitful and multiply", and it no longer applies today (according to him) because we're overpopulated now, not under-. In the case of specific animals, it's because (or so it has been argued) those foods were more difficult to sanitize.

If 90% of people who ate shrimp seem to get cramps that make them wail in pain, I'd start avoiding shrimp, too.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Why isn't that reason enough? I like to talk about this kinda stuff, it helps me see others' points of view and it sure beats talking about the latest celebrity scandal! Why are YOU joining this debate?

I'm not. I haven't responded to the creationism / evolution debate in this thread at all; I've been very picky about exactly what I respond to and talk about.

There is plenty more in life to talk about than where we came from and celebrity scandals. I can go for years without bothering with either subject.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

An acquaintance of mine once convinced me that homosexuality wasn't actually a violation of God's mandate (he was a dedicated Christian himself), because the rules instated by God were put down to keep people alive. In the case of homosexuality, it was a corollary to "be fruitful and multiply", and it no longer applies today (according to him) because we're overpopulated now, not under-.

The Christian view on homosexuality is also shaped by the story of Sodom and Gomorrhah in the Bible.

There a bunch of bad men go around attacking & raping other men. God gets angry and wipes out the bad guys.

As I said, there's often a failure to see things in context. Maybe the true lesson we should extract here is that it's bad to use violence on other people and it's bad to rape them.

[Geiger]

Originally Posted by joelr

I find the Universe appears to be a created structure but the emergence of life on Earth will likely be fully explained by natural process.

Wouldn't then the emergence of life be part of that created structure?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

There a bunch of bad men go around attacking & raping other men. God gets angry and wipes out the bad guys.

Yes, they were 'bad' guys. They just happened to be gay as well. They were 'bad' in the sense that they had cut themselves off totally from source/spirit/God to pursue their own illusions, so they had already condemned themselves.

Many bible believers interpret the story as God literally getting angry and directly intervening at that particular point in time. I interpret it as God/Source/Spirit as already having set the spiritual laws in motion at the beginning of time, i.e. The more you disconnect from source, the more trouble and misery you bring upon yourself.

The literal interpretation just closes the time gap, and shoots straight from hip - to warn those who may be on the slippery slope.

Once we have progressed beyond that stage of seeking our own sensual gratification, and become more connected to source/spirit, we no longer feel any desire to lie, cheat, steal or fornicate, so there is no more fear and no more punishment.