TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Evolution question.....................
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 14:47:

what would L Ron Hubbard say about all of this?


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 14:48:

Why is it that so many people cannot fathom that evolution may be a process for which God set the framework and that the creation story in Genisis is simply an alagory to explain the origin of the world in terms that a bronze age culture, such as the hebrews were, could understand? If looked at in this manner evolution and creation need not be mutually exclusive.


Posted by astroboy on Aug-09-2006 14:50:

quote:
Originally posted by dcougar99
i happen to think we came from God... not apes


Why can't both be true? Creationists always fall back on this dichotomy for some reason... If species originated via evolution then God couldn't have played a part in it.

I mean staunch Christians believe God is at work in the world all the time right? And we never see talking bushe these days or angels or anything like that, so (assuming he exists) he must be working through science... through the natural processes we see occuring every day. So why assume it was any different with the origin of man? Why is it that in the past God must have worked in miraculous ways, making man out of nothing and woman out of some guy's rib? If he is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and the creator of this universe and it's laws, then why is it so inconceivable that God set in motion events that he knew would lead to the natural evolution of man, in accordance with the laws of the universe he created?

So yeah, again I ask you why is it an either/or? Why couldn't God hav made us evolve from apes?


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 14:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Why is it that so many people cannot fathom that evolution may be a process for which God set the framework and that the creation story in Genisis is simply an alagory to explain the origin of the world in terms that a bronze age culture, such as the hebrews were, could understand? If looked at in this manner evolution and creation need not be mutually exclusive.


It's not something I haven't thought of before. However, he doesn't exist; we created him. When given the seemingly insurmountable task of explaining our existance so many thousand years ago, coupled with our inexperienced mind and complete lack of scientific knowledge we had no other choice than to assume some greater being set all of this in motion for us (what other option did we have?). We wouldn't even be discussing this had Constantine not picked up Christianity and droppped polytheism. We'd all still be drinking wine, orgying in the field and asking the oracle what to do today.


Posted by Lira on Aug-09-2006 15:00:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
We'd all still be drinking wine, orgying in the field and asking the oracle what to do today.

...

Why the hell did we ditch that?!


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 15:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
...

Why the hell did we ditch that?!


apparently it became boring.


Posted by colonelcrisp on Aug-09-2006 15:05:

god is a figment of the imagination of people who crave a purpose for existance.


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 15:05:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
It's not something I haven't thought of before. However, he doesn't exist; we created him. When given the seemingly insurmountable task of explaining our existance so many thousand years ago, coupled with our inexperienced mind and complete lack of scientific knowledge we had no other choice than to assume some greater being set all of this in motion for us (what other option did we have?). We wouldn't even be discussing this had Constantine not picked up Christianity and droppped polytheism. We'd all still be drinking wine, orgying in the field and asking the oracle what to do today.


of course my question pre-supposes a belief in God. Athiests don't have any need to reconsile creation with evolution. The question was for those believers who have pangs about this sort of thing.


Posted by astroboy on Aug-09-2006 15:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Anyway, with that said, I believe that we evolved from something similar to an ape, but not necessarily what we believe to be the common ape in our times now.

AKA Lira, you are right. I do take it literal, as I believe it is the common conception amongst those whom believe in this theory simply to spite religious theories, that we are literally derived from apes.

P.S. My rhetoric is lacking, (and I am sleepy,) so I apologize for my temperate explaining.


That pretty much is the current position of biologists. No one is suggesting humans evolved from apes that exist now (chimps, orangutans, gorillas etc..) rather humans share a common ape-like ancestor with modern apes. That is at some remote point in the past there was an ape-like creature, from which both the currently existing ape species and humans evolved.

http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 15:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
of course my question pre-supposes a belief in God. Athiests don't have any need to reconsile creation with evolution. The question was for those believers who have pangs about this sort of thing.


amen.


Posted by astroboy on Aug-09-2006 15:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Why is it that so many people cannot fathom that evolution may be a process for which God set the framework and that the creation story in Genisis is simply an alagory to explain the origin of the world in terms that a bronze age culture, such as the hebrews were, could understand? If looked at in this manner evolution and creation need not be mutually exclusive.


Beat me to it you bastard!


Posted by Lira on Aug-09-2006 15:12:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
apparently it became boring.

Oh. They should've thought of us though


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 15:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Oh. They should've thought of us though


but chastidy and self sacrifice are far more rewarding.... don't you think?


Posted by Lira on Aug-09-2006 15:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
but chastidy and self sacrifice are far more rewarding.... don't you think?

Yeah. At least I get to go to heaven now





(Curiously though, being an atheist never changed my views toward chastity )


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 15:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
(Curiously though, being an atheist never changed my views toward chastity )


I suppose there are perfectly good secullar reasons to remain chast.... I never subscribed to them but that doesn't mean they don't exist.


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 15:30:

i myself subscribe to the idea that a giant turtle puked the universe out. he's pretty sorry about the whole ordeal, but he had a stomach ache that day and couldn't avoid it.


Posted by Subey on Aug-09-2006 15:33:

Moral I think "suck" is a bit harsh of a description. I'd rate you more in the mediocre range


Posted by Subey on Aug-09-2006 15:42:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
amen.


Constantine moved from Polytheism to Monotheism? So you see the movement being initiated at the human level, because you believe humans created god.

Then don't you find it the least bit suspicious that the head of the Egyptian Polytheism is named AMEN?

And that at the end of Egyptian Polytheism Amen started absorbing all the gods around him (hence the name change to AMEN-RA). Perhaps when Amen was finished with Egypt he absorbed the Roman pantheon?


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 15:44:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Moral I think "suck" is a bit harsh of a description. I'd rate you more in the mediocre range


oh noes, someone hacked my sig.


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 15:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Constantine moved from Polytheism to Monotheism? So you see the movement being initiated at the human level, because you believe humans created god.

Then don't you find it the least bit suspicious that the head of the Egyptian Polytheism is named AMEN?

And that at the end of Egyptian Polytheism Amen started absorbing all the gods around him (hence the name change to AMEN-RA). Perhaps when Amen was finished with Egypt he absorbed the Roman pantheon?


Speculation FTW


Posted by Subey on Aug-09-2006 16:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
oh noes, someone hacked my sig.



-... --- .- - ..--.. -.. ..- .-. .. -. --. .-- .-- .. .. -. --- - .... .- -. -.- ...


Posted by Moral Hazard on Aug-09-2006 16:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
-... --- .- - ..--.. -.. ..- .-. .. -. --. .-- .-- .. .. -. --- - .... .- -. -.- ...


-... ..- - / -.. .- -. --. . .-. / .. ... / . -..- -.-. .. - .. -. --.


Posted by Lira on Aug-09-2006 16:28:

quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
So yeah, again I ask you why is it an either/or? Why couldn't God hav made us evolve from apes?

Ah, I almost forgot - God created us based on his own image, and I don't think creationists would like the idea of an ape-looking God


Posted by {b.s.e.} on Aug-09-2006 16:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Ah, I almost forgot - God created us based on his own image, and I don't think creationists would like the idea of an ape-looking God


The idea appeals to me.


Posted by colonelcrisp on Aug-09-2006 16:35:

if god were real, then why would he make his only son live in the middleaset? isnt that just a bit cruel?


thats like making him live in wisconsin, or utah, or saskatchewan *cringe*


Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.