Intelligent Design is an attempt to make stupid people feel less stupid for believing in something without an proof. Just sayin....
Since I have no clue...I must ask if all 200-300 world religions share the identical belief about the creation of man? If the answer might be 'no'...then which one of the creation beliefs should we be discussing? Scientology seems to be a legitimate and recognized religion...is their story the correct one? Far as I know we only have 'one' theory of evolution...
Well, sorta, in a way, I guess. To the best of my knowledge, no two religions have exactly the same creation myths. The problem there is, religious creation myths do not rest on testable evidence. So you buy it or you don't. And while there is only one theory of evolution, that theory itself has been revised many times, sometimes quite significantly, and is still being revised at the margin as more is learned. At the cutting edge, where evidence tends to be new, scarce, and ambiguous, there are often several schools of scientific thought about what's going on. Which is a Good Thing, because it's fairly easy to identify where these schools of thought disagree, and construct experiments to see which (if any) is right. And more abstractly, this is why there is one science and many religions. Science is hostage to evidence, and must follow where evidence leads. Religion is immune to evidence, and can claim whatever it wants. When there is disagreement in science, research focuses on the differences to resolve them, and reality is the umpire. When there is difference in religion, the result is either coercion or schism. "Truth" in science means whatever explanation fits the available evidence best. "Truth" in religion depends on how many people can be brought to believe it, and how firm their beliefs.
I'm thinking one of the issues with creationists is they believe humans are 'special' life forms when in fact we are simply one of zillions of life forms. Yes, humans are advanced, but even this must be questioned when observing American politics or one of those traveling salvation tent shows. Within the environment of each life form, most have achieved a sustainable position, no matter if we're talking about frogs or humans. Are humans more important than frogs...frogs don't think so when our cars squish them on the roadways. It seems illogical to me that 'living things' are the essence of Earth, yet most religions only care about the lives of humans, giving humans a special allowance which all other living things on Earth are not granted, in which so-called human spirits belong to a country club while all other life forms simply die and turn to dust and are meaningless. If creationists did not wallow in this arrogance, and treated 'all' life forms equally although different, perhaps the idea of evolution might have more resonance for them...
How do you know this? Many religious folks believe all life has a spirit. Even plants. Such blanket statements are the hallmark of ignorance tied to hatred IMO.
His statement is not without merit. Most Creationists DO BELIEVE that man was created and is placed above all other life forms because, "We were created in god's image..." They also believe, only Humans have a soul, a conscience and empathy.
How do I know this about frogs not liking to be squished by automobiles...faith. Not sure who your 'many religious folks' might be? I'm thinking I never met a single person who believes rattle snakes will share a nice place in the afterlife? The thing about religion, when forced on society, is it is rooted in arrogance. This would apply to anything one person deems superior and forces on another person or society. Arrogance...righteousness...whether biased politics or religion, no matter how much opposition exists between people in their relative positions, most people continue to believe they are correct. In fact many people refuse to be challenged about their positions...just close their minds to anything outside of their 'personal' beliefs. I'm pretty sure I'm not ignorant and I know I have little hatred...I'm just challenging the status quo...
not liking???? what afterlife? If that snake procreates, it will literally still be alive, within its next generation. Kind of like breeding a line of dogs; the original parents are still 'alive' within each tree. That is the only afterlife, that can be sustained, for a non conscious life. Liberacy is still existing, within what he left. And all our lineages are alive in us, as we sit. Being awake and conscious, is not the ONLY life to comprehend. do me a favor, please point out any single line item that i post that is incorrect. let me know, if I ever close out my mind to anything of science and reality. I like to be challenged! that is human. 'we' all got that in us and what i love about being conscious. Do you realize that it is that natural break-out mentality as to why knowledge continues to evolve? It is why, i will listen to a child with intent as they will often offer a view that will be fresh and newly created.
I don't think he's claiming to read frogs' minds. He's saying that life struggles to survive. All life does this. No species is exempt and no species has special burdens. Maybe they're right. If you could devise a methodology that could demonstrate that they are wrong, you'd be set for life. What statement do you think you read? The statement I read says that all life is equal, all life is equally evolved, no life is special or privileged.
He should have said that then. The point is no one is 'wrong' because no one really knows, not even 'them' although 'they' CLAIM to know there are no such things as God, spirits, etc. When I comment on a post it means I READ it, I didn't just THINK about reading it. The statement was: "If creationists did not wallow in this arrogance, and treated 'all' life forms equally although different, perhaps the idea of evolution might have more resonance for them.." I see that statement as ignorant and hateful as well as insultingly presumptuous.
That's what I read him as saying. He wasn't real clear. This is a claim I've never actually seen. I have seen thousands of cases where this claim is ACCUSED of being made, but I've never seen it made. I admit I can't make much sense of the original statement. I THINK the statement says that all life forms are equal, and that if creationists understood this, then the theory of evolution would be less objectionable..
Is he paying you or something? You mean to tell me that you have never heard of anyone claiming there is no God? How can this be? Except that all life forms are definitely NOT equal....Now go ask him what to say about that.
Your opinion is noted. Accurate labeling is often considered offensive by the labeled. There's just no getting around that fact.
I'm assuming people are making a good faith attempt to express themselves, unless it's really obvious they aren't. Sure, plenty of people claim there are no gods (atheists in India deny six major gods and countless lesser gods). What I have not seen is anyone knowledgeable about science, saying that science says there are no gods. Gods lie entirely outside the competence of science. Here, I'll assume we failed to communicate. Of course every individual organism is unique. But all extant organisms are equally evolved, having had the same amount of time to do it.
Stating 'faith' I was being very sarcastic. Regarding snakes, I was referring to the arrogance in religion in which only humans qualify for the so-called afterlife...all other living things, which is 99% of Earth are SOL...seems illogical to me but then again this is what arrogance does. Speaking of children's comments, this is also why all ideas and comments have relevance and should not be judged much until more review is completed. But it's difficult for most humans to avoid judging and doing so they seldom open their minds to new information...challenges...stuff that makes us think...
"Accurate" or "not accurate" is an objective (even if relative) metric. It's not a gospel. It's not "according to" anybody.
Here is the statement that I was replying to... "If creationists did not wallow in this arrogance, and treated 'all' life forms equally although different, perhaps the idea of evolution might have more resonance for them.." This is not an 'objective' 'metric' it is an insulting accusation of a group of people that hold certain beliefs. It is NOT 'accurate' labeling. It is meant to foment hatred for a certain group of people and, IMO, only reflects the deep irrational hatred toward fellow human beings held by one uttering such statements.
Yes. I know. I have been debating creationists for more than 30 years. I have personally debated Duane Gish, Walter T. Brown and the late A.E. Wilder-Smith. I know wherefore I speak. Arrogant absolutely is an accurate label for them. And it is too kind by half. As I said before, your opinion is noted. Even if that opinion is nonsense. When an accurate label hurts your feelings, perhaps some introspection on your part is required.
Not only were amino acids, the building blocks of proteins required for the evolution of life, found based upon this experiment they've also been found in meteorites so we know that they exist naturally in space as well. http://www.space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html "We are star dust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon" has a scientific foundation that is already established.
Since Carl Sagan said 'we are made of star stuff' I have assumed that what exists on Earth can exist anywhere in the Universe and exist in large numbers. From whatever it takes to provide the spark of life across the Universe, and considering the vast amounts of time involved, and assuming other than extreme conditions the Universe is filled with similar geology and moisture and heat, life begins and EVOLVES as destined by the relative variables involved in each location...
