Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:11:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5838 times
|
| |
|
|
> Compassion is something I think about alot--No where in the Darwinist world
> does compassion find a place. Survival of the fittest negates compassion.
> And yet we have it. Not only do we have it, but we seem to be getting more
> of it as humankind evolves--if evolution is the defacto standard.
>
> Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
> they're missing something.
Mabye this seems cold but I feel that this has to do with continuity of the
species. Maternal instinct is found in many species to varying degree, as is
monogamous relationships. Monogany helps assures fidelity, security and
assures the identity of offspring. Maternal instinct is a preservation of
invested energy. Many animals sacrifice themselves or put themselves in
harm's way to protect their children. Some insects offer themselves to the
mother or children as the first meal. This does not make any sense for
survival of the individual. I think the offshoot, symptomatic manifestations
of love and compassion in humans. Is it any wonder that sex and healthy
foods are pleasurable? It's a built in road map for life in case we're
seperated from society, we can still make it through our senses. I'm not
contesting your assertion whether faith or logic is superior over one or the
other. I just believe that everything living on planet Earth can find it's
roots in survival of individual or species ( even if that statement sounds
so inhumane ;-) )
> I know that some evolutionists say that the emotions of fear, trepidation
> and such came from a healthy understanding of the ramifications of getting
> eaten by a sabre tooth tiger years ago, and we still have the basic sense of
> survival in us (hence most phobias like the fear of heights 'n such). Sure
> I can accept that hypothesis, but that in no way explains the overall sense
> of self, sense of consiousness, sense of being that we humans have. If
> evolution is the defacto standard, why not other species? The mouse may be
> smart and run thru a maze, the spider may be a great architect when it makes
> a web, and dolphins have the ability for communication and they even *play*
> :) , but are they conscious? Do they have a soul? I dunno. Again, just
> because we can't measure it with our instruments does not mean that it isn't
> there or that it isn't important.
The one thing that sets us apart from other species is language and writing.
We have the ability to record our thoughts, history, mistakes and triumphs.
From cave paintings to the most rudimentary hyeroglyphics this is what has
been our greatest 'survival trait'. Beyond that we are not better than
dolphins. I'd like to further add that I don't believe humans are more
'highly evolved' than other animals. I think that every animal living today
is at the same degree of evolution for it's age. If you picture a tree of
life all these animals living today are at the tips of the canopy. Humans
have been victim of so much vanity throughout the ages from believing the
nature of our solar system is geo-centric, and even when Copernicus and
Keppler stumbled across helio-centric and irratic imperfect orbits, they
felt they had betrayed their god and sinned. I think it will take the green
men landing to snap people out of our current sapien-centric viewpoint of
the universe, to realize that mabye 'God' created the Martians first and we
arn't his most favoured.
>
> My God is not the 'God of the Gap' wherein He is used to explain anything
> that we don't know yet. The gap of knowledge gets smaller all the time and
> therfore renders that god teeny tiny and not worth worshipping.
>
> My God is God, the creator of all that there is. He is infinite and
> therefore outside the scope of us finite beings trying to figure Him out.
> Our universe, as scientists say, is finite, which means that it is
> quantifiable--it can be measured and researched with out finite minds and
> our finite understanding. Try to apply the same finite resources to
> something that is infinite is, well, dumb. We cannot apply the same meter
> stick that we use to measure our world to try and measure God--it doesn't work.
Has that been established? My understanding that we can't see the ends of
the Universe and the largest bodies at the furthest extent are Quasars.
> However, God gave us a soul so we can relate to Him, that we can have His
> 'laws written on our hearts'--laws of compassion, of love, laws of
> righteousness, none of which can be quantified by science and yet are
> equally as important, or sometimes of greater importance, as rational thought.
>
> Living without God is like living without anything--it can't happen.
>
> Dave
I don't think anything will every replace religion, deification or reverence
of a holy beyond. Science can explain a lot of things but it can't quantify
the afterlife. This is one of the most common denominators (besides
anthropomorphizing the Godhead) is that the religion has an explanation for
the afterlife. It was our earliest reverence for our own dead, ceremonial
burial, tombs, material explanations of the individuals stature that set us
apart from our contemporaries the Neanderthals who were a social society and
used tools, and occasionally managed to get around to bury their dead under
rocks. I'm not trying to boil down religion as fear of death but fear of the
unknown gave rise to the most colorful myths of yore. We replace 'God' with
false idols every day by our devoted reverence to whatever that may be. I
think it's a combination of that devotion and awe to the creator and a need
for continuity after this life that will forever preserve a place for
religion. It's a hard pill for most to swallow that when we die the lights
turn out and we're worm food. But, is this all bad? It helps us live for
this life, not continually making plans and amends for the after or next one.
cheers, Joseph
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) [snip] (...) Well, there are only three organisms that routinely recognize individual identity through graphic representations and the notion of self as tested with a mirror. Dolphins aren't one of them. We are. Obviously there is yet much to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Very well thought out and written, Dave! A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out nor in any sense a coherent order)... I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others over the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
