by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends
LT: Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive theories. They can exist happily together in the same brain
If strong evidence was discovred that the universe started without any external assistence, would that change your opinion about the happy co-existance?
steve
My opinion would remain unchanged.
For an ancient people the creation account was the best way of describing how everything came about. They even managed to leave out the turtles and elephants in this iteration...
Sometimes you've just gotta love literature for it's own sake, ya know? Once you stiffle the enjoyment and wonder of life in the antisceptic confines of pure science you are halfway to dead, IMHO.
LT, you sound like a sufist. It wouldn't surprise me if you were hiding camels somewhere on that little island of yours.
Am I correct in assuming that you see creation as valid in that, by fact, life is here and something (be it an entity of intelligence or the randomness of the universe) created it.
steve
stevenyc- they might have given evidence but it still doesn`t PROVE it does it? People give evidence at trials but it doesn`t mean to say they are telling the truth. It`s all down to what you want to accept and believe, and like i said, i don`t accept it.
Dido, absolutely correct. All evidence has to be honestly reviewed and tested before anyone can make a judgment on the validity of the evidence. This is why I ask you: what would you need to see as evidence to convince you that evolution may have merit?
steve
Stevenyc
Then there is the pantheist (or is it panentheist?), who sees god (or not god in the traditional sense) within the universe. In other words, god got stuck in his creation (the poor thing. Maybe it was his beard that pulled him into the gears).
S
LT- Abaddon doesn`t impress me with his evolution arguments as at the end of the day none of it is proven. My doctor said that i had become immune to the antibiotics, not the bacteria, so i was given different antibiotics for different infections that i got. Are you saying that the same bacteria stays in your body, and changes? If that`s the case, the antibiotics are only keeping it under control, and it doesn`t entirely leave the body then?
stevenyc- i would want to see an example of evolution in either animals or humans, bacteria doesn`t do it for me, that is just caused by man`s imperfection, take aids for example.
Dido:
Are you saying that the same bacteria stays in your body, and changes? If that`s the case, the antibiotics are only keeping it under control, and it doesn`t entirely leave the body then?
Aye, that's exactly the case. It's usually caused by not taking the full course of antibiotics. You manage to kill enough of the bacteria to stop the symptoms, but don't kill them off completely. The bacteria that survive evolve and develop defenses, and not only come back with a vengance but go on to infect other people. Unfortunately the resultant "superbug" is hard to kill, so the individual who doesn't take the full course of medicine ends up harming both themselves and society at large.
...take aids for example.
AIDS (and the flu) is a virus. These mutate and evolve, too, but there are currently no antibiotics for them. They work in a different way by actually infecting the living cells in your body with RNA code (similar to DNA) and commandeering them for their own ends. This is different from bad bacteria, which are cells in their own right, and go around eating up anything around that they see as food Good bacteria are ok, as they only eat up stuff that is generally harmful to us, or break down stuff that we can't digest anyhow.
Aint science a wonderful thing
Steve:
As Satanus said - Panentheist...
