Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!!

by Francois 163 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tdogg

  platinum plated loblolly

  -LOL

  To deny the facts presented by evolutionary theroy is absurd. What does remain is that the existance of God can be neither proved nor disproved.

  I am a musician. I love to write music and create songs. I love to play music. I cannot personally deny the existance of what many artists call the "source." This can only be understood by one one who has experenced the sensation. Many creatives will tell you that they do not "think up" but "pull down", their material, they are merely a medium. This is different then reciting music, or painting a pictue of something that you can see or have seen. What I am writing about is something that happens when one is in a state of mind that allows for things to be created that seem to be generated from somewhere other than our synapses. This is also something that cannot be proven, only experienced.

  My point? There are at times things that humans do or percieve that would indicate a higher source, but that is all. What it is or is not can be debated forever. It would seem that we have only the facts to consider and the facts do not explain everything and that is why we (Creationists, Evolutionists, anyone in between) ALL form belief systems that fill in the gaps.
• 

  SYN

  Francois: What I meant was, at our current stage, we are not "making" anything - anymore than a child with Lego blocks "makes" the blocks. We are merely at the stage where we are putting the blocks together with different effects to get castles and so forth. Soon, we will know how to make the blocks themselves, but we are nowhere near that stage yet. It is simply an enormously complex problem!

  There is a lot of theory about the Aquatic Ape thing - why are humans so comfortable in water? Our physical appearance is REMARKABLY different from other supposed savanah animals we once resembled...this is a very strange thing. But I stress that it's just an interesting theory. Do a Google search for Aquatic Ape and you will see a lot more things that contribute to this line of thinking. It's a very interesting thing indeed.

  Perhaps the early flood legends (which are common in many cultures) were based on a time when humans were living in the ocean?
• 

  Francois

  SYN that sounds like a plausible model. And I wonder, as I guess Island Woman does, if you were implying that genetic engineering means we're creating life? I suspect from reading your recent post that you're not saying that at all.

  I personally don't believe that we can create life by any but in the ordained fashion. We can rearrange the blocks, but we cannot breathe the breath of life into it. Even if we were to be successful in synthesizing a DNA molecule, I don't think it would ever split and recombine. That's a life function IMHO and we can't give life to an inanimate object. Never will be able to in my opinion.

  JOSEPHUS I think that people would care more about what you think if you'd continue to educate yourself and thus be able to express more sophisticated concepts. And while - as you say - the evidence for evolution is incomplete at this point, it will not remain so forever. Remember that scientists have been teasing the evidence out of the fossil record now for less than two hundred years. Religion has had over five thousand years to get it right and continues to fail. I could park a horse and wagon in the holes in religious theory and still have room to hitch 'em.

  By the way, I'm happy for your accomplishment. I'm certain your friends and family are proud of you. So am I. Please accept my congratulations.

  Francois
• 

  gravedancer

  Josephus....good counter point: Why cant evolutionists accept God too?

  So if I am to be open minded (I am actually empty minded :-)), therefore I will take you up on your offer and ask you to show me how to accept God and know God while still accepting evolution. How do I find God? Please don't show me the Bible as that is like putting the cart before the horse....first lets prove God exists and then find a way to prove that the Bible is his word.

  I am all ears....and believe it or not (and I know most wont because I am highly critical of believers) I would love to know that there is a loving God out there.....I just can't find him/her. Anyone who can show me this God will be doing me a huge favor.

  GD

  (edited to correct a typo)

  Edited by - gravedancer on 6 July 2002 2:59:12
• 

  larc

  Francois, this is a most interesting thread that you started. As I read the very thoughtful posts, I have some conclusions that I would like to express. You made it clear that you believe in God, yet you also believe in evolution. It seems that some posters have ignored this and want to insist that atheism and evolution go hand in hand. Certainly atheists and agnostics believe in the theory of evolution. However, many people like you, believe in evolution as well. It seems to me that some folks don't acknowledge this fact. Another problem I see, is that some people don't distinguish between facts and theory. I think it was JanH that pointed this out, as well as others. For example, there are the facts of gravity and the theory of gravity. These are different concepts. Another problem I see is the arguement that evolution might be wrong and some other answer will be found to be better. While this is true, the assertion doesn't help any. If an alternate explaination (theory) is better, then it is incumbent on the theorist to prove it. Flights of fancy and alternate ideas are fun, but at some point they have to be put to the test. Now, what to we have at this point in time. We, have the idea of special creation, which basicaly says, God did it. That explains nothing. It does not explain how, when, or how he did it. Evolution is a better explaination (theory) because it allows us to obtain at least partial answers to these question. These answers have become much more detailed and complete over the last 100 years. Yes, the explaination is still incomplete, but this explaination has progressed dramaticly over time, to give us the level of detail we now have.
• 

  gravedancer

  You made it clear that you believe in God, yet you also believe in evolution. It seems that some posters have ignored this and want to insist that atheism and evolution go hand in hand. Certainly atheists and agnostics believe in the theory of evolution. However, many people like you, believe in evolution as well. It seems to me that some folks don't acknowledge this fact

  Larc,

  Those who feel that one can believe in both have been asked by myself and others in this thread how they reconcile the 2 conflicting beliefs....Francois has partially answered and said he doesn't accept the principle of atonement (one of the big obstacles to believing in both). I have asked then what he establishes as the basis of his beliefs so we can discuss them rationally.

  The same applies in my question to Josephus.

  GD
• 

  larc

  Brother Grave, Religion can address the question of who did it. Science addresses the question of how and when it was done. Science can not address the question of whether there is an invisible force behind it all. They can only deal with what is measureable. Therefore, a scientist can be a believer in God or a nonbeliever in God. That does not change what he can accomplish as a scientist. Of course, his beliefs, re: God, can affect his conclusions.
• 

  gsx1138

  I leave for the day to go to the Seattle Science Center, walk around the Space Needle, take my daughter to the music fountain to listen to some Sound Garden, Nirvana, and some Opera and there are three pages on this topic. I understand the "Theory" explanation and while I think both sides are playing semantics I get the point. Until the holes in evolution are filled you cannot accept it as fact you can only accept it as the most likely scenario if you accept the evidence given. Creationist theory will never be able to prove itself. The best a creationist can do is say either you have to have faith or look around. So as far as my theory goes I'm open to any possibility but lean toward some form of evolution. Of course I'm behind the neo-evolution thing so someone would have to explain that one to me. As it stands I do not believe we are from the ape family. I'm more inclined to believe we are a seperate line just not discovered yet.
• 

  gsx1138

  Crap! I wish I was as articulate as you guys. I frequent another message board and this very topic came up. Unfortunately, there are no evolutionists worth a crap and the creationists are blowing them out of the water.
• 

  hillary_step

  Francois,

  What a fascinating thread. I hope that my comments are not too far off topic.

  Religion speaks the language of the unprovable. It always has and I suspect it always will. Science deals in the currency of the eventually provable. That science has not proved a theory with facts is often a dictate of time and further research. Scientific theories can be adjusted, generally scientific facts cannot, they are therefore more reliable than religious thought.

  As science develops it solidifies or rejects theories as the facts become ascertained and leaves behind itself a visible road upon which future fact-finders walk. If this world is still here in 5,000 years, the scientific theories that became facts will still be there standing firm. However, from the religious standpoint I suspect that the same arguments that have been making the theological rounds for 1000's of years will still be unsettled.

  That is not to say that God does not exist, or that some universal plan is not a-foot, it does seem to indicate though, that God did not want us to find this out in a hurry...lol

  I spoke a while ago with a pianist, Keith Jarrett, who believes very deeply that he connects with a creative force outside of himself when he plays. His music, totally unbounded and spontaneous would certainly indicate that something more than man is at work. Creativity is at the boundaries of science and religion, and I have yet to read a compelling reason as to why it should exist without the involvement of a higher, intelligent force in universe.

  Francois seems to be trying to build a bridge between science and for want of a better word 'religion', which is very hard to do. One end of the bridge is on solid ground and the other on shifting territory. That having been said, I believe that the theory that Francois outlined in his original post is as good a stab at trying to understand the creative process from a blending of religio-science than any others that I have discovered, in fact they very much reflect my own views. We both seem to have much in common in thinking with De Chardin, a thinker whom I have come to respect increasingly over the years.

  As Mircea Eliade, another great thinker of our time once said, "When I was young I knew everything. As I got older I realized that no person can call themselves truly mature as a thinker until they can say "I do not know".

  As JWs I would have viewed "I do not know" as indicative of my own spiritual weakness, how foolish I was to find out that its is actually our greatest spiritual strength in that impels us to reach for the skies, and pushes forward the boundaries of our reason.

  An excellent thread Francois - HS

  Edited by - hillary_step on 6 July 2002 8:7:29

  Edited by - hillary_step on 6 July 2002 8:7:56