Anyone else a Christian??

[Harumph]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In response to the post about the "heart treasure":

Just want to throw it out there that some of us atheist folks feel very strongly about our convictions as well. A lack of belief in the traditional god is not a lack of belief, and my atheism is very central to me and who I am and how I see the world and choose to act.

About a year ago I would've disagreed with this, though now I'm not so sure.

I like to think that my atheism/agnosticism gives me some kind of neutrality on the whole thing. I feel no need to join any atheist clubs or movements. And I've had people ridicule atheists in front of me (assuming I'm not) and it hasn't particularly bothered me. I also don't feel the need to broadcast my beliefs if I'm not asked about it.

But I have found recently that it bothers me when people assume I'm Christian. It shouldn't because I have the utmost respect for religious people. But I do find it irritating. I'm not sure if it's because of the prejudice in it ("She looks American, she MUST be christian!") or the awkward situations it puts me in ("I'm a fellow christian, let's ridicule muslims together!") But maybe it is because it's an important part of my identity.

I know I would never pretend to be religious if asked, so maybe you're right.

Anyways... of course it has nothing to do with how good of a vet you're gonna be. I honestly assumed the OP was some sort of troll at first. But this discussion has generally stayed pretty nice.

Oh! And I agree with snapcall that alot of people don't really know what agnosticism is. That's part of the reason I hesistate so say I am one. In the rare case that I do get into a religious discussion, I find people think that agnostics are people who "have doubt" or "haven't decided," which isn't true. In the technical term for it: they've decided. They're no easier to convert than an atheist. They're probably less likely to convert, I'd say, since they're absolutely fine with accepting that they don't know.

 

[sumstorm]

There seems to be some confusion here (actually there's a lot of confusion everywhere) about what it means to be agnostic. Whereas atheism and theism refer to beliefs held about the existence or non-existence of a higher power, agnosticism is a belief about the knowledge of a higher power. To be agnostic is to believe that it is not possible for humans to have absolute knowledge of whether or not a god exists. Therefore, it is possible to be an agnostic Christian, an agnostic Jew, an agnostic atheist, etc. I personally am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that there is a supreme being, and live my life accordingly (ie, not making decisions based on what might get me into heaven or keep me out of hell since neither place exists IMO), but I acknowledge that I could be wrong and would absolutely be willing to change my mind if presented with sufficient evidence (although this is highly unlikely).

Actually, theism is about the belief in one or more deity...and agnosticism does not have to be about a higher power. One of the greatest frustrations for me is the general concept that I encounter that one must be theistic to be religious... or that religion is defined by theism. Many cultures have strong belief systems that lack higher powers.

 

[snapcall]

Actually, theism is about the belief in one or more deity...and agnosticism does not have to be about a higher power. One of the greatest frustrations for me is the general concept that I encounter that one must be theistic to be religious... or that religion is defined by theism. Many cultures have strong belief systems that lack higher powers.

You're completely correct, I just felt like oversimplifying for the sake of brevity in my post. I tend to ramble once I get started on topics like this

 

[Pointer1330]

BTW, I don't support intelligent design, particularly as something that should be taught in schools

Electrophile - I'm very curious how you can consider yourself a Christian but not support intelligent design? I'm not talking about it being taught in schools - just the concept in general.

 

[PrimalMU]

Electrophile - I'm very curious how you can consider yourself a Christian but not support intelligent design? I'm not talking about it being taught in schools - just the concept in general.

As South Park so eloquently put it, "What if evolution is the answer to 'How?', not 'Why?'?"

Besides, if some supreme deity did in fact "intelligently design" life, why didn't it design the laws of physics so that everything was much simpler? It would sure as heck reduce the rejection of religion that arose through scientific progress, without any of the mucking about with questions regarding free will.

 

[deleted266066]

Electrophile - I'm very curious how you can consider yourself a Christian but not support intelligent design? I'm not talking about it being taught in schools - just the concept in general.

I know that my mom is a very devout Catholic, and she generally believes in evolution and NOT intelligent design. To her (and possibly others? I can't speak for them so I don't know) she believes that God put things on Earth... and then watched them grow and change into what is there now. I'm not sure if she believes God "guided" creatures into what they are today, but she does believe they evolved from common ancestors etc. Although I may have converted her to this way of thinking with all my science talk lol. Also, one of her sisters was a biology major in college, and also a devout Christian. I think it's probably safe to say it would be near impossible to be a strictly biology major (interested in biology research) while believing in intelligent design.

 

[oilidigigoat]

Thanks to this thread I had a dream last night that I went on an interview and they were asking me a ton of questions about religion. I was soooo angry. I woke up feeling violated.

 

[Truby]

I know that my mom is a very devout Catholic, and she generally believes in evolution and NOT intelligent design. To her (and possibly others? I can't speak for them so I don't know) she believes that God put things on Earth... and then watched them grow and change into what is there now. I'm not sure if she believes God "guided" creatures into what they are today, but she does believe they evolved from common ancestors etc. Although I may have converted her to this way of thinking with all my science talk lol. Also, one of her sisters was a biology major in college, and also a devout Christian. I think it's probably safe to say it would be near impossible to be a strictly biology major (interested in biology research) while believing in intelligent design.

Just wanted to say it's not impossible to be a biology major (and researcher) and believe in intelligent design. I don't believe in macro evolution because there are so many missing pieces and the deeper you get into the way organisms function the harder it is to believe that all these mechanisms happened by "chance". I'm also against evolution being taught as the only option is schools because people tend to believe exactly what they are told even if there isn't enough evidence to support an idea. Anytime someone accepts something without question it becomes faith. Evolution can be a religion unto itself if you're not careful.

 

[nyanko]

I don't believe in macro evolution because there are so many missing pieces and the deeper you get into the way organisms function the harder it is to believe that all these mechanisms happened by "chance".

"Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" is a false dichotomy, jsyk.

 

[Truby]

"Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" is a false dichotomy, jsyk.

Not really, but I can go with evolution vs. adaptation if it makes you feel better.

 

[Trilt]

Oops. I didn't really mean to start a whole line of conversation by expressing my faith in His Noodly Appendage, but oh well.

Only semi-related, but worth sharing: in my introductory biology class (at NCSU, where one of our largest campus organizations is Campus Crusade for Christ... and also large is the Muslim Student Association) greater than half of the students, when polled, said that they did not believe in evolution. In a biology class. I nearly cried.

 

[BlacKAT33]

Oops. I didn't really mean to start a whole line of conversation by expressing my faith in His Noodly Appendage, but oh well.

In my introductory biology class (at NCSU, where one of our largest campus organizations is Campus Crusade for Christ... and also large is the Muslim Student Association) greater than half of the students, when polled, said that they did not believe in evolution. In a biology class. I nearly cried.

>HALF of the people in a BIO class?!?!

 

[twelvetigers]

'Evolution' is a required course for my Zoology degree here. They specifically make genetics a pre-req for the class to keep out anyone who might confuse it with a philosophy course... cause it ain't. It's 'this happened and you're going to learn about it scientifically, as a process, with no mention of religion at all'... I never thought about it, but that might be a bit strange for the bible belt. No complaints here, I hear it's a good course and I already have the eras/periods/epochs memorized...

 

[Pointer1330]

Very well said Truby. I guess I take intelligent design to also include creation, but from some of these posts now I'm confused. So is creation included in intelligent design or are we strictly talking about evolution? I guess I was more questioning how someone could be a Christian and not believe God created the world, people in his image, and the rest of wildlife and nature. And no, it's not difficult to have a scientific mind and believe in creation and intelligent design - I know a good number of people that are exactly that way.

 

[Truby]

Very well said Truby. I guess I take intelligent design to also include creation, but from some of these posts now I'm confused. So is creation included in intelligent design or are we strictly talking about evolution? I guess I was more questioning how someone could be a Christian and not believe God created the world, people in his image, and the rest of wildlife and nature. And no, it's not difficult to have a scientific mind and believe in creation and intelligent design - I know a good number of people that are exactly that way.

I agree with you, intelligent design should include creation. I'm also confused as to how it is possible to be a Christian and not believe in creation- it's kind of foundational to the Christian faith.

 

[jpeterman13]

Not really, but I can go with evolution vs. adaptation if it makes you feel better.

No, it is incorrect to differentiate between macro/microevolution. To biologists, both happen the by the same process and for the same reasons. Macroevolution is the result of microevolution. same thing in my book

 

[Trilt]

'Evolution' is a required course for my Zoology degree here. They specifically make genetics a pre-req for the class to keep out anyone who might confuse it with a philosophy course... cause it ain't. It's 'this happened and you're going to learn about it scientifically, as a process, with no mention of religion at all'... I never thought about it, but that might be a bit strange for the bible belt. No complaints here, I hear it's a good course and I already have the eras/periods/epochs memorized...

That is how the professor dealt with it - basically; "Well, you're about to take a class heavily based around evolution. If you don't believe in it, that's fine and all, but sorry, here you're going to have to learn the science supporting it."

>HALF of the people in a BIO class?!?!

I felt exactly the same way. ah, the South.

 

[Truby]

No, it is incorrect to differentiate between macro/microevolution. To biologists, both happen the by the same process and for the same reasons. Macroevolution is the result of microevolution. same thing in my book

Not all biologists believe that microevolution and macroevolution are the same process (obviously, since I'm a biologist). But, I think we're arguing over semantics here. Like I said, go with evolution vs. adaptation if micro vs. macro bugs you.

 

[ImaJerseyGirl]

That is how the professor dealt with it - basically; "Well, you're about to take a class heavily based around evolution. If you don't believe in it, that's fine and all, but sorry, here you're going to have to learn the science supporting it."


I felt exactly the same way. ah, the South.

Not just the south, here in northeast... around the country I suppose. I had a class called "science and media" that forced me to seriously reconsider my views. Here I am raised Catholic (not a church every sunday dedication person) and now trying to pick between that and Science.

Do you need to neglect one to believe in the other?

I have to believe that there is some faith involved with being a doctor, but still the majority is science. I was really (and still am) torn about it, because I really want to settle on Science and call it a day.

 

[Pointer1330]

Not just the south, here in northeast... around the country I suppose. I had a class called "science and media" that forced me to seriously reconsider my views. Here I am raised Catholic (not a church every sunday dedication person) and now trying to pick between that and Science.

Do you need to neglect one to believe in the other?

I have to believe that there is some faith involved with being a doctor, but still the majority is science. I was really (and still am) torn about it, because I really want to settle on Science and call it a day.

I find your post very confusing - I'm not sure why anyone would have to beieve in one or the other. You could have your DVM, MD, and PhD and be the world's foremost authority on some scientific topic, but still be a Christian and even believe in creation. Whether or not someone believes in creation or the big bang or whatever has absolutely no bearing on science and medicine in today's world or how well they practice medicine. I guess I just don't understand a person that's in a scientific discipline that says "well, since I'm a scientist I guess I better believe in the Big Bang and evolution". Remember that there's not enough evidence to prove that either concept is what really happened...that's what faith is all about.

 

[snapcall]

Just wanted to say it's not impossible to be a biology major (and researcher) and believe in intelligent design. I don't believe in macro evolution because there are so many missing pieces and the deeper you get into the way organisms function the harder it is to believe that all these mechanisms happened by "chance". I'm also against evolution being taught as the only option is schools because people tend to believe exactly what they are told even if there isn't enough evidence to support an idea. Anytime someone accepts something without question it becomes faith. Evolution can be a religion unto itself if you're not careful.

You're right, there's no way it happened by chance. Chance does not equate to evolution through natural selection. Also, anyone suggesting that the evidence supporting evolution by natural selection is insufficient to render it the only theory taught in schools is likely unaware of just how much of it there is. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Oops. I didn't really mean to start a whole line of conversation by expressing my faith in His Noodly Appendage, but oh well.

Only semi-related, but worth sharing: in my introductory biology class (at NCSU, where one of our largest campus organizations is Campus Crusade for Christ... and also large is the Muslim Student Association) greater than half of the students, when polled, said that they did not believe in evolution. In a biology class. I nearly cried.

 

[dyachei]

I agree with you, intelligent design should include creation. I'm also confused as to how it is possible to be a Christian and not believe in creation- it's kind of foundational to the Christian faith.

You don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian. Creation means different things to different people. A lot of my Christian friends believe that God began things with the big bang.

 

[nyanko]

Not all biologists believe that microevolution and macroevolution are the same process (obviously, since I'm a biologist). But, I think we're arguing over semantics here. Like I said, go with evolution vs. adaptation if micro vs. macro bugs you.

No, we're not arguing over semantics. I'm sorry, you don't make any sense. If you want to expand on what you mean by "evolution vs. adaptation" (adaptation is a component of the theory of evolution, not a separate thing) then perhaps you will make sense. But as of right now, you don't.

 

[deleted266066]

Resisting. Urge. To. Barge. In.

I hate when debates regarding evolution come up. I will bite my tongue and sick quietly instead. And explode on the inside.

 

[twelvetigers]

It's a landmine topic fer sure.

 

[sumstorm]

I agree with you, intelligent design should include creation. I'm also confused as to how it is possible to be a Christian and not believe in creation- it's kind of foundational to the Christian faith.

I know several individuals who are leaders in christian religion (ie priests, ministers, rabbis) that do not believe in intelligent design but do believe in creation, but not in the classic sense of human adam/eve.

They believe that we have misinterpretted portions of the bible in the sense that 'created in the image of god' does not necessarily translate into the current form of 'human.' How do we not know 'god' and the image of 'god' wasn't an energy form? an explosion? a primordial ooze?

The correlate it to the idea that a millenia in our time may be a moment in gods time, and penny of our wealth may be a fortune in gods terms.

Not all christian or god beliefs follow exacting interpretations of an oft translated bible written by such fallible creatures as humans.

 

[parietal]

Electrophile - I'm very curious how you can consider yourself a Christian but not support intelligent design? I'm not talking about it being taught in schools - just the concept in general.

I grew up Catholic and while I don't consider myself one now, it has always irritated me how certain groups of conservative Christians co-opt the title "Christian" to mean something far more narrow than believing in Christ.

The Vatican took a neutral stance on evolution beginning in the 1950s, and has officially backed it since 1996. Many, many other Christian religions accept evolution as a central tenet of science or remain neutral.

So it's quite possible to be a Christian without supporting intelligent design.

 

[ImaJerseyGirl]

I find your post very confusing - I'm not sure why anyone would have to beieve in one or the other. You could have your DVM, MD, and PhD and be the world's foremost authority on some scientific topic, but still be a Christian and even believe in creation. Whether or not someone believes in creation or the big bang or whatever has absolutely no bearing on science and medicine in today's world or how well they practice medicine. I guess I just don't understand a person that's in a scientific discipline that says "well, since I'm a scientist I guess I better believe in the Big Bang and evolution". Remember that there's not enough evidence to prove that either concept is what really happened...that's what faith is all about.

It should be confusing... because I'm really confused! I guess I felt like treating Science as it's own belief and religion. But to believe in evolution then talk of creation is a contradiction (I am really not trying to start an argument here), so in my mind, it was pick one. I'm torn from what I'm raised with and what I am an learning.

Anyway, carry on...

 

[HopefulAg]

To me s/he's saying Creation = created the first bits of nucleic acid that formed into a living organism (or however it happened).

In a nut shell, I suppose it'd be 'God created the big bang'.

 

[turnandburn]

I too find it hard to understand how people can be both Christian and a "scientist." It should be obvious to any scientific mind that there is *zero* evidence for creation. Religion does provide comforting answers to the difficult questions though (why are we here, what happens when we die, why does life suck so bad for some people), those are questions science will never be able to answer, so it continues...

 

[sumstorm]

Don't forget...science itself evolves. At one point people thought cancer in general was contagious...then we thought it wasn't....and now we are realizing that at least some forms are.

Scientists battle all the time on what to believe...and how to figure out what to believe....just read the editorials in most science journals!

 

[sumstorm]

I too find it hard to understand how people can be both Christian and a "scientist." It should be obvious to any scientific mind that there is *zero* evidence for creation. Religion does provide comforting answers to the difficult questions though (why are we here, what happens when we die, why does life suck so bad for some people), those are questions science will never be able to answer, so it continues...

So how did the big bang come about? or hte materials/energy/etc that went into the big bang?

there somehow had to be an origination point..... how do you know that the origination point was created?

I don't have answers...and the older I get, the more I realize there is so little that I know.

 

[turnandburn]

^Evolution doesn't address the Big Bang. And I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to even delve into that 😳

There is, however, a lot of evidence for evolution, and *none* for a creator. Not a single piece of objective evidence.

 

[cowgirla]

I too find it hard to understand how people can be both Christian and a "scientist." It should be obvious to any scientific mind that there is *zero* evidence for creation. Religion does provide comforting answers to the difficult questions though (why are we here, what happens when we die, why does life suck so bad for some people), those are questions science will never be able to answer, so it continues...

Okay, so I know I said I was done with the religious debate, but have to step in for this...

1) My advanced biology teacher in high school was a nun.
2) I took basic biology through a large public university, in New York. The professor there was also a nun.

So obviously, it is possible to be both a scientist and religious. Neither of them had any issue teaching ALL aspects of science as well, and I do feel like I got a strong background in evolution from them.

 

[turnandburn]

Okay, so I know I said I was done with the religious debate, but have to step in for this...

1) My advanced biology teacher in high school was a nun.
2) I took basic biology through a large public university, in New York. The professor there was also a nun.

So obviously, it is possible to be both a scientist and religious. Neither of them had any issue teaching ALL aspects of science as well, and I do feel like I got a strong background in evolution from them.

I know people are, and that's it's possible, I'm just saying I have a hard time understanding that.

 

[sumstorm]

^Evolution doesn't address the Big Bang. And I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to even delve into that 😳

There is, however, a lot of evidence for evolution, and *none* for a creator. Not a single piece of objective evidence.

LOL. As I said, older I get, less I KNOW!

The whole thing I was pointing out is that evolution/creationism aren't necessarily addressing the same aspect for all people.

Heck, scientists can't even agree on whether to call fungi in different sexual phases by same or different names, let alone exactly what occurs during evolution or creation (which would be closer to origination than evolution.) One thing I think is hard for young scientists is to realize that science isn't about absolutes. Part of the reason it is all about theories, not proofs.

 

[turnandburn]

LOL. As I said, older I get, less I KNOW!

The whole thing I was pointing out is that evolution/creationism aren't necessarily addressing the same aspect for all people.

Heck, scientists can't even agree on whether to call fungi in different sexual phases by same or different names, let alone exactly what occurs during evolution or creation (which would be closer to origination than evolution.) One thing I think is hard for young scientists is to realize that science isn't about absolutes. Part of the reason it is all about theories, not proofs.

Don't patronize me. 👎 I might be younger than you but that doesn't mean I haven't given a lot of thought to my beliefs. I was raised Christian, and only through a lot of research and thought did I slowly (over a period of several years!) become atheist.

Religion answers the questions that science cannot (yet). Thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat and that you needed to pray for the sun to return every morning. They believed they needed to pray/dance for the rain gods. People believed that lepers had displeased the gods. Etc. Obviously now, thanks to *science*, we know that the earth is round and the sun is in a fixed location- all that praying had nothing to do with the natural cycles of the earth, and that leprosy is caused by bacteria. What I'm getting at is that we may not have all the answers *today,* but that doesn't mean we won't have them tomorrow. And in the meantime, making up answers (aka goddidit) is not really an answer at all. IMO, belief in a god raises far more troubling questions than it answers.

 

[sumstorm]

I wasn't patronizing you. I was stating two things:

I feel that I know less now than I did two years ago, ten years ago, or fifteen years ago. Maybe that is just because I am an idiot going downhill before middle age. Or maybe that is because I just keep realizing just how much more is out there that I don't know. That has nothing to do with you. Maybe in another decade you will know every aspect of everything and have it all down perfect. I really don't know. That is for YOU to figure out for yourself. So that comment was all about me. As for my opinion on whether young scientists think science is proof, again my belief. I think I could do a survey of all freshmen who are pursueing science and get a majority that don't really understand the differences between proof, theory and hypothesis. Maybe I am wrong. Always a good possiblity.

Thanks to SCIENCE we also know that both prayer, meditation, and other methods improve the health of individuals. Even if you call it a placebo affect, it means that some facet of those things affect health...therefor affecting outcomes.

For every single question we answer, we come up with lots more. So maybe you are right....some day you will have all the answers. I won't be part of that 'we' who will have all the answers. I don't believe it is possible. What is the difference between saying 'god did it' or 'genes did it' or 'genotype with environment caused it' or 'exposure to environmental factor'...isn't it all ways of saying 'we don't have an ultimate answer?' Heck, we have known about diabetes since before christianity developed, and yet, we still don't know what causes it, or why it happens to some people and not others, and why it is recoverable in some animals (spontaneous B cells generation) but not others.

I am not saying you can't believe in absolutes. Really doesn't matter to me....just saying that not being able to understand how others can have a different perspective is more about you than about them.

As I had already noted...I am not christian. I don't have a dog in this hunt; if god is part of someone's belief, great. if gold is the deity....wonderful. if you believe in reincarnation, fine by me. if I believe in universal energy, wonderful. It is just possible, in my above mentioned ignorance, that there is something some of the christian folks know that I don't...just as I know more about a lot of topics than others. Sometimes knowing isn't about the 100% explanation in complete order. We use drugs to treat things that we have no real idea of why or how they work...we just know they do. I am just saying that all of us, at some point in time, have faith about something. We don't ditch all of one concept because we find an exception. Someone who believes in creation and evolution is entitled to that belief, just as you are entitled to yours. Understanding it is about feeling empathy, accepting that there are dimensions to someone else that we just may not know, and being ok with someone haveing more room for multiple beliefs in their life.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[Pointer1330]

Don't patronize me. 👎 I might be younger than you but that doesn't mean I haven't given a lot of thought to my beliefs. I was raised Christian, and only through a lot of research and thought did I slowly (over a period of several years!) become atheist.

Religion answers the questions that science cannot (yet). Thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat and that you needed to pray for the sun to return every morning. They believed they needed to pray/dance for the rain gods. People believed that lepers had displeased the gods. Etc. Obviously now, thanks to *science*, we know that the earth is round and the sun is in a fixed location- all that praying had nothing to do with the natural cycles of the earth, and that leprosy is caused by bacteria. What I'm getting at is that we may not have all the answers *today,* but that doesn't mean we won't have them tomorrow. And in the meantime, making up answers (aka goddidit) is not really an answer at all. IMO, belief in a god raises far more troubling questions than it answers.

You had to go and do it - and by 'it' I mean ruin the thread. Even though I have strong feelings about my Christianity I was enjoying this thread and the different thoughts - but no one was really doing the whole "you're wrong and I'm right" thing. A couple of things - you don't have any more evidence that your theories are right than creationists do, and also - I think that Sumstorm's comments sound patronizing because your comments make you sound very naive.

 

[turnandburn]

Thanks to SCIENCE we also know that both prayer, meditation, and other methods improve the health of individuals. Even if you call it a placebo affect, it means that some facet of those things affect health...therefor affecting outcomes.

Yes, I would call that placebo effect. Religion gives people hope, leading to a very real physical outcome.

For every single question we answer, we come up with lots more. So maybe you are right....some day you will have all the answers. I won't be part of that 'we' who will have all the answers. I don't believe it is possible.

Sorry, I admit I don't take the time to edit my posts. I didn't mean to state we will have *all* the answers, I agree with you there. But I do believe we will find that answers to things that we don't currently understand today, because we are continuously gaining new knowledge.

What is the difference between saying 'god did it' or 'genes did it' or 'genotype with environment caused it' or 'exposure to environmental factor'...isn't it all ways of saying 'we don't have an ultimate answer?'

No, because saying goddidit implies a supernatural, intangible force, whereas if we say a genotype is causing a specific illness, we can specify down to the molecular level what is happening, and why. Two totally different things.

I am not saying you can't believe in absolutes. Really doesn't matter to me....just saying that not being able to understand how others can have a different perspective is more about you than about them.

So lets look at this from another perspective... all you've really done is tear apart scientific theory, but you still haven't provided a shred of evidence for belief in a god.... because there is none? Then why believe? Because something inside you is uncomfortable with not knowing? With being alone in the universe? Because death is frightening? Because it feels "right?" Because everyone else believes?

 

[turnandburn]

You had to go and do it - and by 'it' I mean ruin the thread. Even though I have strong feelings about my Christianity I was enjoying this thread and the different thoughts - but no one was really doing the whole "you're wrong and I'm right" thing. A couple of things - you don't have any more evidence that your theories are right than creationists do, and also - I think that Sumstorm's comments sound patronizing because your comments make you sound very naive.

I can bombard you with evidence for evolution. Can you give me a single piece of objective evidence for a creator?

 

[sumstorm]

Thousands of years ago people believed the earth was flat and that you needed to pray for the sun to return every morning. They believed they needed to pray/dance for the rain gods. People believed that lepers had displeased the gods. Etc. Obviously now, thanks to *science*, we know that the earth is round and the sun is in a fixed location- all that praying had nothing to do with the natural cycles of the earth, and that leprosy is caused by bacteria. What I'm getting at is that we may not have all the answers *today,* but that doesn't mean we won't have them tomorrow. And in the meantime, making up answers (aka goddidit) is not really an answer at all. IMO, belief in a god raises far more troubling questions than it answers.

Oh, and something else..... there are cultures out there that never believed in flatland theory. There were even cultures in Europe that didn't believe it. My cultural ancestors believed that genetic anomalies, such as dwarfisms, were gifts of nature that gave the individual different insights on life. Who is to say that belief is wrong?

Do we really know the sun is in a fixed location? My understanding is that it is in a relative location, the center of our galaxy, but part of an expanding universe, meaning that it's location is relative to expansion, and that is assuming there isn't movement of galaxies, or even changes in movement of stars (which we know isn't true for all other stars.) Natural cycles? are you talking about the natural global warming? the affect of krakatoa? understanding and predicting plate tetonics? As far as I know, we still don't know how wild animals react to things that we tend to ignore....let alone really understanding the cycles of nature.

I think all of the above is about perspective. But, as I said, I know less as I age, so probably just my shortcoming to have such ignorant thoughts. 😱

 

[turnandburn]

Oh, and something else..... there are cultures out there that never believed in flatland theory. There were even cultures in Europe that didn't believe it. My cultural ancestors believed that genetic anomalies, such as dwarfisms, were gifts of nature that gave the individual different insights on life. Who is to say that belief is wrong?

Do we really know the sun is in a fixed location? My understanding is that it is in a relative location, the center of our galaxy, but part of an expanding universe, meaning that it's location is relative to expansion, and that is assuming there isn't movement of galaxies, or even changes in movement of stars (which we know isn't true for all other stars.) Natural cycles? are you talking about the natural global warming? the affect of krakatoa? understanding and predicting plate tetonics? As far as I know, we still don't know how wild animals react to things that we tend to ignore....let alone really understanding the cycles of nature.

Yes, thanks to science we know all these things. 👍

Still waiting on evidence for a creator...

 

[sumstorm]

I can bombard you with evidence for evolution. Can you give me a single piece of objective evidence for a creator?

So, since you know the answers, how did it all originate? Even if I don't believe in a creator, I realize that all these molecules had some initiation somewhere. Even when we are down at the level of subatomic particles, they still exist. If I don't even have an alternative theory, how can I judge someone elses.

This is part of why I said that not everyone sees the debate as evolution vs creation, but rather creation vs origination.

It's like listening to people argue about whether or not positive punishment must be aversive in learning theory. people aren't argueing from even the same definitions of punishment...or in this case, evolution, creation, origination.

 

[Pointer1330]

I can bombard you with evidence for evolution. Can you give me a single piece of objective evidence for a creator?

I never said that I don't believe that a form of evolution has happened since the beginning of the earth.

I would like you to show me proof of the big bang, or proof that algae combined to form the first eukaryote or whatever you believe started life on earth. Oh, you can't do it? If we evolved from apes where is the half-man half-ape today?

I can throw out immature unanswerable questions also. It's hard to have a debate or discuss different opinions when you quite obviously have tunnel vision.

 

[sumstorm]

Yes, thanks to science we know all these things. 👍

Still waiting on evidence for a creator...

Please provide your evidence for the sun being in a fixed location since you, in an earlier post, claimed to know this.

I just pointed out that from my current understanding, what you claim to KNOW is wrong. So does that mean your entire belief system about everything else is wrong? or does it mean your understanding of a single component was flawed? or does it mean we don't really know all about that yet?

I dont get how you can see that you don't KNOW something your fully believe you know, and yet can't see how someone else might KNOW something that you don't know it terms of a creator?

to me, it doesn't matter....I don't care.... I don't believe in a creator myself, but I can completly understand why someone else does.

Oh, and you haven't PROVEN that a placebo affect isn't about faith in a relitiong. just because we label it doesn't mean we KNOW what it is. I can name something without knowing WHAT it is. Prions are a current example of that...we have some ideas and theories, but we don't know, but we have still named it.

 

[turnandburn]

So, since you know the answers, how did it all originate? Even if I don't believe in a creator, I realize that all these molecules had some initiation somewhere. Even when we are down at the level of subatomic particles, they still exist. If I don't even have an alternative theory, how can I judge someone elses.
.

Did I say I had *all* the answers? 🙂

I hope you do realize there is a plethora of evidence for evolution. If you want I'll even provide multiple sources for you to review at your leisure. You are however, ignoring my repeated requests for any objective evidence at all for a creator.

 

[sumstorm]

Allright, I am done. this is about like talking with brody.... can't change anyone's views who doesn't even want to consider that there is any possibility that there is far more out there than one person can absolutly know. again, part of why I am agnostic....and part of why I am not personally a fan of organized religion.

Good evening, everyone! Off to study for a final...or move back to the latest brody thread.

 

[turnandburn]

Please provide your evidence for the sun being in a fixed location since you, in an earlier post, claimed to know this.

I also admitted I don't take time to edit my posts, so I apologize for wording things incorrectly. My point was that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, as the ancients believed. I hope I don't need to provide evidence of that 😎

Oh, and you haven't PROVEN that a placebo affect isn't about faith in a relitiong. just because we label it doesn't mean we KNOW what it is. I can name something without knowing WHAT it is. Prions are a current example of that...we have some ideas and theories, but we don't know, but we have still named it.

Science doesn't "prove" things, remember 😉