Smidlee said:
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:
Homeroids said:
And here's another interesting point - why do people get so passionate about the Creation vs Evolution debate?
Because the person who advocates creation thinks that if you can disprove evolution, you give God more credit and the end game is that if you can prove creation, you therefore prove that God exists.
Genesis and the rest of the Bible has nothing to do with this - it's not a scientific book. It assumes God exists as opposed to proving God exists.
Conversely, the person that advocates evolution thinks that if you prove evolution is happenning, then faith in a God becomes complete folly. The end game is that if you prove evolution, you can in fact disprove the existance of the Judeo/Christian idea of God. The hope is that you prove God is a delusion.
Both are unattainable "end games". I truly believe the truth is somewhere inbetween but you always have to be "happy" that you can change that belief or otherwise you are as dogmatic as the next person.
|
I think you have answered the question. The debate is about who we are and where we came from and what direction we are heading. Is man a fallen creature that was made in the image of God or is man an improved glorified ape on his way up to godhood? If man is just the product of nature (natural laws) then airplanes, computers, cars, building,etc. are nothing but the result of the laws of nature. Yet if that really is the truth then why does man speak as if he is outside/ apart from nature? ( artifical vs natural) What is it that made us into gods? If man tries to explain away everything mechanically then he also explain himself away including the thoughts that everything can be explained mechanically.
|
@ underlined
I personally see this as ultimately human arrogance. Everything we create is through a manipulation of nature and the laws of physics and yes, we have created things that naturally couldn't occur on our planet randomly. Yet as a species we're still very fragile; diseases and pandemics, earthquakes, volanoes and other natural disasters could all eventually wipe us out.
The artificial vs natural argument I think comes about because we're one of the few species that has advanced and spread to such a stage that we can truly influence the world and potentially destroy it.
|
hmmm you are still making a difference between our creations vs nature. No matter how much we try there is something deep down within us that there is a part of man that is not exactly "natural". No doubt our bodies are 100% natural.
|
Not really, I still see that as natural. You could say the same about simple tools used by apes and monkeys. They're not possible by nature on its own, but through living beings manipulating nature. Same could be said of otters and the dams they build. The examples in nature are there, our creations are just more complicated due to us evolving higher brain function.
As I mentioned, I think the distinction is partly arrogance and partly because we realised we've created tools with the potential to destroy nearly all higher forms of life on Earth.
