Did God create man or did man create God???

Man created what he wants God to be.

Originally posted by mad dog
Man created what he wants God to be.
------------------------------------------------------

Man said,"Let there be religion"and there was religion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Perry75
[B]Did God create man or did man create God???
---------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, the age old question. Probably asked first by a person with the ability to think away from the pack.
A question debated with little or no proof on either side. The proof being in the eye of the beholder.

The familiar statement"If god did not exist he would have had to have been invented" did little to satisfy the question.

Man certainly created a god,(or gods depending on the time period or culture under discussion), working with hear-say information. History shows many examples of various types.
If all faiths of history are true the sky and earth is virtually full of many gods.

How man was created? No one can say for sure. I see no proof of creation by one individual except handed down opinions of others with unprovable evidence as example.
Basically science (evolution theory) offers the same proposition.

Personal summary: Not enough information is available to properly qualify the answer to this question.

Originally posted by Perry75
Did God create man or did man create God??? I don't think it's either-or. Whether or not man was created by a sentient entity he has still gone on to invent an incredibly wide spectrum of gods throughout the ages.

So the question should simply be: was man created by a conscious agent?

It's possible, but the alleged creator of man made such a bad job it is highly unlikely. Also, the evidence that man evolved via natural laws is overwhelming to the point where we may confidently call this a fact in the scientific sense of the word.

That is a question that will, in my view, never have a true answer. Everyone has their own ideas and theories about the issue. If I had to choose…hmmm…. I would have to agree with mad dog. I am so lop-sided on this issue, I mean I believe in a higher being, and then sometimes I don’t. Science makes some great arguments, but there are many things that not even they can answer.

Man said,"Let there be religion"and there was religion. Bwahahahaaa

god may have created man, but man created suzuki, ducati, honda... after that there's no contest. :p

There is no guy with a white beard up in the sky, but the universe is alive and we exist because of It's will.

ah, but how did the universe come to be? (and before someone starts blah-ing about the big bang, what caused that?)

blah blah big bang blah blah... :)

The universe is everything; including space, time, the big bang, and even cause-and-effect (which of course requires the existance of time to be meaningful).

As to whether a big bang was the first event of the universe, this is unknown. Some speculative theories are currently in development though.

Superstring theorists are working on a model of branes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology) in higher dimensions crashing, causing the big bang. Personally I am unconvinced by string theory at the moment because it is untestable in principle.

Another idea is the oscillatory universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe) in which there is a cycle of big bangs and big crunches. I'd have my money on this, but I wouldn't wager a great deal at this time.

Yet another proposal is to consider the universe as a wave function described by the Hartle-Hawking state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle-Hawking_state). This is an interesting idea but one I have not read up on much and do not really understand well, despite having a (rusty) degree in physics.

Oh yes, and yet another idea is that a conscious, timeless, spaceless entity felt lonely. Some people find this comforting.

But no one knows so take your pick.

I pick the lonely entity theory (so lonely... Mr lonely...) Bet that entity's regretting us now!

so lonely... Mr lonely...lol. You know in some ways I think that is worse than the crazy frog. At least C.F. is meant to be irritating crap, where as Akon is supposed to be a serious heartfelt expression of angst.

Did man create himself?

Originally posted by mtclimber
Did man create himself?

Man was not "created"

Originally posted by Tapeworm
Man was not "created"
---------------------------------------------------

Could be that we are wrong, being worried about how man got here, because I believe, that when the first virus learns to live outside a host, man will cease to be necessary.

I agree that there will very probably be a time when life on earth continues without man being there. I also agree that it will be smaller organisms (not necessarily viruses) that will out survive us and most or all other multicellular organisms - afterall the single-cell exclusivley dominated the planet for a 2 or 3 billion years. Man wasn't needed then, was he?

Yes, how fragile life is.
An event, such as a meteor with the proper microscopic life present, striking the earth- for it to be all over.
This could be how life originated here in the beginning.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I believe, that when the first virus learns to live outside a host, man will cease to be necessary.

When it learns to live outside of a host, it's no longer a virus, is it?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
When it learns to live outside of a host, it's no longer a virus, is it? You're just playing pedantics with the semantics (unless that was a joke?). Allow me to rephrase on Dan's behalf:
When the future ancestors of that which we currently term a virus have evolved such that they do not require a multi-cellular host then there may be no more need for said multi-cellular hosts.

Happy now?

so when man is curing "disease" casued by these viruses we are really trying to maintain our dominance on this planet? wow. I cant wait for the "let the viruses mutate" crowd to pop up. "let them take what is rightfully theirs man". I cant undersant the constant need to belittle and downplay humanity and its roll in the universe.

When people acknowledge harsh realities of life it does not mean they are celebrating or advocating them, Trav. So pull yourself together man and realise one day there will be no more people.

Anyway, at least then everyone will truly have STFU as you seem to so desire.

Originally posted by Travh20
so when man is curing "disease" casued by these viruses we are really trying to maintain our dominance on this planet? wow. I cant wait for the "let the viruses mutate" crowd to pop up. "let them take what is rightfully theirs man". I cant undersant the constant need to belittle and downplay humanity and its roll in the universe.
----------------------------------

Trav, I am stating that I believe that a virus that could live an extended period of time, outside of a host, would devastate humanity. We would have a difficult time isolating and combating the spread of the virus.
Look at the problem we are having with aids today and it has a short life-span outside the host.

To combat most deadly viruses our main recourse has been to isolate the host.
This recourse would be removed by a virus that could live for an extended period of time outside the host.

It could more easily extend its territory thru wind movement, etc., during incubation. During the time the host has shown no symptoms.

By the way, just what is man's roll in the universe?
What would be added to or subtracted from if man was not here?
Is our selfishness so great that we believe that all things would cease if we were no longer present?

Originally posted by Blob
You're just playing pedantics with the semantics (unless that was a joke?).

Just being hyper-technical. :)

Originally posted by Blob
Happy now?

Sure. :)

There is not a shred of evidence for a species to evolve into another... So where did we come from...?:confused:

Originally posted by Quertol
There is not a shred of evidence for a species to evolve into another...
Yes, you're right. In Bizarro World, species do not evolve. The sky is also green, and hamburgers eat people!

Originally posted by Quertol
There is not a shred of evidence for a species to evolve into another... So where did we come from...?:confused: I agree. There is not a shred of evidence but boatloads.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220

Hundreds of articles regarding evidence for and observation of speciation are published every year. That is just a tiny sample. I have access to most academic journals on line and should you wish to see any of the above let me know, Quertol.

Hoperfully you are not someone who takes comfort in ignorance and as such will be delighted to have been directed to this mass of hard evidence.

Go ahead and give one piece of scientific evidence that suggests that one species has ever evolved into another...

Oh! I also forgot my favourite, what with it being close to home and widely known in the uk:

A NEW species of mosquito is evolving on the London Underground in a
development that has astonished scientists.

The insects are believed to be the descendants of mosquitoes which
colonised the tunnels a hundred years ago when the Tube was being dug.

When they went below ground they were bird-biting pests. But over a
century, deprived of their normal diet, the mosquitoes have evolved
new feeding behaviour, dining on mammals including rats and mice - and
human beings. They now plague maintenance workers.

Kate Byne and Richard Nichols of Queen Mary and Westfield College in
London have carried out tests to see if the Tube's mosquitoes, which
have been named molestus, are now different from Culex pipiens, the
bird-biting species which entered the Underground last century.

To their amazement they found that it was almost impossible to mate
those living above ground with those in the subterranean world,
indicating that the genetic differences are now so great that the ones
underground are well on their way to becoming a separate species.

This usually happens only when species are isolated for thousands
rather than tens of years.

The team, whose findings are reported in BBC Wildlife magazine today,
have also found genetic differences between mosquitoes on different
Tube lines. They believe this is due to the draughts dispersing the
insects along but not between lines.

During the Second World War the insects attacked Londoners sheltering
from Hitler's bombs.

Roz Kidman Cox, the magazine editor, said: "It's a remarkable story of
evolution. The scientists say that the differences between the above
and below-ground forms are as great as if the species had been
separated for thousands of years."

The conditions on the Underground are probably ideal for mosquitoes to
breed rapidly and frequently throughout the year. Temperatures can be
balmy and the network is prone to penetration by water creating pools
of stagnant water for breeding.

There are more than 1,600 varieties of mosquitoes which live from the
Arctic tundra to the tropical rain forests.

London Times August 26 1998

Originally posted by Blob
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220
Darwin, Charles (1859) On the Origin of Species.

Originally posted by Quertol
Go ahead and give one piece of scientific evidence that suggests that one species has ever evolved into another... I think you posted at the same time as me.

EDIT: Click back to page 2, Quertol.


Oh and welcome to allforums!

There's a difference between the adaptability of a species, and a species of say cat evolving into a dog...

Originally posted by Quertol
There's a difference between the adaptability of a species, and a species of say cat evolving into a dog...
You asked for one example of speciation. I provided many. What say you to that?

What do you mean by "adaptability of a species"? And where on earth did you get the idea that cats are the descendants of dogs?

Originally posted by Quertol
There's a difference between the adaptability of a species, and a species of say cat evolving into a dog...
Do dogs have some reproductive or survival advantage over cats? And, is the mutation of cats having dog-like features common? If so, cats will likely evolve into dogs over a period of time.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Do dogs have some reproductive or survival advantage over cats? And, is the mutation of cats having dog-like features common? If so, cats will likely evolve into dogs over a period of time. Amusing that Quertol chose domestic animals which even the most hardline creationists concede have descended from wild animals (wild cats and wolves in this case). That's why you always hear them whining on about micro vs macro evolution.

Originally posted by Blob
Amusing that Quertol chose domestic animals which even the most hardline creationists concede have descended from wild animals (wild cats and wolves in this case). That's why you always hear them whining on about micro vs macro evolution.

Well apparently that's adaption and not evolution. See, if you pretend there's a difference then you can deny the reality of evolution.

what causes you to believe that?

Originally posted by friendly_seeker
what causes you to believe that? I think Lionel is mildly jabbing the ribs of creationists general confusion, misunderstanding and wooliness on the subject of evolution.

yea... but neither can be proven.... remember that...

it amazes me how some people just think that evolution is a solid factual proven idea.....when its not.

Its a theory, nothing more.

And if thats the case, why are peoples panties all in bunches about teaching creationism in school... after all.. they are BOTH theories???????

Originally posted by Decka
yea... but neither can be proven.... remember that...
Perhaps you missed my sample list of hard scientific evidence.

it amazes me how some people just think that evolution is a solid factual proven idea.....when its not.

Its a theory, nothing more.
So are gravity and thermodynamics. A theory in science has powerful and repeated explanatory power. That is why we speak of the laws of relativity, thermodynamics and natural selection.

All three theories are considered facts because they are supported by masses of evidence, repeated testing and have practical applications.

[/b]And if thats the case, why are peoples panties all in bunches about teaching creationism in school... after all.. they are BOTH theories??????? [/B]
You are mxing the everday casual sense of the word theory with the scientific meaning. In the scientific sense - as in "evolution is a theory of the origin of the species" - we cannot say "the bible is a theory of the origin of the species". This is because "god-made-it" is a statement of speculation and has no explanatory power.

In my country science, including evolution, is taught in science lessons.; whereas the christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist and other faith-based creation stories are taught in Religous Education lessons.

Originally posted by Decka
Its a theory, nothing more.
the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
And if thats the case, why are peoples panties all in bunches about teaching creationism in school...
con·jec·ture
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

And...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't think God and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive.

The evidence in support of evoutionary theory does not negate the possibility that there was some god or force or whatever you want to call it that set the process in motion.

And, in response to the original question: I believe that there was a God that created man (through whatever process), but that man has certainly put God into our own little boxes throughout time.

Originally posted by Blob
Amusing that Quertol chose domestic animals which even the most hardline creationists concede have descended from wild animals (wild cats and wolves in this case). That's why you always hear them whining on about micro vs macro evolution.


now don't chew my head off here,because I didn't listen fully,but there was something on the box about 2 weeks ago,about dogs (domestic) being entirely different from wild dogs genetically,or something....


did anyone else pick up on it and have details???

Yes domestic dogs are genetically very different to wild dogs despite having a relatively recent common ancestor. This is because breeding - or "unnatural selection" if you will - is generally a speedier process than natural selection.

Human DNA is much more similar to that of a chimpanzee than a domestic dog's is to a wild dog. This is despite the fact that the human-chimp common ancestor lived much longer ago than the domestic-wild dog common ancestor.

Sadly for creationists this is a blow. For them chimp and human are different kinds with no common ancestry yet are genetically similar; for creationists the dog and wolf are the same kind and share a common ancestor yet are genetically disimilar.

Originally posted by Blob
Y
Human DNA is much more similar to that of a chimpanzee than a domestic dog's is to a wild dog. This is despite the fact that the human-chimp common ancestor lived much longer ago than the domestic-wild dog common ancestor.




Humans and chimpanzees are 98.7% genetically identical. A study completed in 2002 identified how the brains of the two species differ. Humans have five times the amount of genetic material in their brains compared to chimps.That,s a big difference.

It makes sense that of the 1.3% difference between chimps and humans would be most noticable in the brain. It is our intellegence and self-awareness that makes us distinct amongst the animals, including our close relatives.

can that difference be explained
ie the difference in the brain?

why are we intelligent and self aware,and the chimp is not?

Originally posted by chaff

why are we intelligent and self aware,and the chimp is not? ----------------------------------------------------------------------

We are just unlucky I guess.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We are just unlucky I guess.

LOL

thats one way of looking at it I suppose!

why are we intelligent and self aware,and the chimp is not? Both are intelligent, just one more so. Both are in some sense self-aware, but only one is has profound insights such as his own mortality. These differences arise from the difference in size and complexity of brains.

As to how consciousness arises, presently neither religion nor science can explain the mechanism.

Originally posted by Blob
Both are intelligent, just one more so. Both are in some sense self-aware, but only one is has profound insights such as his own mortality. These differences arise from the difference in size and complexity of brains.

As to how consciousness arises, presently neither religion nor science can explain the mechanism.


possibly something super-natural,perhaps.....???

Perhaps indeed - there is certainly wiggle-room to speculate.

But saying it's "supernature" or a "soul" or a deity doesn't quite hit the spot. It just labels the mystery and does nothing to resolve it. Surely that is at best a last resort?

In our heads, at the very spot this marvel of being conscious takes place, is an enormous brain. I'd wager there's a connection. The wonders of the human brain are being unravelled, but slowly, and there is a long way to go. Nonetheless, there is something to research (brain) and there are promising developments (neuroscience) to build on.

The history of human thought is a story of superstition and supernature being replaced by naturalistic understandings. There's no reason to expect the mystery of consciousness to deviate from this pattern.

Guys, if I might interrupt for a moment, deeply consider what I am about to say then give me a response.

I believe that the advanced ability to communicate and long term memory together help give the answers you seek.

We think that we are so advanced but it is because of the collective learnings of all that we have been. We have been able to communicate and remember these advances.

If you could take a small child and place him on an island with absolutely no previous learned knowledge how different would he be than any other animal on the island. Say he had abundant fruit and water and could easily sustain himself and the temperatures were moderate, year round.

He would not clothe himself for he has never seen such.
He would eat and play, occupying himself, then sleep.
His cycle probably would never change. He would accept what is.
He would never know language or have other's experience to draw upon.
Were he exposed to apes he would probably take on some of their habits as possibly other animal habits he observes.
He may never venture into the ocean because he would fear the water after nearly drowning. No one to teach him to swim.
Use your imagination. Without any collective memory of previous learned experiences to be shared with him thru communication he would appear as just another curious animal on the island.

Most of all there would probably be no gods in his life only his reality.

to take your analogy and turn it around somewhat-take an ape,and try to educate it as much as you wish.Teach it the ways of human kind,all the sophisticated mannerisms,speech,behaviour etc and it will never,ever attain the ability to be like us.



It is easy for the human to become animal like by removing him from a human environment at a very young age,as you suggest-but impossible for an animal to become human like.An animal that is genetically very close to us,but still cannot be like us.

Are you saying then that a conscience would something that has to be learnt,and is not inherent?

You may certainly interrupt, Dan.

I agree with what you say and in fact there is evidence to support you. There are documented cases of children having been raised by wolves and so on. They display animal behaviour of course.

I also agree that communication and long term memory are essential. In fact you have raised the equally important issue of "nurture" whereas I have just talked about "nature" so far.

This reminds me of something very interesting in human pre-history. Archeological evidence of culture - ornaments, art, musical instruments and so on - goes back around 50000 years then suddenly stops. Fully modern humans were around for many millenia before that, and were using practical technoogies such as tools and clothes and weapons, but not cultural artefacts. This suggests culture came only after hundreds of generations of fully modern humans had come and gone.

When you think about it there's no reason that culture should not lag brain evolution. Culture is a side-effect of having a big brain, not a cause.

All this raises some fascinating questions, such as:
Does culture depend on language, and if so was there a time when fully modern humans had no language as we know it?
...and if they had no language were they conscious in the sense we are?
Was culture invented/discovered gradually by many, or did a few lone geniuses kick start the process?
Were they aware of their own mortality and, if so, how did they cope with it?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I don't think God and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I agree. I think if the evolutionists had discovered all life is related but we humans have a unique origin then people wouldn't mind. All those silly Kent Hovind types would just melt away. People claim (and often sincerely believe) evolution is bad science, but the real reason they are against it is because "I ain't no goddam' son of a monkey".

guys
-to take a quick side step a moment
just read this-goes to prove you don't need to put a child among animals for him to behave like one(worse even)--
very very sad...


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050704/ap_on_re_us/idaho_missing_children

Originally posted by chaff
to take your analogy and turn it around somewhat-take an ape,and try to educate it as much as you wish.Teach it the ways of human kind,all the sophisticated mannerisms,speech,behaviour etc and it will never,ever attain the ability to be like us.



It is easy for the human to become animal like by removing him from a human environment at a very young age,as you suggest-but impossible for an animal to become human like.An animal that is genetically very close to us,but still cannot be like us.

Are you saying then that a conscience would something that has to be learnt,and is not inherent?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaff, thanks for the response, the larger brain has the needed matter to contain the cells needed for advanced communication and memory. Therefore the ape, not having such, could never grasp the human advantages.
Apes have handed-down the use of certain tools thru physical one on one actions. We, as humans, can learn thru recorded history from people that we have never met. This sharing of long term history, whether vocal or written, is due to having a brain mass that the ape seemingly does not have. This seems to give us the advantages we call intelligence.

I do wonder why people with the same relative brain mass have different I.Qs.

Originally posted by Blob
I agree. I think if the evolutionists had discovered all life is related but we humans have a unique origin then people wouldn't mind. All those silly Kent Hovind types would just melt away. People claim (and often sincerely believe) evolution is bad science, but the real reason they are against it is because "I ain't no goddam' son of a monkey".


not quite Blob.They are against it because Jesus believed in the literal Genesis account of creation (Mark 10:6; 13:19), not theistic evolution.In the Bible, man's sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12). In evolution, struggle and death exist long before man evolves.

Originally posted by Blob
You may certainly interrupt, Dan.

I agree with what you say and in fact there is evidence to support you. There are documented cases of children having been raised by wolves and so on. They display animal behaviour of course.

I also agree that communication and long term memory are essential. In fact you have raised the equally important issue of "nurture" whereas I have just talked about "nature" so far.

This reminds me of something very interesting in human pre-history. Archeological evidence of culture - ornaments, art, musical instruments and so on - goes back around 50000 years then suddenly stops. Fully modern humans were around for many millenia before that, and were using practical technoogies such as tools and clothes and weapons, but not cultural artefacts. This suggests culture came only after hundreds of generations of fully modern humans had come and gone.Quote
-------------------------------------------------

Dan...Are we truely sure when modern man entered the picture?
Note that as I say this that I believe modern man to be seperate from the Neandertal types not an evolved species from them.
I believe the time for culture, art, etc., came after modern man moved to the village setting where all time was not used for the hunter/gather/protection thing.
----------------------------------

When you think about it there's no reason that culture should not lag brain evolution. Culture is a side-effect of having a big brain, not a cause.Quote
-----------------
Dan...I agree.


All this raises some fascinating questions, such as:
Does culture depend on language, and if so was there a time when fully modern humans had no language as we know it?
...and if they had no language were they conscious in the sense we are?
Was culture invented/discovered gradually by many, or did a few lone geniuses kick start the process?
Were they aware of their own mortality and, if so, how did they cope with it?
---------------------------------
Dan....Probably was a slow process as humans found the protection of group benefits. Learning from each others learned experiences once communication was improved.
But most of all, as people shared questions and worked together on answers.

Chaff, thanks for the response, the larger brain has the needed matter to contain the cells needed for advanced communication and memory. Therefore the ape, not having such, could never grasp the human advantages.
Apes have handed-down the use of certain tools thru physical one on one actions. We, as humans, can learn thru recorded history from people that we have never met. This sharing of long term history, whether vocal or written, is due to having a brain mass that the ape seemingly does not have. This seems to give us the advantages we call intelligence.
Not quite true. For hundreds of years crackpot scientists have been trying to prove that larger brains means greater intelligence. In the past couple of months some have claimed that they've proven it, and they weren't really correct. Brain sizes have little to nothing to do with intelligence.

I do wonder why people with the same relative brain mass have different I.Qs.
Einstein had an average brain size except it was a bit wider in one spot.

They are against it because Jesus believed in the literal Genesis account of creation (Mark 10:6; 13:19), not theistic evolution.In the Bible, man's sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12). In evolution, struggle and death exist long before man evolves.Different anti-evolutionists have different rationales - and yes, I'm sure some people use the one you cited.

But why do people rail so strongly against evolution in particular? The creation story of genesis is in contrast to many major scientific ideas.

For example, thermodynamics are not consistent with Genesis creation either; the 1st law says energy (and therefore matter) cannot be created or destroyed. Not much room for a creator there, but believers don't complain.

The underlying reason that evolution alone amongst the sciences is so despised is that it says we share common ancestors with the animals.

Originally posted by Blob
Different anti-evolutionists have different rationales - and yes, I'm sure some people use the one you cited.

But why do people rail so strongly against evolution in particular? The creation story of genesis is in contrast to many major scientific ideas.

For example, thermodynamics are not consistent with Genesis creation either; the 1st law says energy (and therefore matter) cannot be created or destroyed. Not much room for a creator there, but believers don't complain.

The underlying reason that evolution alone amongst the sciences is so despised is that it says we share common ancestors with the animals.

I believe we are quite separate from the animals in at least one important respect-we possess an immortal soul.

The singular distinction is described in Genesis 2:7, where God gives the first human being a soul.

Only man has existence beyond the grave. Only man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

Evolution is also guilty of negating the fact of death being mentioned in Genesis as being a direct result of sin.Evolution espouses the idea of death having occurred for millions of years before any appearance of homo sapiens.

That is why evolution must remain anathema.

I believe we are quite separate from the animals in at least one important respect-we possess an immortal soul.Maybe you are right, but it leaves one wondering why we need a brain at all if we carry on without it after death.
The singular distinction is described in Genesis 2:7, where God gives the first human being a soul.

Only man has existence beyond the grave. Only man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

Evolution is also guilty of negating the fact of death being mentioned in Genesis as being a direct result of sin.Evolution espouses the idea of death having occurred for millions of years before any appearance of homo sapiens.

That is why evolution must remain anathema.As I say, evolution is an emotive topic for believers. But much of modern science is just as contrary to the bible as evolution.

Originally posted by chaff
The singular distinction is described in Genesis 2:7, where God gives the first human being a soul.

Only man has existence beyond the grave. Only man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

Evolution is also guilty of negating the fact of death being mentioned in Genesis as being a direct result of sin.Evolution espouses the idea of death having occurred for millions of years before any appearance of homo sapiens.

That is why evolution must remain anathema.
The Bible is not a science book. If science and the Bible clash, and only one of them can be right, science wins every time, because science is a rigorous process which can be proven, and the Bible cannot. Evidence has been given to you for evolution -- you can't say, "Oh, that evidence is wrong -- I don't know why, or how, but it's wrong, because the Bible says something else." The Bible has not been proven nor disproven, and as such, any claim made in the Bible must be verified independently. As such, prove creationism using fact. If you cannot, and cannot give evidence against evolution, then it's quite obvious which is right and which is wrong.

you are confusing christianity which is by nature supernatural and incapable of empirical proving or disproving, with the secular.

What I believe to be true in my life cannot be proved or disproved by scientific method.If I choose to believe it,it is my own rational decision.

Just as an example of evolutionary teaching in school-when I went to grammar school(a while back now!!),neanderthal "man" was rammed down our throats as being definitely an ancestor of man-absolutely beyond question.What of N.M. now?And what of all the hoaxes perpetrated in the name of evolutionary science down the years?It's a long and shameful list.

Science changes it's mind about evolution every few years and is in constant flux.Christianity hasn't had to change in over 2000 years.What is real in a person's life is immutable.Science cannot dispute that,because it doesn't have the ability to.

Originally posted by chaff
you are confusing christianity which is by nature supernatural and incapable of empirical proving or disproving, with the secular.Personally I have made no proof-claims and have responded to your posts by acknowledging you may be right for all we know.

What I believe to be true in my life cannot be proved or disproved by scientific method.If I choose to believe it,it is my own rational decision.Quite. But the tolerance and respect for your own beliefs doesn't seem to extend to others: "Evolution is also guilty of negating the fact of death being mentioned in Genesis as being a direct result of sin.Evolution espouses the idea of death having occurred for millions of years before any appearance of homo sapiens.

That is why evolution must remain anathema.".

Just as an example of evolutionary teaching in school-when I went to grammar school(a while back now!!),neanderthal "man" was rammed down our throats as being definitely an ancestor of man-absolutely beyond question.What of N.M. now?And what of all the hoaxes perpetrated in the name of evolutionary science down the years?It's a long and shameful list. "Absolutely beyond question"... Now who is confusing the absolutism of religion with the scientific method? That's just what science doesn't do.

Sorry you had an unsatisfactory science teacher. But that doesn't make science unsatisfactory.

Oh, and do you have that long list of hoaxes available?

Science changes it's mind about evolution every few years and is in constant flux.That's right - you are describing the ebb and flow of the error-correcting nature of science. It is an iterative procedure of fallible humans. All that wonderful knowledge we have at our fingertips in the 21st century doesn't come without confusion, sweat and tears.

Christianity hasn't had to change in over 2000 years.That's right - stubborn, dusty and monolithic.

What is real in a person's life is immutable.Science cannot dispute that,because it doesn't have the ability to.What a shame. You are someone who takes comfort in lack of knowledge: "science cannot dispute that...". Perhaps that is why your latest post has an angry air to it. Scientific knowledge makes you uncomfortable.

What is real in a person's life is immutable.Science cannot dispute that,because it doesn't have the ability to.
There are pills that help with paranoid schizophrenia...

Blob
no,no anger.you and me had a run in before-you know that wasn't anger.

the first quote you use wasn't referring to anyhting you said-it was borghunters post i was replying to.

when you said"Quite. But the tolerance and respect for your own beliefs doesn't seem to extend to others:" and went on to mention the anathema quote-it wasn't a matter of respect!!It was merely referring to the fact that evolution must remain anathema to Christians-simply because of what it claims.I wasn't using the word in the sense that the vatican uses it-it comes from the biblical phrase "anathema maranatha"ie basically "take nothing to do with,the Lord cometh""

You also went on to say " "Absolutely beyond question"... Now who is confusing the absolutism of religion with the scientific method? That's just what science doesn't do"
-well,I'm afraid thats exactly what it did do.I wish I had kept the textbook to prove it....


Hoaxes-
Nebraska man
Java man
Orce man
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis

et al...


" Christianity hasn't had to change in over 2000 years.

That's right - stubborn, dusty and monolithic.""

not at all-The Bible teaches that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8).The cornerstone of faith never changes.

Scientific knowledge doesn't make me uncomfortable,but science makes itself look uncomfortable when it tries to explain faith

Originally posted by Blibblob
What is real in a person's life is immutable.Science cannot dispute that,because it doesn't have the ability to.
There are pills that help with paranoid schizophrenia...

teenage angst ridden insults are also anathema

if you can't explain it,laught at it,eh?

the first quote you use wasn't referring to anyhting you said-it was borghunters post i was replying to.
ok.

and went on to mention the anathema quote-it wasn't a matter of respect!!It was merely referring to the fact that evolution must remain anathema to Christians-simply because of what it claims.I wasn't using the word in the sense that the vatican uses it-it comes from the biblical phrase "anathema maranatha"ie basically "take nothing to do with,the Lord cometh"" Oh ok, thanks for explaining. However I still don't see why there is such a focus on evolution when other sciences (e.g. thermodynamics) are just as anathematic in the sense you use the word.

-well,I'm afraid thats exactly what it did do.I wish I had kept the textbook to prove it....Yes, I'm afraid I would have to see that textbook to be convinced it really said "absolutely beyond question" or words to that effect. However, an erroneous textbook has no bearing on the validity of evolution as a theory.

Hoaxes-
Nebraska man - not a hoax but a mistake. After 5 years evolutionists realised it was an error (not creationists). A fine example of the self-correcting, if imperfect, scientific method.
Java man - the validity of the remains were questioned from the off-set by evolutionists (not by creationists).
Orce man - Don't know that one.
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis - this was not a hoax but a forgery. Again, evolutionists (not creationists) quickly rumbled the scam.
And perhaps you forgot to mention piltdown man?

But I do not see in what sense these mistakes & frauds undermine the science of evolution. Science is a self-correcting procedure that rejects falsehoods and all these examples reinforce that.

Similarly, any science you care to name has a catalogue of mistakes and false claims. Take physics for example. You never hear creationists complaining physics is invalid on the basis of mistakes such as:
Ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether)
N-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-rays)
Nuclear power plant melt-downs.
The Challenger Space Shuttle
Steady state theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory)
...the list goes on. Do you consider physics to be invalid in the light of these blunders, accidents and delusions?

The main reason evolution is challenged is because it ultimately calls into question the fall,sin,mans' need of the saviour,and redemption by the sacrifice of the cross.

That really is the nub of the issue as regards evolution.

Originally posted by chaff
The main reason evolution is challenged is because it ultimately calls into question the fall,sin,mans' need of the saviour,and redemption by the sacrifice of the cross.

That really is the nub of the issue as regards evolution. Yes - the issue is not that evolution is in any sense flawed. It is because it mismatches the role of man in religious accounts. This is why if evolutionists had discovered all life is related EXCEPT man then religionists would be far less hostile to it.

Much of science is counter to religious accounts (e.g. thermodynamics) yet goes under the creationists' radars.