PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     Religion as a regression to an

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
paradigm_shift

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, the 'religion' I call into question here is that of dogmatic belief; the adherence to religious beliefs and customs simply because a religious text states them, generally found in people who have been raised to be religious by their elders. Importantly, the belief that their particular beliefs are correct, and that they have no doubt whatsoever of this.
Now, we must ask, what does it mean to be human? Although we are no more than animals, it is obvious that there is something that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Many people call this consciousness, but this doesn’t answer the question, it only raises new ones.
Some people would claim that to be ‘conscious’ is to be aware of our surroundings. However, animals are clearly aware of their surroundings, just as we are. They are also constantly offered multiple choices of action and must decide which is the best course to take. Perhaps to be human is to have a sense of self - “cogito ergo sum”? Yet it is bizarre to propose that animals do no ‘know’ they are alive. Many of the more advanced life-forms display a clear perception of their role in a community, the distribution of authority and display characteristics which distinguish them from their fellows, a kind of ‘personality’.
We can also observe that animals do not like change, and in general do not adapt well to it if it is sudden. This is why very few species are capable of living under all conditions, and why many go extinct.
We can reason that animals do not advance (or at any rate advance only as fast as evolution allows, and no more) because of a kind of inbuilt attitude, which could be attributed to brain size. A bird does not ‘question’ why a nest is built a certain way; it simply accepts that it is. Animals do not question anything; they accept that things are the way they are because they are; they have no concept of ‘to question’. The way they do things is just the way it is.
But what of the crows that crack open nuts by dropping them in front of cars? This can be explained by the Skinner box (whereby chickens were put in a box which had button in it, and every time they button is pressed, food is delivered - they quickly learned to peck the button in order to get food). It shows that animals can establish a relationship between cause and effect. They remember past examples and use these examples to help them make decisions. The crows know that dropping a nut in front of a car (presumably this happened by accident at first) once resulted in the nut being cracked open. It presumably does not understand why, but thanks to the Skinner box we can understand why they keep on doing it.
So, we can see that this does not constitute a ‘technology’ or a genuine advance. The same goes for some apes use of ‘tools’ to obtain grubs and so on. They have not actually reasoned why the tools should be used, to them they use the tools (sticks) because they get food that way. Why do the tools work? They just do; the apes do not question this or anything else. This attitude would explain the lack of true animal ‘technology’ for all the millions of years life has existed.
Now we can see what sets humans apart. They do not simply accept things, they question them. Why do things work, how do they work, how can we make them better? This leads to advancement and understanding. Nothing is the way it is because ‘it just is’ - what are the reasons behind it? Even if there are ‘brute facts’ of this nature, even if the laws of the universe work because ‘they just do’, humans will never be content with this, and will always seek to understand more.
But this is the very opposite of religious belief as described in my first paragraph.
How do you know the Bible is right?
“It is the word of God.”
How do you know?
“It says it is.”
How do you know it is telling the truth about this?
“I just know.”

That is what this sort of religious belief comes down to, in the end. Some people claim to have more justification for ‘knowing’ their God is the real one, but behind all the fallacies and contrived logic, it comes down to some variation of “It just is true.”
At this point in time, it seems as if humans evolved, that we have a past in which our ancestors were at one point no more than animals. And so, perhaps it is in some people’s nature to have a disposition to cling on to such basic thinking. Perhaps people want to believe that some things ‘just are’, because at one point everyone thought like that. It is part of our make up.
That is my hypothesis that religions are the remnants of our animal past.  



-------
Philosophy is questions that can't be answered, religion is answers that can't be questioned
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 5:00 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Theory Of Evolution;
Notice that the above statement is in fact a religion, (one that is forced opon young minds at schools i might add) it took me a long time to see that and thankfully now i have a fantastic sense of reason. Did all life evolve? or where we infact created? There must be an absolute truth to everything, the sun is a sphere, so is the earth, we travel round the sun in a year, the earth rotates in a day. etc. these are truths, agreed? so with this in mind look at the theory of evolution there are so many flaws in this thinking its untrue eg. the fossel records show no gradual change between different species but insted shows sudden appearance of animal groups, this is a fact. My beliefs do not state that i just "believe" but says "quit being fashoned after this system of things but be tranformed by making your mind over that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God" Romans 12: 2. so i dont just sit back and believe but search things out. To illustrate what i mean by "reason " think of this illustration; You are in a barren desert, deviod of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. The house has air conditioning, heating, pluming and electricity. Its refrigerator is filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and other supplies. Now, suppose you asked someone where all this came from, in such a barren desert. What would you think if that person answered, "It just happened to appear there by chance"? Would you believe that? or would you take it for granted that it had a designer and a builder?
All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of all life but earth teems with it, sustained by very complex systems that provide light, air, heat, water and food. It shows evidence of being specially built to accommodate living things comfortably-like a magnificent house. And logically, as one of the bibles penmen argues: "every house is constructed by someone, but he that constucted all things is God." Hebrews 3: 4. Yes, the infinitely greater and more amazing "house" - our planet earth - requires the existence of a remarkably intelligent designer and builer.
Just think of the amazing design of living things.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:41 AM on April 28, 2003 | IP
Crim

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There must be an absolute truth to everything, the sun is a sphere, so is the earth, we travel round the sun in a year, the earth rotates in a day. etc.

The earth isn't a sphere.

the fossel records show no gradual change between different species but insted shows sudden appearance of animal groups

The fossil record is incomplete.  Of course there will be jumps.  However, it does show change between forms consistant with evolution.

All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of all life but earth teems with it

All other planets we've probed...which would be how many? We haven't even ruled out Mars as possibly being host to life in the past.  Also, there are potentially trillions of planets in the universe.  The odds than at least ONE would be well suited for life are very good.  
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:21 AM on April 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We need to find a planet thats the right size, the right distance from the sun, of corse the sun being the right size aswell, the planet rotating at the right speed, tilting to the right degree, not only this now we need the first living cell to build itself with no plan or design, oh... and with out any preinstalled d/n/a humm... sounds like a fairy tale to me.
A living cell is enormously complex. The insturctions in a living cell if written out, would fill a thousend 600 page books, each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules Our 46 chromosome 'threads' linked together would measure more than six feet. yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter."
Each of those 100 trillion cells is like a walled city. Power plants generate the cells energy. Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce. Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within cells and beyond. Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger. Disciplined boilogical armies stand ready to grapple with invaders. A centralized genetic government maintains order. CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT BUILDING ITSELF.
Question: can man build a living cell?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:52 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
Burnout9988

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the fossel records show no gradual change between different species but insted shows sudden appearance of animal groups, this is a fact.

There is a theory of evolution that explains this. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium.


-------
"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand."
-Frederick the Great
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 3:00 PM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lets skip to the chase:
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT BUILDING ITSELF

YES I CAN! therefore your entire argument fails on me.

In natural creation you would need:
-A system in which life can change over time.
-A method where variation can be added to lifeforms.
-Close relationships between existing life.
-Close relationships between past and existing life.
-Lots of time for life to have developed to intelligence.

We see all of the above

What you wouldn't expect:
-Design specifically for humans: ie trees shaped like chairs or houses growing out of the ground, rocks forming like cups with handles.
-Lack of natural explanation, ie no atoms, no chemcials, nothing can be reduced to a natural explanation.
-No history of life, no way to explain how it developed.
-Non natural life: ie animals with electronic instruments attached such as calculators, animals running using metal wheels.#

We see none of the above.

You see intelligent design in the world, I do not. I can see how it all could form naturally. If you watch young kids tv in which a world is inhabited by strange friendly creatures (im thinking tellytubbies etc) and warped trees and weird supernatural magic then THAT is an intelligently created world NOT ours.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:24 AM on June 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] In natural creation you would need:
Firstly for an evolutionist to use the word creation must mean that he believes that there was a creator. (but i dont think you do.)

You say that we would need to see trees with seats and things like that for creation to be a fact, well the fact is that if you look close enough you can see that this planet is screaming that is was created, for our purpose aswell i might add.

there is always the who made it first question?

look at the birds they have near perfect flight, somthing that it took intellingent humans thosends of years to come up with, but no intelligence made the bird, humm, that is a facinating religion you have there.
sonar, who made sonar first? not intelligent humans no it was all ready here, but no intelligence made that either, fairytale stuff if you ask me.
could humans build huge factories that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen (essensial for life)?...Probably but as you may well know these already exist, but from where? from something less intelligent than us, namly evolution which has no cause and no dirrection, i dont think so.
Evolutionists have there own preconceived ideas and then try to prove what they believe, where as what you should do is let the planet speak for itself, in the bible it says to go to the animals and they will teach you, Question: do they?
The technology we see in the animals far supass the primitive invetions of man. FACT. but you say they had no builder, that is like believing that an aeroplane would appear on a runway over a few million years, or that a submarine could build itself in the sea, sonar and all.
So i conclude the best technology that exists on our planet are human beings, you could argue this point for years, but the fact is that humans couldent build a machine that was aware of its own existance, could genuinly Laugh, cry, feel hurt, etc. but once again this machine already exists and now we are saying that we built ourselves.
LET THE PLANET AND ALL THAT IS IN IT SPEAK FOR ITSELF...

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:29 PM on June 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BURNOUT 9988
Quotes from 'Evolution or Creation' by the Watchtower Bible and tract society

*** ce 22  2 Disagreements About Evolution-Why? ***
20 Some adherents to this theory have called the process “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into something else). This is just the opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition” among those who hold to the traditional view. 17
21 Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist.

*** ce 55  5 Letting the Fossil Record Speak ***
What to Look For
4 If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

*** ce 55-6  5 Letting the Fossil Record Speak ***
5 Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
let the planet speak.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:58 PM on June 5, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.