How did the first human being come about???
Were we created by God or did we evolve from some form of animal??
If animals, where did these animals come from?? Where are they now??
Hmm, a credible scientific theory vs a story from a work of fiction.
I choose neither.
It was ‘dreamed up’ by a primate mammal that is anatomically related to apes .
I’m wondering where you got the intellectual capability to even register for this board.
talkorigins.org is a good place to start
over 99.9% of the worlds scientists consider evolution a fact. Not a theory…a fact. Even the Pope believes evolution.
All right. Can somebody please explain to me where evolution is after we supposedly evolved? All right, we have the single cell organisms, the billion year old universe, but how did that come? How does evolution explain the miraculous appearence of a group of little cells to start evolution in the first place? It just seems to me that when you strip it down to the very beginnings, evolution is just as ‘illogical’ as God. And by the way, it is possible to believe in evolution within species instead of the straight down the line ape to man approach. Bsides, evolution is still just a theory, which seems to forgotten most of the time
I don’t consider myself a relativist, so I ask that you don’t try and project that understanding onto what I will say next. I can explain what I think about that topic if you still think that I am a relativist.
Science, religion, and the like will never be able to prove/disprove such questions. Within itself, sure, there may be a highly consistent theory that may or may not be invariably accepted as fact, but keep in mind what we mean by fact. Fact exists only within the system itself. Inside the system, each fact is meaningful. So take for instance Newton’s Law of Gravitation. Besides that there is controversy over the mechanism behind gravitation and other physical phenomena (i.e. theory of everything, string theory, m theory, etc…etc…), physical laws could not be prescriptive. I think they are merely descriptive - two masses tend to attract each other based on past empirical evidence. There really is no way to know with the same certainty that the same observable phenomena will occur forever. However, the latter is assumed to be the case, and it seems to work on certain scales. Relativists will come in here and say well you cannot even know the past.
Another thing to keep in mind is that science and religion are philosophies. They start with certain principles and assumptions and proceed or diverge from there. So religion, or theology, starts with the belief in God. Within theology, this is a truism, it is not necessary to prove or disprove (although yes, some have tried - but only succeeded in undermining the potential of faith). Faith is more than just a common belief in a higher being of some sort. It is what allows someone to actually think they have something resembling the knowledge they think exists on which they can base decisions - the unconscious life. So science and mathematics require one to believe in the reality of numbers. Observing the assumptions of statistics is always a good example I use. However, just as in theology, some can say they experience this reality - numbers have been used in the very machine I use to type this post, and people believe they have religious experiences (NOT talking about the more skeptical extreme cases).
I could go on about how faith is behind everything we like to think we know. However, at this point, I’m curious as to why you are interested in this topic? How will knowing the answer (if you even want to know) be meaningful to you? I ask because sometimes I wonder, what if there was an answer to every philosophical question…what then? Would we all pack it in, dust off our hands, and believe that the work here was done? This leads to the question of motives behind trying to know things.
Whenever I come across someone who believes so highly in fact, I really must question their motives. Invariably I find they are really out to make an argument (however arbritrary) and rise in the social order of things (at least in their mind). Meaning, I usually find arrogance. This goes back to the common Sophist in ancient Greece.
o.i.c,
Very well said ! Some people seem to use science in answering questions that have nothing to do with what science can answer. That perhaps the will to power is the driving force behind this and perhaps behind science itself doesn’t bother me that much. Although if people are entering a discussion with exclusively in mind to win an argument that can get a little annoying. Entertainment is of course a big part of the reason. But I don’t think you can get down to anything entertaining with just this in mind.
It’s boring is all I’m saying.
Spending a bit more time wondering why we do the things we do from our own personal perspective and not taking, ‘because chemical reactions in my brain make me do it’ as a satisfactory answer can be enlightenting.
Although some people have made the choice that they want to be robots which could be cool for a small amount of time I guess.
I like your question; “…if there was an answer to every philosophical question…what then?”. At one point I thought a bit about this myself (and I think it diserves quite some more thought). My preliminary conclusion was that I probably prefer to remain lost.
Perhaps this is the kind of question to post as a new topic.
zecharia sitchen suggests both to be true…
What is knowledge? Why are we able to think? Plato’s teleological design argument leads him to faith in the divine.
“I could go on about how faith is behind everything we like to think we know.†“Faith is the evidence of things hope for and the hope for things unseenâ€
I would be interested in seeing your views on faith. Did we create faith? Did this designer create faith?
Do I exist or will I wake up in the morning and realize I am God and I was only dreaming for just a second that I was a miniature replica of myself trapped in an existence that I created.
In this dream I desired to redeem these replicas through faith in myself. What a theory I might think as I get exited about my own creativity….wait, I am God I am supposed to be creative. Wait, I knew I was going to say that. Wait I knew that I was going to dream this dream before I fell asleep. Why did I create sleep? Can I really sleep? I am so funny.
Any way I come down as myself, but in the form of one of these replicas of myself. I will do something incredible. I will expect all to believe, despite all of the evidence that might go against it that I really am the Savior of the world and even worse… I will leave a group of uneducated commoners to share this with the world. As God I also decided in this dream to allow these humans, these replicas I created…… Choice. And I will give theme a conscience that allows them to think.
Why am I doing this? Love that is why…. Some of them will love me. That would be awesome… Some of them will hate me though and some will kill and harm and hurt each other though, some of them will use my gifts to try to explain me away… Some will believe in me despite the formers efforts. I am so glad some chose me. Those that do I will supernaturally keep them in my grip until they fall victim to the actions of there forefathers and succumb to the truth of death. Then I will grab their redeemed soul and keep it until I return as this My self in the form of a Human one more time and Judge all for all their deeds. But those whom believed in me, although they may have harmed and destroyed, If they believed and loved me through faith I will find them not guilty on this day… In my dream I called myself The Christ, and my given name…. Jesus.
Creation or evolution……One in the same…… at some point something had to have been created …so evolution is creation….[/list]
It’s closer to 100% than that. Evolution is a fact as much as gravity. It’s also a theory, but this implies no uncertainty in itself. Theories in science are just explanatory frameworks; they don’t become laws as is sometimes claimed.
The origin of the universe is not within the purview of evolutionary theory. Nor, indeed, is the origin of life, although selection processes would have operated then. Nonetheless, biology has offered extremely plausible, and very logical, mechanisms for how life may have begin. In any case, how is pointing out areas of incomplete explanation supposed to show it to be “illogical”? That just sounds like another argument from personal incredulity.
o.i.c., what you say seems to be introducing inappropriate standards of epistemology for scientific investigation. The rationality of science is in part in its concordance with observed states of affairs. Apologies in advance if I’ve misunderstood you.
What is a false dichotomy?
Pat: “That’s correct.”
I’ll take ‘Common Philosophical Errors’ for 500$, Pat.
Because it’s fun? It’s not the destination, but the journey. How could you possibly enjoy life without learning? Well, perhaps some people can, but I can’t. I love new ideas and experiencing new things. I can’t comprehend a life where I wasn’t constantly thinking.
I don’t know if I question motives in the case of belief any more. Belief is… easy. Faith and religion is even more so. You aren’t required to explain why you believe something, and no logic is involved. It’s very black and white and easy to sort out. Most people prefer belief because there is no thought required. They don’t have to defend what they believe.
–Kissa
I can’t believe people are still asking these fucking questions…Goddamn morons.
Evolution is a fact.
Spot on. Unfortunately, the fact of evolution doesn’t look good for Genesis literalists, so they spread a lot of misinformation / outright lies, partly because they’ve never bothered to find out even the most basic aspects of evolution, and partly through propaganda. So when evolutionists counter them on every point they try to make, it makes it appear as if a debate exists, and a debate implies an unanswered question. A combination of perceiving this, of believing what creationists say, and of a lack of knowledge about the facts, means that people will think it’s unsettled. It doesn’t help that “theory”, as used in science, does not share its meaning with the more colloquial usage, which is closer to “hypothesis”, and implies uncertainty.
These are largely why the likes of Dawkins are against publicly debating creationists; it gives creationism exactly the publicity it needs. In addition, creationists frequently use dishonest, unprofessional and highly unscientific practices when trying to make their case, which will not necessarily be picked up on by the layman, thus giving the creationist position unwarranted weight.
Evolution is a theory supported by empirical evidence. Okay, okay I agree with you wholeheartedly—I’m just being nitpicky. Cheers.
But wait, the Empirical method is not capable of proving anything as being absolutely true. GASP
Does this mean I should tear down my Darwin poster?
True. No one says it is.
Nah, by all accounts he was a decent and brilliant human being who has made significant contribution to human thought.
Even if every word he said were been proven wrong, we should still respect and glorify him. We should never make a scientist fame, prestigue or, weatlh reliant on wheater their theories are considered true, this gives one highly pragmatic motivation to defend a false or questionable theory. We should instead reward scientist for how they progress things. In the end whom-so-ever proposes the wrong theory (for the right reasons) will be as important as who propoesses the right theory.
I could go on about how faith is behind everything we like to think we know.
I’d like to see your explanation of how “faith is behind everything we like to think we know”, and in addition, your definition of “faith.” I’m not sure ours match. In my experience, almost nothing in my life (or possibly anything) is based on faith, and I’d like to see that shaken-up if at all possible. 
It’s always nice to have one’s views challenged.
your arguement is very good but you could substitute the word creation for evolution and evolution for creation and make the same arguement.
So… I would like to hold to the don’t give a darn arguement for the creation evolution debate and understand that it is a matter of perspective and we really shoul argue deeper issues any Ideas and please dont go to the ark of Noah or the whole David and goliath thing because you will be found wanting in that areana as well.