Evolution

adrian_indy

So it's a valid argument when saying that we got our morals from religion, but when it's shown that isn't the case it no longer applies? You know having your cake and eating it too will lead to weight gain. :happy:

You are correct. Our morality has vastly improved since primitive times. But even then people were not without morality. If so we'd have never made it as a species. We rely on one another. The basics of morality have always been in us, they've only grown (evolved) with time. If God has always been, provides objective morality, and never changes why have our values and beliefs changed? Clearly our morals evolve with no divine influence. It wasn't Christ who freed the slaves, it was Lincoln. His take on religion? "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."

And I never deny the influence of religion on society. That's why my gay friends can't marry the people they love. It's why stem cell research doesn't receive government funding. It's why there were two smoking holes where the World Trade Center once stood.

Many folks assume that religion = good morals. I do not.

Perhaps the initial motivation of my argument has not been clear. I am not a particularly religious person. As a math and science double major I prefer stone cold fact over "beliefs".

I am not saying religion=good, atheism = bad. I merely was stating that religion influenced our present morals and values GREATLY. And this initial influence religion has had on our society has been the primary reason we hold these values. You do not have to believe in a god to want to be a good person, also believing in a god does not equate a good person. We all have very similar morals and values, that changed over time. After all, I think there was a time when rock music was considered "the devils music" and now my local church has guitars.

Also, perhaps the misinterpretation of my arguement is also coming from the fact that you assume I believe in the bible. To me believing in A god =/= the bible. The bible is stories which (sometimes) have a good message. Nothing more than a story book to read to your children at night time.
We grow, we evolve we change. But to do so we needed something to grow and change from. Hence, the influence of religion. Not necessarily the belief, the influence. Which you all ready agreed upon. So I suppose that means you agree with me ?

And as I read this over I realize my points are all over the place. But out of pure uni student laziness, when I know I'm not being graded I'm not going to care

I don't think that anyone can say that religions haven't had positive and negative influences on mankind. It would be ridiculous to say that none of the teachings have value or have contributed positively to society. But where hardcore christians lose me is their unwillingness to admit that other religions have, societies, both contemporary, ancient, pre-chrisitan or even pre-hebrew have had comparable values. Like I said with the Persians, in some areas they were worse, but in some they were WAY ahead of the game and it would take Judeo Chrisians centuries to catch up.

summalovaable

Not to mention the fact that empires, like the Persian Empire, predating Christianity had a humanitarian charter (the first that I am aware of) and was the first to use skilled PAID labor to build monuments and cities instead of slaves. How did that Emperor come to that conclusion, unless his God had superior morals to the Hebrew god. If you study enough history, not just Christian history, it becomes apparent that many societies had value systems that were comprable to christian values, and some like Summeria and others predated the Hebrews.

If you actually read over my original post, I wasn't talking specifically about christianity. I don't think anyone here would argue that there were many varying religions before the existence of christianity. I said "religion" as a general, because there are so many different beliefs that have influence human nature it would be ignorant to say only one has.

HOWEVER, I do believe that current society(and by that I mean our general laws) is most greatly influenced directly by Christianity. But it grows tiresome to say "well yes, but then Christianity was influenced by _ which was influenced by _ etc.. "we would literally be here forever trying to pinpoint precisely which religion had the greatest overall influence. Or if any even mattered at all, and we just evolved as society evolved into moral beings.

BrettPGH

Perhaps the initial motivation of my argument has not been clear. I am not a particularly religious person. As a math and science double major I prefer stone cold fact over "beliefs".

I am not saying religion=good, atheism = bad. I merely was stating that religion influenced our present morals and values GREATLY. And this initial influence religion has had on our society has been the primary reason we hold these values. You do not have to believe in a god to want to be a good person, also believing in a god does not equate a good person. We all have very similar morals and values, that changed over time. After all, I think there was a time when rock music was considered "the devils music" and now my local church has guitars.

Also, perhaps the misinterpretation of my arguement is also coming from the fact that you assume I believe in the bible. To me believing in A god =/= the bible. The bible is stories which (sometimes) have a good message. Nothing more than a story book to read to your children at night time.
We grow, we evolve we change. But to do so we needed something to grow and change from. Hence, the influence of religion. Not necessarily the belief, the influence. Which you all ready agreed upon. So I suppose that means you agree with me ?

And as I read this over I realize my points are all over the place. But out of pure uni student laziness, when I know I'm not being graded I'm not going to care

Thanks for clarifying, and it's no crime if you're all over the place. Heck I think we went a few pages without even saying the word "evolution" in the evolution thread.

Your statement here: "You do not have to believe in a god to want to be a good person, also believing in a god does not equate a good person." says more than enough for me. To me I read that and say morality has nothing to do with religion. Because if you can be religious with terrible morals, or moral with no religion..or flipped around as well...then morality =/= religion.

macpatti

1. I absolutely agree, atheism has no moral foundation.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Thanks for the admission.

2. You basically just rehashed what I and you had said before, that you treat people with love and kindness so that you may experience love and kindness. All of the fluff about people having intrinisic worth isn't attributable to God. Almost everyone except sociopaths think human beings have worth.

I agree that almost everyone thinks that human beings have “worth” but atheists lack a foundation for explaining why humans have worth. That’s the main point I’ve been making all along.

3. Yes, some of the people had superior morals to their biblical peers. That should be proof enough though that the bible was man written with no supernatural guidance. An all powerful being could have laid down all of the law in the beginnning, not allowed man to slowly mature to new levels. But picking on the people of the bible is too easy. Stoning teenagers, rape, genocide. I go straight for the core. Old testement God is as evil.
First off, asking Abraham, the father of all 3 current abrahamic religions is asked by the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe to gut his own child to prove devotion. That's sick and twisted.
Second, Pharoah and his soldiers kill all the first born Hebrews in an act of barbarism that is indefensible (supposedly). So God's answer to a rebellious Pharoah is to kill all of the Egyption first born children? Little babies and kids among them? Why would they be punished? And people wonder how idiots in the middle east are killing each other over the offenses of prior generations.
Last, I know a lot of people who try and justify all of that depraved behavior of God as just being whacky old testemant God. Jesus changed all that. But for all of the great things Jesus said, which I think a lot was Revolutionary in that part of the world at the time, you can't get away from the fact that Christ does not give you real options. It is believe in him and his message, or an eternity in hell being tortured. That's not a choice. Forcing some one to love you through fear is evil.

Yes, God could have given all that he wanted to reveal in one moment. Similarly, a parent might explain to his/her two-year old the depths of moral decision-making but that doesn’t mean it is going to work. Sometimes you have to take people where they are and gently lead them to a deeper understanding. Maybe there were people who said things that no one could comprehend and lost their lives because of it and we just don’t know about them. Again you make a judgment about the Old Testament God. Upon what basis do you judge God to be “evil”? You must have some objective moral standard that you are applying to God but you admitted in point #1 that you have no such basis. Why the inconsistency?

God doesn’t owe anyone existence. The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful. I don’t love Jesus through fear. I love Jesus because he first loved those who despised him.

macpatti

But you stopped short. Humanity predates religion. So all of us who got these values originally got them from people with no religious beliefs. If you want to keep tracing it back...

Ding ding ding!

Plus, Hammurabi's Code was written long before Jesus was even a blip in existence (1780 BC). It's the oldest known set of laws to exist. Its copying in subsequent generations indicates that it was used as a model of legal and judicial reasoning.

Of course the Code of Hammurabi existed before Jesus. Who has denied that? The Old Testament existed before Jesus, too. I’ve read Hammurabi’s Code and it is fascinating to see how it has similar structures to the Old Testament but the noticeable ways that it differs. It is remarkable that Hammurabi’s Code was lost through much of history until its rediscovery, but that the Bible has been consistently studied for the last several thousand years. As I’ve argued before, the ancient Israelites were products of their age but God worked within their times (just as he does today) gently leading people to deeper levels of moral insight. That surrounding nations had legal codes that resemble the Bible does not surprise me in the least. Furthermore, the fact that certain moral values can be found across cultures only supports the idea that there is an objective moral law that is “imposed” on all human minds whether we want to live by it or not. No one ever claimed (that I know of) that the Christian religion is the only source of moral insight. Christianity has always claimed quite the opposite.

KimmyEB

You must have some objective moral standard that you are applying to God but you admitted in point #1 that you have no such basis. Why the inconsistency?

There's no inconsistency. He was merely saying that an atheist simply is a person who does not believe there to be a god/gods/goddess/whatever. There isn't some complex definition, no set of rules to live by, no code, etc. Therefore, no moral grounds. That's left up to the individual to decide and live by. At least, that's how I'm taking it.

God doesn’t owe anyone existence. The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful. I don’t love Jesus through fear. I love Jesus because he first loved those who despised him.

Oh, I beg to differ. God does indeed owe it to people to prove it exists. Because "God" sure does ask a lot of people.

Also, I didn't know God speaks to people, and tells them that their lives are gifts from him. Or is that a belief? Belief doesn't equal fact.

macpatti

But I don't need the transcendence to know he's wrong. While he may say "hey it works for me!", that does not mean our opinions are on equal footing. We have the masses, the beliefs of society as a whole, to factor in. Maybe that one person sees nothing wrong with abusing power, but the people who live in their community almost certainly do. We are social creatures and our morality is a part of our society.

Does this mean that you can't always say a person is "wrong"? It can. To me murdering children would probably be the single most horrible thing a person can do. But I can still think of instances where it's not only acceptable, but the only humane option. So it can't be wrong all the time, no matter what. Subjective morality is the way the world works. If it is objective than what is wrong is always wrong. It doesn't matter that the times were different and humanity was still learning of God's word. If it's objectively wrong to enslave people than it's wrong always, even if condoned by God. So now we have an instance where the creator of our morals is violating them and is wrong based on his own teachings. You think of it that way and "God vanished in a puff of logic.", to quote Douglas Adams.

Lots of confusion here.

Why do we need to factor in the beliefs of society? What moral duty does one individual have to subordinate his/her desire for power, let’s say, to the wishes of a community? You can say we are social creatures but that presupposes that there is such a thing as a general human “nature” for which some things are good and others are bad. You are reasoning like someone who believes in a God who created human nature and that there are moral duties for humans that arise from the power of reason applied to our nature. You can say that these things are “desirable” for the goal of preservation or whatever but none of these considerations carry with them moral duty or obligation, especially if someone chooses to declare a different set of “values” for himself.

I would not say that murdering a baby is a moral good. Let’s say that murdering one child will result in saving 100 children’s lives, that will still not make murdering the one child “right.” In this case one has chosen the lesser of two evils, as they say, but both options are still evil. In this world we might have to face a limited range of options with no apparent “good” ones and so we might resort to some kind of choice between evils. I do not have to admit that an evil becomes “good” in such a case. Back to your position, if you say that it is “horrible” to murder a baby but some circumstances make this horrible act a “good” one, what was your initial basis for determining such an act is “horrible”? Is that just a reflection of your feelings? Is it not objectively wrong for someone to walk in a hospital and kill a baby for no reason than to see what it is like?

Concerning slavery, this is a big topic. There have been various kinds of slavery through the centuries. Enslaving one group of people because of the color of their skin or the shape of their nose is always “evil.” Some kinds of slavery have been parts of past societies and somewhat resembled modern forms of “employment.” In the Old Testament, for example, a “slave” was to be cared for by the “owner” like a family member and, at least sometimes, they refused to leave the life of slavery even when it was mandatory that they be released.

So, in conclusion, I would argue that God never demands or prescribes what is intrinsically immoral. There is much more to say on this but I should remind you that none of this pertains to what I originally argued. My original point was that atheism cannot provide a basis for morality (you have admitted that) and that belief in God does provide such a basis. I have been talking about the “moral law” as something known through reason and conscience and not “revealed” moral instructions from God (the Bible). I’m happy to talk about both but none of the discussion about the Bible affects the first topics that prompted this discussion.

adrian_indy

1. I absolutely agree, atheism has no moral foundation.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Thanks for the admission.

2. You basically just rehashed what I and you had said before, that you treat people with love and kindness so that you may experience love and kindness. All of the fluff about people having intrinisic worth isn't attributable to God. Almost everyone except sociopaths think human beings have worth.

I agree that almost everyone thinks that human beings have “worth” but atheists lack a foundation for explaining why humans have worth. That’s the main point I’ve been making all along.

3. Yes, some of the people had superior morals to their biblical peers. That should be proof enough though that the bible was man written with no supernatural guidance. An all powerful being could have laid down all of the law in the beginnning, not allowed man to slowly mature to new levels. But picking on the people of the bible is too easy. Stoning teenagers, rape, genocide. I go straight for the core. Old testement God is as evil.
First off, asking Abraham, the father of all 3 current abrahamic religions is asked by the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe to gut his own child to prove devotion. That's sick and twisted.
Second, Pharoah and his soldiers kill all the first born Hebrews in an act of barbarism that is indefensible (supposedly). So God's answer to a rebellious Pharoah is to kill all of the Egyption first born children? Little babies and kids among them? Why would they be punished? And people wonder how idiots in the middle east are killing each other over the offenses of prior generations.
Last, I know a lot of people who try and justify all of that depraved behavior of God as just being whacky old testemant God. Jesus changed all that. But for all of the great things Jesus said, which I think a lot was Revolutionary in that part of the world at the time, you can't get away from the fact that Christ does not give you real options. It is believe in him and his message, or an eternity in hell being tortured. That's not a choice. Forcing some one to love you through fear is evil.

Yes, God could have given all that he wanted to reveal in one moment. Similarly, a parent might explain to his/her two-year old the depths of moral decision-making but that doesn’t mean it is going to work. Sometimes you have to take people where they are and gently lead them to a deeper understanding. Maybe there were people who said things that no one could comprehend and lost their lives because of it and we just don’t know about them. Again you make a judgment about the Old Testament God. Upon what basis do you judge God to be “evil”? You must have some objective moral standard that you are applying to God but you admitted in point #1 that you have no such basis. Why the inconsistency?

God doesn’t owe anyone existence. The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful. I don’t love Jesus through fear. I love Jesus because he first loved those who despised him.

Well we are going in circles. First, I didn't know Old Testemant God was different from New Testemant God.

Second, no, atheism doesn't have a moral foundation. It simply states that they do not believe in the existance of a god. There's no prayer books, no rules, no ceremonies. You can talk to 10 different atheists and come away with ten different value sets.

Third. Morality is common sense for people who want to survive. Can't build cities and civilizations without rules. Even cavemen could figure out that killing people in their own tribe was bad, especially if it was a hunter who helped sustain the clan. But once again, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, God, none of them spoke of rules against torture, rape, slavery or genocide. So if all morality comes from Jesus, God, or the Bible, and humans are incapable of an evolving morality with out the supernatural, how did modern Christians and their leaders come to the conclusion that these things were evil?

macpatti

God doesn’t owe anyone existence. The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful. I don’t love Jesus through fear. I love Jesus because he first loved those who despised him.

Oh, I beg to differ. God does indeed owe it to people to prove it exists. Because "God" sure does ask a lot of people.

You're saying God owes it to people to prove he exists??? He certainly does not. He's given you free will. You can choose to believe in him through faith or not, but He "owes" you nothing. Beg to differ all you want.

Also, I didn't know God speaks to people, and tells them that their lives are gifts from him. Or is that a belief? Belief doesn't equal fact.

Did I say God speaks to people and tells them their lives are gifts from Him? Did I say belief/faith equals fact?

macpatti

First, I didn't know Old Testemant God was different from New Testemant God.

I never said the Old Testament and New Testament “Gods” are different. They are one and the same. What I was suggesting is that the Bible is an account of God’s unfolding and developing revelation through the centuries. Since people grow in their ability to think and reason morally, the Bible progressively deepens in its presentation of moral ideas.

Second, no, atheism doesn't have a moral foundation. It simply states that they do not believe in the existance of a god. There's no prayer books, no rules, no ceremonies. You can talk to 10 different atheists and come away with ten different value sets.

I know atheism has no moral foundation. That’s what I’ve been claiming all along. What I’m also arguing is that atheism not only doesn’t claim one, it has no resources to get one. In a world without a transcendence source of meaning, all meaning has to be found on, typically, a purely materialistic or deterministic basis. These cannot support a moral system in any meaningful sense.

Third. Morality is common sense for people who want to survive. Can't build cities and civilizations without rules. Even cavemen could figure out that killing people in their own tribe was bad, especially if it was a hunter who helped sustain the clan. But once again, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, God, none of them spoke of rules against torture, rape, slavery or genocide. So if all morality comes from Jesus, God, or the Bible, and humans are incapable of an evolving morality with out the supernatural, how did modern Christians and their leaders come to the conclusion that these things were evil?

This point is simply convoluted and misses the points I’ve been making all along. I never claimed that morality can only be derived from the Bible. I have been arguing that there is an objective moral law that imposes itself on the human mind throughout the world and throughout history. People can “see” what is right and wrong without the benefit of the Bible or any other written (or spoken) source. What I’m talking about is that “moral law” that we “see” in the mind. You say that a civilization can’t be built without rules. Fair enough, but that is not what morality is. Morality is not saying that we should not enslave people because we need to build a civilization. Morality is saying that enslaving someone because of their skin color (just to use that example) is intrinsically wrong. Even if killing all the weak members of society and enslaving certain races of people helps in building a civilization, it is still wrong. That is what an atheist cannot say (or, at least, cannot justify). Your words here suggest you think morality is simply a utilitarian tool to build a civilization. But, again, what if torturing and raping foreign people helps the moral of your troops and helps conquer more people (and that is the defined goal of some “civilization”) who are you to say that such a thing is “wrong”? By what standard? Why is your definition of “civilization” better than another definition?

KimmyEB

You're saying God owes it to people to prove he exists??? He certainly does not. He's given you free will. You can choose to believe in him through faith or not, but He "owes" you nothing. Beg to differ all you want.

So you say. Anyone or anything that's asking for my blind faith, devotion, and love has a lot of nerve to begin with...the fact that its existence isn't even proven does nothing to sway my disbelief. The least "God" can do is to show itself and say "Oh heeeeey everyone, look! I at least exist!"

Did I say God speaks to people and tells them their lives are gifts from Him? Did I say belief/faith equals fact?

No, but you flat-out said, and I quote, "The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful." How do you know that?

macpatti

So you say. Anyone or anything that's asking for my blind faith, devotion, and love has a lot of nerve to begin with...the fact that its existence isn't even proven does nothing to sway my disbelief. The least "God" can do is to show itself and say "Oh heeeeey everyone, look! I at least exist!"

He's done that, but some still refuse to believe it, even with eye witnesses. How often should God come down to earth?

No, but you flat-out said, and I quote, "The fact that I exist right now is a gift from God for which I should be grateful." How do you know that?

I know it because I believe it with all my heart. I can only speak for myself. That's why I said, "the fact that *I* exist".

adrian_indy

First, I didn't know Old Testemant God was different from New Testemant God.

I never said the Old Testament and New Testament “Gods” are different. They are one and the same. What I was suggesting is that the Bible is an account of God’s unfolding and developing revelation through the centuries. Since people grow in their ability to think and reason morally, the Bible progressively deepens in its presentation of moral ideas.

Second, no, atheism doesn't have a moral foundation. It simply states that they do not believe in the existance of a god. There's no prayer books, no rules, no ceremonies. You can talk to 10 different atheists and come away with ten different value sets.

I know atheism has no moral foundation. That’s what I’ve been claiming all along. What I’m also arguing is that atheism not only doesn’t claim one, it has no resources to get one. In a world without a transcendence source of meaning, all meaning has to be found on, typically, a purely materialistic or deterministic basis. These cannot support a moral system in any meaningful sense.

Third. Morality is common sense for people who want to survive. Can't build cities and civilizations without rules. Even cavemen could figure out that killing people in their own tribe was bad, especially if it was a hunter who helped sustain the clan. But once again, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, God, none of them spoke of rules against torture, rape, slavery or genocide. So if all morality comes from Jesus, God, or the Bible, and humans are incapable of an evolving morality with out the supernatural, how did modern Christians and their leaders come to the conclusion that these things were evil?

This point is simply convoluted and misses the points I’ve been making all along. I never claimed that morality can only be derived from the Bible. I have been arguing that there is an objective moral law that imposes itself on the human mind throughout the world and throughout history. People can “see” what is right and wrong without the benefit of the Bible or any other written (or spoken) source. What I’m talking about is that “moral law” that we “see” in the mind. You say that a civilization can’t be built without rules. Fair enough, but that is not what morality is. Morality is not saying that we should not enslave people because we need to build a civilization. Morality is saying that enslaving someone because of their skin color (just to use that example) is intrinsically wrong. Even if killing all the weak members of society and enslaving certain races of people helps in building a civilization, it is still wrong. That is what an atheist cannot say (or, at least, cannot justify). Your words here suggest you think morality is simply a utilitarian tool to build a civilization. But, again, what if torturing and raping foreign people helps the moral of your troops and helps conquer more people (and that is the defined goal of some “civilization”) who are you to say that such a thing is “wrong”? By what standard? Why is your definition of “civilization” better than another definition?

So now I'm really confused. If civilization, humanism, and intelligence cannot bring morality, but is imprinted on our mind, then why did God give us a bible in the first place. I happen to think that our morality is evolving with no help from a God. And I'm also confused. Are you saying that the Bible is bogus then? Because everything you just mentioned, from raping foreign citizens and so on was in the bible, sanctioned by it's God. I won't get bogged down with the miracles and magic tricks, whether or not stories in the bibles were parables? I'm talking about the Abrahamic God asking Abraham to gut his own child to prove his devotion.

Is that evil? I say yes. Now you can try to back and forth and trace how I got my morality back through time, good luck with that, we haven't even fully understood the physical evolution of our species yet, and I'm supposed to have all the answers of morality? I don't think so. But just because I don't have all the answers, once again, does not istantly mean some ancient, invisilbe sky Jew gave me morality anymore than when the ancients thought that diseases were a curse from God.

KimmyEB

He's done that, but some still refuse to believe it, even with eye witnesses. How often should God come down to earth?

Well, in my relatively short 25.25 years on this planet, I have never once witnessed any proof. If God wants ME to believe, then yeah, God should come down here and show me. I can tell you that I witnessed a komodo dragon riding a bicycle through my neighborhood...doesn't make it true.

adrian_indy

He's done that, but some still refuse to believe it, even with eye witnesses. How often should God come down to earth?

Well, in my relatively short 25.25 years on this planet, I have never once witnessed any proof. If God wants ME to believe, then yeah, God should come down here and show me. I can tell you that I witnessed a komodo dragon riding a bicycle through my neighborhood...doesn't make it true.

Exactly. I refuse to believe that an all powerful creator is playing some cosmic game of hide and seek, and if I never see him and don't believe, I'm tortured for eternity. Even if he did exist, I wouldn't worship that.

adrian_indy

He's done that, but some still refuse to believe it, even with eye witnesses. How often should God come down to earth?

Well, in my relatively short 25.25 years on this planet, I have never once witnessed any proof. If God wants ME to believe, then yeah, God should come down here and show me. I can tell you that I witnessed a komodo dragon riding a bicycle through my neighborhood...doesn't make it true.

Exactly. I refuse to believe that an all powerful creator is playing some cosmic game of hide and seek, and if I never see him and don't believe, I'm tortured for eternity. Even if he did exist, I wouldn't worship that.

Oh, and when did God show up last? It's a little peculiar that he decide that everyone on in North and SOuth America, Asia, Europe, Aulstalia and more didn't need his revelations. Instead he sends his one son down to the Middle East. I guess no other people on the planet needed the message at the time. It was probably best to let it be spread at the point of a Roman Sword or the end of a European musket.

KimmyEB

He's done that, but some still refuse to believe it, even with eye witnesses. How often should God come down to earth?

Well, in my relatively short 25.25 years on this planet, I have never once witnessed any proof. If God wants ME to believe, then yeah, God should come down here and show me. I can tell you that I witnessed a komodo dragon riding a bicycle through my neighborhood...doesn't make it true.

Exactly. I refuse to believe that an all powerful creator is playing some cosmic game of hide and seek, and if I never see him and don't believe, I'm tortured for eternity. Even if he did exist, I wouldn't worship that.

Yeah...my boyfriend and I were just discussing that when we were out walking last week. About how if God's existence were proven, would we worship. I answered no, based on what I know of him, how he is represented in the bible, etc. If some loving, worthy, and fair God decided to show up and prove its existence? Then I'd be more inclined, lol.

BrettPGH

Why isn't any of this IN THE RELIGION THREAD! :grumble:

^I love that little blue guy by the way. He should be the group mascot.


This is the only reason I said religion doesn't belong in a discussion of evolution. Because it takes over and very soon you're not even talking about evolution anymore.

I want to talk about whales damnit! Does everybody know that in the evolutionary history of whales they emerged from the water, looked around, and went back! That's crazy!! It's like they couldn't find a good deli anywhere so they moved out of the neighborhood.

adrian_indy

Why isn't any of this IN THE RELIGION THREAD! :grumble:

^I love that little blue guy by the way. He should be the group mascot.


This is the only reason I said religion doesn't belong in a discussion of evolution. Because it takes over and very soon you're not even talking about evolution anymore.

I want to talk about whales damnit! Does everybody know that in the evolutionary history of whales they emerged from the water, looked around, and went back! That's crazy!! It's like they couldn't find a good deli anywhere so they moved out of the neighborhood.

I was thinking the same thing, but actually, this sort of came full circle. We went from physical evolution to moral evolution.

BrettPGH

You're right. I was just going for the cheap laugh.

The funny thing to me is I'm pretty sure there's only been one person who made one post saying they don't believe in evolution. But it's the biggest thread here.