Don't believe in Evolution or Creation.

by sleepy 56 Replies latest jw friends

  • dubla


    we could go round and round with this. you first stated that evolution invalidates peoples deeply held beliefs [about creation], then when the origin of life came up, you gave me a definition of evolution, saying it was not at all about the origin of life. now, imo, the definition you gave of the word "evolution", does not invalidate anyones beliefs. i said nothing of about how evolution supposedly occured over many millions of years, you added that part. the word evolution, and the fact that it "occurs" as you stated, invalidates nothing.


    Edited by - dubla on 8 August 2002 11:59:26

  • funkyderek

    Dubla, put simply. The fact that evolution occurs means that those who believe it does not occur are incorrect. For some people, the belief that evolution does not occur is a deeply-held religious conviction. That it occurs invalidates such a belief.

  • dubla


    gotcha...and i think i sort of knew thats the stance you were coming from. the only thing i was trying to add to that, is that you can believe "evolution" (not every definition, but surely some) occurs, without believing it has occured for millions of years with speciation. perhaps when i said "no one", i should have said "most", because im sure there are people that deny it occurs at all now(although im not sure why, the "definition" is left so wide open that just about any change can be considered "evolution").


  • Xander
    I have a problem excepting the idea that there is a god who is above and beyond this universe, and who created life on earth directly as it is now or in the past.I have troubling excepting that the process of evolution that happens in living creatures is the sole reason for, and mechanism that causes our existance.

    Hmmm...sounds like you need to do some reading on various pagan teachings. You get the potential for accepting whatever you want for creation and what has happened since.

    Myself, I'm leaning strongly towards abiogenesis + evolution for how we got here, with frequent intrusions in our basic development by spirit beings. I don't believe they really make major changes, and they are not organized for any particular objective. They may even not be some seperate entities, but souls of the dead. Dunno.

    Others have a more spiritual interpretation, assuming 'the gods' actually have a major role in human development.

    A big feature of paganism is polytheism, which explains MUCH better why 'god' seems so schizophrenic - because there ISN'T one, big, all-powerful and all-seeing god. Just a number of spirit creatures who feel the need to set themselves up as gods over humanity.

  • sleepy

    A lot of confusion seems to arise from the definitions.There are so many meanings people put behind the words evolution and creation.

    I think most people take evolution to include the formation of life on earth from non-living matter into living even if that is not the most accurate term.

    I suppose life from non-life is not too difficult to concieve, as to me a living thing is nothing special, in the sense that it is just a combination of non-living things working together to produce a synagetic result.Conscious being are in a different league altogether, and humans seam to be the only ones known.i've said this before but you can't say how consciousness arrived if you don't know what it is.Since we don't know what it is (although many ideas exist) we can't say how it got here.

    Edited by - sleepy on 8 August 2002 13:5:6

  • Gedanken


    Sure. But isn't that the problem? People not really understanding exactly what the terms they are using actually mean. There can be no doubt that life has evolved if one honestly considers the facts. It really is as factual as the existence of gravity. Most arguments are about "theories of evolution" which many people think means that evolution is not a fact.

    dubla - I think it is now self-evident that sleepy (and you) was talking about something else than the subject matter in the thread i.e., abiogenesis. That's fine, but the number of times this distinction has been made on this board and h2o before it makes it a bit tedious to keep going over old ground. Respectfully, it's really a good idea to marshall one's arguments and facts before entering into such a discussion.


  • dubla


    I think it is now self-evident that sleepy (and you) was talking about something else than the subject matter in the thread i.e., abiogenesis.

    first of all, bravo for parroting derek and ignoring the bulk of my post. second of all, i wasnt talking about abiogenesis at all, nor was i talking about the theory of evolution. what i was talking about was the irrelevancy and idiocy of your analogy....and as i stated in my last response to you, backing up my original comment was my purpose for sticking around, which i have done. in addition, ive also pointed out some of your shortcomings (debate wise), such as your arrogant and condescending attitude, your constant insults, etc.....for which youve had a sum total of zero rebuttals.

    Respectfully, it's really a good idea to marshall one's arguments and facts before entering into such a discussion.

    my arguments and facts are straight, and again, you have absolutely no rebuttal for the bulk of them.


Share this