kat;
Some of what I have read here suggests that man.... is the final product.
FINAL? Nah, no one has asserted that I think. Evolution doesn't stop. The factos influencing it might change. Society might protect those who would formerly be Smilodon chow, or who don;t have the best genetic profile as regards immunity or whatever. But it's still there, working away in the background.
S l o w l y.
Life on the planet earth has been changing for millions of years. It is this cycle of life that is the creation.
Yipee! A non-literal creationist. You might be right.
Man is but one form of many. He will continue to grow and change.... Eventually man will not exist in this form.
Well, we can see we agree on that.
Even your own bible tells you that there will be a new heavens and a new earth.... I mean ....what? Did you think he was just gonna re-create the seven continents or something.... it's all gonna be what it is now.
The earth has truly seen life-changing cataclysms, that force it's inhabitants to change... in order to survive.
The earth will be rid of the current system of things. As dictated by the cycle of life.... everything must "die", so that new life can exist. "Man is not so far above the rest of creation, as he would like to believe". Man has been on earth only a fraction of it's existence. He is even so proud as to believe he can destroy the earth, with pollution and weapons. . . . 100 million years from now... there will be no evidence of your existence here. . . . "Man" himself will exist as a different form.
The bible tells you that God is within you. It is that spiritual connection to the dweller of the heavens, that drives us to seek out a "path to god" in the first place. The doctrine itself is not important... but the wisdom of those before us... is there. Our intelligence as a race, has grown since the bible was written. Perhaps our spiritual developement is about to reach a place, where we no longer need that "ritual" and "rules" that religion now provides us with. Religion.. is the construct of man... Spirituality... is that connection to the dweller of the "heavens" that place that we comprehend, but cannot reach in this form.
Patience. . . in all things.
Yes, but what if there is no god? If the whole concept is a human conceit? What if the "spiritual connection to the dweller of the heavens, that drives us to seek out a "path to god" in the first place" is just an evolutionary relic? Remember, no proof of god, no proof even of a teleological Universe, not once, ever, in all of human history. If someone inveted the idea of god for the first time today, they would be laughed at as a fantasist.
It's been proven in twin studies that just as homosexuality is at least as much determined by genetics as other factors, so to a tendancy to believe is inheritable. Identical twins seperated at birth and raised seperately are far more liekly to share a level of religious belief than two people selected at random.
One can speculate about why such a belief mechanism might be genetically transferable. Maybe groups of individuals with this trait showed greater levels of social cohesion than those without, with resultant survival benefits.
But if it's genetic, what sort of entity could reasonably disadvantage people by inflicting them with a lack of ability to believe encoded at a genetic level?
I feel that spirituality is more about realising what a fantastic thing life is, and how precious it is, than anything to do with some personifiable entity.
It is for this reason I find the writing Pierre Teilhard de Chardin of interesting. I wouldn't go quite as far as him, but do feel that 'god' is in the 'machine', and no less wonderful for it.
Here's a few quotes;
http://www.crosscurrents.org/chardin.htm
He tried to demonstrate that the material world, the world of rocks and trees, stars and planets, plants and animals, rather than being the neutral subject of scientific investigation, was in fact the soil from which would spring a new vision of the holy. The very subject matter of pure science was nothing less than a mirror in which one could see reflected the face of God.
If, as the result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness)- that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe. It is by this faith that I live. And it is to this faith, I feel, that at the moment of death, rising above all doubts, I shall surrender myself |
| To outward appearance, the modern world was born of an antireligious movement: man becoming self-sufficient and reason supplanting belief. Our generation and the two that preceded it have heard little of but talk of the conflict between science and faith; indeed it seemed at one moment a foregone conclusion that the former was destined to take the place of the latter. ... After close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary. On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith |
hoo;
Just because someone posts a "rebutal" does not mean that my post was invalidated or that I need to respond. If I feel that my post stands on its own, I may not feel it necessary to respond. Also when I consider taking the time to giving a response (to a rebutal), I evaluate from whom the "rebutal" came from to determine if I am wasting my time.
No hoo, a rebutal does not neccesarily invalidate a post. But if you make a statement that is shown by rebutal to be unsupported or erroneous and fail to respond to that rebutal, any point you linked to that statement remains unproven. Of course, you can ignore that. We've all had a lot of training in ignoring evidence that doesn't fit our world-view.
You are effectively a defence lawyer claiming that you don't have to respond to your 'expert witnesses' being debunked in open court in order to prove your case.
It might convince you, but the 'jury' are likely to be unimpressed.
It is interesting that it is not contents, but authorship you look for. This perhaps explains why you are so bound to the Bible, because you think that god is the author, even if the contents don't stand up to close examination.
How sad. I at least give your posts a read to see whether you have made any good points. In vain most of the time, but just because you have shown yourself to have a poor comprehension of science and a unwillingness to explain contradictions or problems with the theories you advance most of the time doesn't mean you are incapable of making a good point or being right.
As you are obviosuly too closed-minded to extend me this courtesy I will have to examine my behaviour in this respect.
