Spiritual belief has not eroded, it has consistently grown in mankind. More people believe in something greater than self today, than ever in our history.
I don't deny God has been used to explain the unexplained, but that doesn't mean that is the purpose or intent of belief in a God. If that were the reason, we would see very few people today, practicing any form of spiritual belief.
It has been a core of what 'god' has been to man. That is hardly denied by the religious.
God, the great comforter is the reason why religion survives to this today.
I refute your suggestion that more people believe in some form of religious belief now than have ever in the past, unless you are simply referring to increase in population.
As a percentage, until the Darwinian evolution, religion was appraoching the 100% mark. A few brave soles questioned, Epicurus etc but the vast majority of the world's population believed. Now that percentage is not so high.
Why do you think a larger percentage of the world's people have religious 'faith' of some sort now, than, for example, two hundred years ago?
I know that 96 out of 100 people, identify with the concept of something greater than self. That IS approaching 100%. What is your scientific explanation for why God is (and has always been) such a powerful "great comforter?" What is your biological explanation for why human spirituality has prevailed as a profound human attribute, if it is, as you 'conclude', not needed by the species?
Yes, it is hard to accept, isn't that curious to you? Again, I have not made an "X, therefore, Y" argument, as you seem to want to keep indicating. I have simply introduced "possibility" into your otherwise closed mind.
This isn't an argument Dixie. When you argue, you argue the points presented before you, not simply call your opponent 'closed minded' because they argue against you.
No, it is an argument. I am arguing for the open-minded idea that anything is possible and we shouldn't dismiss possibilities, make assumptions, or draw conclusions. You are arguing that we should.
True, but I never argued you had to have God to be happy, moral, and balanced. I simply stated a fact, that people with a strong spiritual conviction, are more happy, more successful, and better balanced. This is evidenced in the number of suicides, clinical depression, and instability among people who have no spiritual connection. The only thing it "proves" is that spiritual conviction is more than some trivial way of explaining the unexplained.
Have you polled suicide victims, the clinically depressed and the unstable as to their spiritual beliefs?
The is unsubstantiated. Those with spiritual beliefs are no more happy, moral, and balanced than those who do not.
Actually, there have been numerous studies of people who have clinical depression and suicidal tendencies, as well as alcoholics and people with substance addiction. An extremely low percentage of them have any connection with religious faith or spirituality. In fact, most people who have overcome these conditions, will most often credit "God" for their recovery. I can provide you with countless testimonies to this effect.
Not just that things are complex, but things are complex in an intricate way that would almost prohibit the possibility of randomness.
We are treading old ground here Dixie. Firstly, evolution is not dependent on randomness, it is based on the honing process of natural selection. Genetic mutations are caused by chemical changes during the copying process, these are not a random process simply because there is no forethought, they are the result of cause and effect. Natural selection, the process by which these genetic mutations are weaned out is also not a result of a random process but a complex chain of cause and effect. You are assuming that because there is no forethought there must therefore be randomness.
With this is mind, on what basis do you claim that complexity almost prohibits evolution through natural selection?
Hold on, I thought we were debating Origin of Life, not Evolution? I have not disputed ET, I believe in ET, and it certainly is not 'random' and certainly does indicate intelligence in design. In fact, ET is one of the strongest indicators of intelligent design.
When I spoke of randomness, I was referring to the 'randomness' of events and circumstances which enabled life to originate. I am talking about the fact that predictability and reliability found in physics, science, math, and complexity of life, are opposed to 'randomness' and indicate intelligence in design. Likewise, the predictability and lack of randomness in ET, are also indicators of intelligent design.
The problem with your argument is, you have never "observed" evolution. You have a theory, you have an idea of how you think it all happened, but your idea is full of gaps and unexplained mysteries. This doesn't mean my argument becomes valid, just that your argument has some flaws.
Evolution through natural selection is observed on a daily basis in species that reproduce generations rapidly. You refer to the lack of observation of evolution through natural selection on 'higher order' species. This is because of the time these species take to reproduce generations. This is very hindering when we only have a limited timescale of observation.
Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that god, or whatever you wish to call your 'spiritual creator', created the species as they are now? How did it happen? In a single day, as the bible suggests? How did the species come about?
And if life on Earth is so 'irreducibly complex' that is requires a creator, then that creator must be infinitely more complex. So what created it?
Again, we aren't arguing ET, I agree with ET! I do not "conclude" it to be a fact, but there is evidence for it, and it's reasonable to assume it happens. I also do not believe it is responsible for the origin of life, as there is no evidence to support that idea.
As for "how it happened" I have no idea, nor do I claim to have. Your final question is somewhat rhetorical, and we can play the same game with the Big Bang theory... what caused it, and why were all of the necessary building blocks of life contained in it? I don't know who or what may have 'created' the creator, it may be way beyond our ability to comprehend or understand, and maybe there wasn't a 'creator' for the creator. Perhaps the creator resides in a completely different deminsion, and doesn't require physical 'creation' as we define it, to exist? None of this negates the evidence to suggest intelligence in our design.
In all of our observations, we can not show how any cross-species evolution occurred, there is no evidence to support this. Through the Cambrian period, we can see how various species evolved, but within their own form of life, never a cross-species transformation. There is also the mystery of the complex eye, which didn't appear until the Cambrian period. So there are many unanswered questions, and while it doesn't "prove" there is a God, it doesn't "disprove" it either. The possibility of intelligent design still remains.
Here you are presenting the 'missing link' problem proposed by many creationists and those who argue for the same under different guises.
Firstly, fossils of missing link species have been found. The problem is that those who argue from your viewpoint won't be satisfied until fossils are found for every missing link species. Given the intricate nature of fossilisation it is hardly surprising that there are gaps in the fossil record. It is like expecting there to be ruins for every settlement that ever existed.
You brought up the classic creationist example, the eye. Have you considered functional evolution? That the function of the part can change through time and evolution? That a light sensitive patch that is exhibited still to this day extant in some aquatic species, evolved into the eye we see today?
I could turn the eye back at you. The light sensitive cells in the eye face the wrong way, facing inwards. If this was design, was it designed well? lol
The human eye, indeed, the complex eyes of most primates, did not evolve from a photosensitive patch, because the mechanics and functioning are completely different, and unrelated. While I support ET, it is not an answer for everything, and the complex human eye is a good example. ET dictates that things which are needed are retained, and things that aren't needed are discarded, but it doesn't allow things to be 'invented' on the fly. This would have to be the case with the human eye, as it contains numerous parts which work in unison together, and if any part were missing, the eye simply wouldn't work.
As for design... the human eye is capable of seeing more colors in the color spectrum, than any other eye. So, yes, I think it was designed fairly well. Not as well as the eye of the Eagle, but the Eagle needs better eyesight than the Human, in order to spot prey on the ground.
But you haven't shown that. You have an opinion and a theory, but these are not "proof" of anything. To me, the watch analogy is legitimate, because it defines the argument in terms we can understand. You argue that the various elements washed upon the shore and created the watch over millions of years, and I argue that something or someone made the watch. Neither of us can prove our theory, but neither theory can be disproved.
Proof, proof, proof. Prove to me that gravity exists.
I presented a counter argument that demonstrated that your analogy was incorrect because it didn't fit. Presenting an argument against the argument I presented is far more effective than simply saying 'opinions vary'.
You can easily prove gravity exists by dropping something. Proving why gravity exists, is a different thing. You presented an argument which concluded things based on theories. You can't show my analogy doesn't fit, because my analogy is valid and does fit. Whereas the watch represents life, and your assumptions for origin of life equate to elements randomly concurring to form the watch, and my belief that the intricate complexity of the design, almost completely prohibits the possibility of randomness.
You've backed your arguments with closed-minded opinions, and that is all. You are unwilling to consider any possibility of an intelligent designer, because you don't believe in God, and refuse to accept any possibility which may include one.
No Dixie, I simply don't accept the possibility of an intelligent designer because your arguments don't convince me. They are easily countered and refuted. Especially those parts of your post where you don't counter argue but simply accuse me of being closed minded.
Dixie, I am far from close minded. Someone who isn't convinced doesn't equate to someone who is closed minded.
Well, I know you "don't accept" possibilities because you have "concluded" otherwise. This is why it is so easy for you to counter and refute logic and common sense. I am not "accusing" you of being closed-minded, you indeed ARE closed-minded. You see, when someone says a person is "closed-minded" it means precisely what you just stated... you "simply don't accept the possibility" of something. It's not intended to insult you or to avoid the arguments, it is merely a statement of fact. While I have maintained an open mind, willing to accept the theories of Darwin, ET and natural selection, willing to believe these theories are accurate and true, but stopping short of believing they explain the origin of life, and daring to believe, perhaps there is another possibility, another explanation. Perhaps it's something we don't yet understand, or aren't capable as humans of comprehending? My mind is OPEN to the possibilities, yours is not.
