There's no evidence that we are more than mere byproduct evolutions. There is evidence however that we are exactly that - the end of a evolutionary chain. I may have misunderstood your position, but I read your post as giving your reasoning and evidence for believing the way you do. I don't argue or have qualms with religious folk who readily admit that they have no logical reason to believe what they do - that's entirely their business.
Well I ain't no scientist, but from a little study that I have in that area, evolution is just a theory, and is not a fact. Some even say it can never be proven. There is evidence that we are not exactly in an evolution chain.
But my point is that right now, it seems to me that if religion is a lie, then evolution is even a bigger one. Evolution talks about things that started 300 mil years ago and tries to talk about them like we've seen those days, while we have not ( not even fossils can help that ). You can never see evolution. The only true evidence that has been found is in some bacterias which in return you can find lots of other evidence that denies Evolution.
Evolution is like when you have lost a hundred of ten dollar bills. Then you see a ten dollar bill in some strange place and you then say " Well there's one here, and the rest is not, so we can't find the rest."
My point is, when you can't be sure of anything scientifically, then you just can't ignore the whole thing. You have to go on with your life and try to find the best way. In our cases, we really can not find the reality about our universe, because we have boundaries such as time. So you can look around, and see which way it makes more sense, then follow that.
You look at Atheism entirely the wrong way. Atheism isn't about proving there is no God - it's the realization and acceptance that the evidence shows that there most likely isn't a God. Scientists set out to prove, and based on what they prove, or can show evidence for, that is what they believe. I believe what the evidence suggests, not what I would like to believe, that's the position of religious people.
Well that's up for everyone to judge, And my judgment is that atheists are not people who were looking for answers, then they found out there's no god. To me there are people who for whatever reason, don't want a God, so they try to find ways to prove there's no God, and meanwhile they try to show themselves as reasonable as one can get.
I mean I've seen lots of great scientists that have reviewed theories like Evolution, and they all say it's just a possibility. And also take that in mind that if you can't find other possibilities, it doesn't mean the only one you have is right.
You know when you can realize that some people are trying to tell the truth, and not trying to tell what they
like to believe? You can realize it when they welcome any other set of ideas that may suggest different things that what's being said. And I don't see this kind of behavior in either hardcore atheists or hardcore religious guys
Scientific evidence has gathered a lot of evidence to have the of evolution for example. Evolution shows where we came from, and how we got here. That would suggest we weren't put here by a higher power, or some divine being, or whatever your belief is. We haven't proven that the Moon doesn't monitor and control every aspect of our lives by some unknown means - that's entirely possible, but not plausible, because we're fairly certain how to moon operates, why it's there, and why it does what it does. The same reasoning applies to human beings, we haven't proven a lot of things to be not true, but that doesn't give credence to them. I could name a lot of things that could be true, but I doubt highly you would give them much thought - I think the same way with religion.
These evidences you are talking about, as I said, prove that there's a possibility.You're just simply saying that just because there is no other scientific possibility, then the only one we have is true.
It's only a possibility, and not an obvious one, but a suggested one. Some have suggested it, the other have taken it and go far by finding evidences to back it up. The Problem is they didn't get a conclusion by observing the evidence, they suggested a way and then went out to find reason for it.
It's like a wife that is suspicious about his husband and thinks he's cheating on her. She observes his hubby and find herself a handful of good reasons that her husband COULD be cheating on her. Does it mean he's a cheater? No. She has a theory, and she sees signs that it might be true. So by an evolutionist point of view, Her husband is def cheating. But using a logical perspective, there's 2 possibilities. You've find signs that can prove one, but you've not find anything about the other. It still proves nothing.
The other very interesting thing is when you want to decide if the husband is cheating, you study his acts. Well, you may see he has less interest in his wife than before, or things like that. But can there be any sign which can prove the husband is not a cheater? No! The only way is to actually stalk him everywhere and every moment. We can't do that, so we go with the husband being a cheater!
Well, Is every cheating susceptible husband a cheater? NO!
You Evolutionists are just calling him cheater while you can be wrong 100%.
That's entirely without merit. Darwin's theory of evolution was criticized heavily upon it's printing for example because people didn't like the implications it would possibly have - which is that we aren't some special creation of a God, we just more intelligent animals. It's a common argument of religious people to attack Science and to say it's bias, which I completely disagree with. However even if for the sake of argument I were to say that is true, you cannot dispute the science. We didn't just make up evidence. The best argument you would have is that we have evidence to suggest that there is no God, but that there might be evidence to suggest there is, but we just don't look for it - not very compelling.
I agree 100% with this. I fully pity the people who hate on Darwin because he suggests that we are only improved animals. We may very well be. You can't ignore him because he thinks we are animals. We clearly want to be more than animals but it doesn't change if we either are or not.
I'm happy you see that you are not really looking for evidence in favor of God. But I think it's really compelling that you're not acting unbiased. it's not a simple math problem. It's talking universe and everything there's in it. So I think it's logically inevitable for a guy who needs the true answer to consider both ways. Evolutionists and Religious people both try to stick to what they have out of self-righteousness, arrogance, and even laziness, and let's not forget the fame and fortune it brings to the leaders of both.
One of the reasons I love Islam is that Quran tells you that, basically you human beings are animals, but you can evolve form being an animal to be the superior being, by using the gifts that has not been given to any other being.
I find it pretty much giving a big OK to 70-80% of evolution, while suggesting that there's an intelligence behind it and it doesn't happen out of nowhere.
I don't think people help eachother because they instinctively 'know' there's a God. I think people help eachother because it's a trait we developed and have evolved with because it served a purpose. I don't really understand your example with a five year old. Five year olds don't know much of anything. A human body is hard wired to fight for their lives, to seek out others, and to spread their genes - this is because of evolution. I feel as strongly as I do because I know a lot about Evolution, I know it is scientifically sound, and it makes a lot of sense. You're seeing the same things I am but coming to different conclusions.
Well there's no doubt that people have evolved to what they are right now. People are not caveman anymore. What I'm saying that there's a force that pushes this people to evolve, and that force can be God, or one of God's intentions.
As you mentioned, we are seeing the same things, and I don't think there's really so much difference between our conclusions. You say we are what we are because we have evolved into it. I say the same thing, but I think there's a reason a purpose behind this evolving. I think God has created the universe and he may very well has chosen Evolution as the way it progresses. I think the initials and basics are inserted in us by god, then we evolve using those basics. That's what true Islam says.
People are trying to survive and propagate - those are the basic instincts. You're beginning to get very philosophical. There is no universal bad or good - that's all dependent upon the context and the character within that context. I'm talking about the context of survival, with the character being human beings. It would be bad (counter-productive) for us to not look out for one another. My point was that there is no universal point or purpose to our lives. Our evolutionary purpose is to survive and have children, that is what we're biologically evolved to do. Within that context, that is why we help eachother and strive for better lives - it all make sense and there's evidence for all of it.
I accept that we want to survive. But I refuse to believe that all we do is because we want to survive. There's way more than that. That's the moment that we can part ways with other animals. We don't live to survive. We live to evolve. We live to be the best we can. That's the reason technology has improved. That's the reason Darwin busted his ass to provide this theory. He didn't live to survive, he did what he did because he wanted to be superior. How come any other animals don't posses anything we have? because an elephant never lives to evolve. Even If it evolves -which by the way we have never observed- it's physically and by accident. An Elephant will always be OK to be a cheap attraction in a Circus. An elephant never even thinks about building his own circus, because he is not intelligent.
I agree that people are just more intelligent animals by many aspects, but I think people are indeed superior, and that's not by accident. I think if you take a better look at nature, you can see that every being is serving its purpose, and is not just an accident which happens to be there.
Once again I state that, Just because there's no scientific evidence we are not more, it doesn't mean we aren't more. Science is a powerful tool, but it's not the only tool, it's not perfect and can fall short on many occasions.
I guess as you said, it gets philosophical, but I guess that's because I'm sure pure science is not enough.
