To me, your post was unclear in what it was asking. I was just pointing out that, from an objectivist point of view, morality exists outside of our interpretations of it.

 

Now, of course, the only way to find what is moral is through our interpretations of it. What I was trying to point out is that our society, IMO, influences us to believe that our specific culture's specific standards can affect a moral action. So, if society deems that putting half-naked women on billboards, magazines, etc. is OK, then that must be factored into our decision of whether or not it is a moral act (from a relativist standpoint).

 

As for the above, being mere humans, it is impossible to say for sure. All we can do is gather the present information and make our best decision.

 

Your last statement is what I was getting at. Its us the people living on this earth that define morality.

Your last statement is what I was getting at. Its us the people living on this earth that define morality.

I think that that is an unclear statement.

 

From my perspective, morality exists outside of humans. Think of it like this- say, theoretically, that the world's most beautiful object exists inside the core of the earth where no human has ever seen it. Is it not beautiful because no human has deemed it so? No, beauty exists separate from our interpretation. Now, of course, we have different interpretations of beauty. But just because our interpretations differ does not mean that "beauty" does not exist.

 

Similarly, morality exists outside of us. We make interpretations of what is moral- some correct, some false- but that does not mean that morality can change with our whims and the changing of society and culture.

 

So, to clarify, we don't "define" morality in the sense that we create it. We attempt to interpret it. In a theistic standpoint, it is like morse code- God sends it and we interpret it. Sometimes we interpret wrong.

 

FWIW, I realize that this may very well be what you are getting at. Just trying to be clear. I also realize that no one may care about this at all.

Considering that DNA is made up of 4 nitrogenous bases- A, G, C and T- even for a DNA strand of 100 bases (smaller than found in any cell on Earth), the odds of getting a particular lucky combination are 4^100th, which is 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. Granted that this does not even take into account proteins and hundreds of other conditions necessary for the creation of one cell, I find any theory of evolution relying on blind chance to be, once again, unfathomably unlikely.

The number you post is a 16 followed by 59 zeroes… or 1.6 x 10^60… 1.6 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion… and that is for a relatively simple strand of 100 bases that is not even large enough to be a verifiable building block for any known cell.

 

To put this number in perspective, we need to examine some other big numbers.

 

Mathematicians at the University of Hawaii tried to estimate the number of grains of sand there are on all the beaches in the world. They came up with 7,500,000,000,000,000,000 or seven quintillion five quadrillion grains of sand. This may be represented as 7.5 x 10^18, or 7.5 billion, billion.

 

If every grain of sand on all the beaches of the earth represented one possible random combination in assembling a DNA strand of 100 bases, and every individual grain of sand could spontaneously rearrange itself once every second into an entirely new and unique 100 base combination not duplicated by any other grain on earth it would take 2.13333 x 10^41 seconds for all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth to cycle through every possible combination (without allowing for duplicates, which admittedly would require a computer beyond anything yet imagined to direct the random generation of unique possibilities in each grain of sand without duplicating the efforts of any other grain of sand… but I digress. :lol: )

 

2.13333 x 10^41 seconds of time equals 6.76476 x 10^33 years, or 6.8 billion trillion trillion years.

 

If we divide that by the 3.8 billion years we’re told the earth has been able to host living organisms, we would need 1.7802 x 10^24 times longer than the earth has been around to allow for the process described above.

 

Another solution would be to have multiple “earth identical” planets with the same amount to sand on their beaches cranking through the process simultaneously. (Of course, we cannot allow for much, much extra time for inestimable duplicates, so we have the most powerful computer conceivable to our puny minds governing this “random” process. :lol: )

 

A team of Australian astronomers and mathematicians recently estimated that there are approximately 70 Sextillion (7 x 10^22) stars in the known universe. To accomplish our task in the 3.8 billion years the earth has been fertile for life, we would need to have an average of 25.4 identical earths orbiting every single star in the known universe, with 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand cycling through every single possible combination of 100 bases for 3.8 billion years with no replication or duplicates to ensure assembling even one DNA strand shorter than any found in any living cell known to man. And quite frankly, this is hardly “random” chance with numerous duplications and repetition of errors. True random chance would require far more improbable universes than can be reasonably calculated.

 

If this all sounds ridiculous… good. It is and it should. It is far easier to accept the notion of a supernatural designer, than it is to justify random chance as the cause for our existence.

^ Just to clarify....you do realize that is exactly what I said, right?

^ Just to clarify....you do realize that is exactly what I said, right?

:lol: Absolutely... :lol:

 

I was just agreeing with you with a preponderance of math. :lol:

One can belive in God as the Creator and the Theory of Evolution. I do.

 

 

Absolutely!:thumb:

Add me to the list of evolution-believing Christians. :thumb:

Most religions lead to a "god", not The God. Big difference. Judaism and Christianity lead to the same god, but Hinduism leads to Buddha.

 

Now, Muslims and Christians do share the same God. But that's where similarities end. The Muslim religion, or Islam, is defined in Wikipedia as:

 

Islam is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a 7th century Arab religious and political figure.

 

Finally, Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life, no man get to the Father, or heaven, but through him. Unless you believe in Jesus, (belief is more than saying yes, there was a Jesus - but believing that he is the Son of God) you will go to hell!

 

 

So like I said, that statement is accurate. Just because they don't lead to the same God, they do lead to God.

I think that one interesting perspective that I heard recently is that the reason why Islam has been so successful in terms of growth and membership is that, honestly, it has many elements of Truth (while of course not having the whole Truth). During Muhammed's time as a caravan driver, he spoke with many pagans but also Christians and Jews. It is no coincidence that many Muslim ideals are very, very similar to Jewish and Christian ideals- here is a short list I gathered from a speech I heard:

 

 

• Even though Mohammed was from a polytheistic society, he said there is one God
  
• They believe in many from Judeo Christian scriptures- Jesus, Abraham, Ishmael (not Jacob), etc.
  
• Life begins at conception (No birth control, no abortion)
  
• Daily prayer- 5 times a day (similar to Jewish practice)
  
• Almsgiving- 2.5% obliged to the poor (similar to tithing)
  
• Fasting- 1 month of fasting (similar to Lent)
  
• Pilgrimage to Mecca (similar to going to Jerusalem, Rome, etc.)
  

I personally disagree with Darwinian Evolution as an explanation of our origins and subsequent development. There’s not remotely enough time and earth equivalents available for what we are and what we are aware of to have arisen spontaneously by nothing more than random chance.

 

I do not doubt that “evolution” occurs in the sense of creatures adapting to their environments. We have no proof however, this has and does occur as regards one species transforming into another species. Any scientist creatively interpreting the fossil record as we know it to make such leaps is more idealist and less scientist. The stifling of facts and information inconveniently out of line with the stated evolutionary agenda is not science but ideology and propaganda.

 

If, on the other hand, God is truly God, fully able to speak the universe into existence with His faith and His words, why does He need billions of years of trial and error and suffering to accomplish it?

I personally disagree with Darwinian Evolution as an explanation of our origins and subsequent development. There’s not remotely enough time and earth equivalents available for what we are and what we are aware of to have arisen spontaneously by nothing more than random chance.

 

I do not doubt that “evolution” occurs in the sense of creatures adapting to their environments. We have no proof however, this has and does occur as regards one species transforming into another species. Any scientist creatively interpreting the fossil record as we know it to make such leaps is more idealist and less scientist. The stifling of facts and information inconveniently out of line with the stated evolutionary agenda is not science but ideology and propaganda.

 

If, on the other hand, God is truly God, fully able to speak the universe into existence with His faith and His words, why does He need billions of years of trial and error and suffering to accomplish it?

 

Why wouldn't he want to sit back and let his creation take its course and find its own way? Why else would he even bother to create life in the first place?

Why wouldn't he want to sit back and let his creation take its course and find its own way? Why else would he even bother to create life in the first place?

 

I wasn't sure how to respond, but that is a very good answer. :thumb:

Why wouldn't he want to sit back and let his creation take its course and find its own way? Why else would he even bother to create life in the first place?

 

That makes the most sense if you don't fall into the predestination side of the debate, which I assume most here do not.

Why wouldn't he want to sit back and let his creation take its course and find its own way? Why else would he even bother to create life in the first place?

I fully expect to get skewered by certain posters for this, but here goes...

 

I actually believe that God created mankind in His image... spiritual beings that operate on faith... for His companionship. I realize that compared to God, we are not as advanced as the ants are to a child in a child's ant farm, but apparently there's more to all this than we are able to understand at this point in time.

 

I do not believe that God required 13.7 billion years to form the universe as we see it today. I do not believe that God required the earth to percolate for 4.5 billion years to become what we reside upon today. He certainly could have taken all the time He wanted because time has no bearing on God. In the same sense, He could have done all this 10 minutes ago. The point is, God is not bound by time, matter and natural laws.

 

As a Christian, I fully believe the teaching of Jesus Christ and the divinity He embraced and never denied.

 

John chapter one informs us:

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

 

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

 

From this we are told:

 

Jesus is not a created being, but an eternal being of the same substance as God.

 

Jesus is our Creator.

 

Later in John, Jesus calls us His friends in a variety of contexts:

 

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

John 15:14

You are my friends if you do what I command.

 

John 15:15

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

 

So, to a simple Christian, the Creator of the universe is calling me His friend. I certainly want to be His friend... even though I cannot possibly understand what I have to offer Him as His friend.

 

As a dad however, I don’t want all that much from my children other than their love and companionship. I’m one of those weird parents that actually enjoys spending time with my children. Rather than spending their money on me, I really, really enjoy it when they are good to each other.

 

I have to believe it’s much the same with God. There is nothing material we can give Him He really needs… but we can give Him our hearts, our time and our talents. We can treat our brothers and sisters with respect and love. When we “Love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength” and we “Love our neighbor as ourself” we are doing what Jesus commanded us, and in His own words we are His friends.

 

Friendship of this magnitude doesn’t require 13.7 billion years to occur… but if it does, that’s one amazing love story.

Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

 

How can anyone know the whole truth by casting half the evidence aside in favor of the evidence one finds more comforting, or more in line with with one's prejudices?

 

This is foolish and immature… and yet that is where we are in the year 2009.

No offense, but isn't this what you are doing right here?

 

I personally disagree with Darwinian Evolution as an explanation of our origins and subsequent development. There’s not remotely enough time and earth equivalents available for what we are and what we are aware of to have arisen spontaneously by nothing more than random chance.

 

I do not doubt that “evolution” occurs in the sense of creatures adapting to their environments. We have no proof however, this has and does occur as regards one species transforming into another species. Any scientist creatively interpreting the fossil record as we know it to make such leaps is more idealist and less scientist. The stifling of facts and information inconveniently out of line with the stated evolutionary agenda is not science but ideology and propaganda.