Are there any religious people who think that the animal kingdom is subject to evolution, even if they believe humans may not be?
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
33% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
67% | ||
We're just animals who've achieved sentience.
I just said nature too many times.
Ironically I am typing on an ipad so I can not concentrate as much on what I am saying, so hopefully that makes sense.
We live on a planet that just so happens to be the perfect distance from the sun for us to exist (Coincidence?), we also happen to be spinning, which prevents one side of the Earth from freezing to death and the other from burning (Coincidence #2?), now let's consider that the moon helps provide light for the dark side of the Earth which helped our ancestors survive in the night hours as hunter-gatherers (coincidence #3?). The planet is covered with trees and fauna that provide the very air and food that we need to survive (Coincidence #4?) and while people believe that we evolved to breathe oxygen, rather than it being a happy bit of luck, there is no way to know for certain, so whatever you choose to believe requires faith. The building blocks that spawned life on Earth must have come from somewhere, right? Either life has always existed in one form or another or it was created, but one thing the majority agrees on is that it can't have come from nothing and nowhere.
For the record, I'm not saying I believe in creation or intelligent design, I'm just saying I can see why others do and that I don't believe in coincidences that seem contrived, because they . :o)
I think it's possible there may have been a God a long, long time ago, but if that God evolved to become something more that eventually spawned all life in the universe then God would be an energy and that makes much more sense to me. :o)
1) Subtract about five percent of our current orbit's radius from itself and we'll burn. Add something like thirty seven percent (which would put us nearly in parallel with Mars) and we'll freeze. This is far from a perfect situation and we know that our orbit is decaying. Not to mention that we've found plenty of other planets occupying the habitable zones of their respective stars.
Also, the premise that the planet's orbital state is perfectly suited for our existence is flawed in that it's been logically reversed. We exist due to conditions being present on the planet which would allow for us, not the other way around.
2) This is due to solar accretion (i.e. the planet's origin which involves quite a lot of rotation) and conservation of angular momentum. Nothing particularly special there.
3) I'm pretty sure that early man didn't hunt at night, but that's not particularly important. I'm sorry that I have to say this, but this is a rather tautological statement that seems like something someone with a very limited view of the world would come up with. It's got wishful thinking at its core and relies on the premise that our moon is somehow unique. To say that a naturalistic explanation is contrived while bolstering this one is a tad hypocritical.
Besides...
1) Subtract about five percent of our current orbit's radius from itself and we'll burn. Add something like thirty seven percent (which would put us nearly in parallel with Mars) and we'll freeze. This is far from a perfect situation and we know that our orbit is decaying. Not to mention that we've found plenty of other planets occupying the habitable zones of their respective stars.
Also, the premise that the planet's orbital state is perfectly suited for our existence is flawed in that it's been logically reversed. We exist due to conditions being present on the planet which would allow for us, not the other way around.
2) This is due to solar accretion (i.e. the planet's origin which involves quite a lot of rotation) and conservation of angular momentum. Nothing particularly special there.
3) I'm pretty sure that early man didn't hunt at night, but that's not particularly important. I'm sorry that I have to say this, but this is a rather tautological statement that seems like something someone with a very limited view of the world would come up with. It's got wishful thinking at its core and relies on the premise that our moon is somehow unique. To say that a naturalistic explanation is contrived while bolstering this one is a tad hypocritical.
Besides, the claim that the moon in all its reflective glory exists just for us is a wee bit arrogant, don't you think?
4) Once again, this is backward reasoning. Primitive species capable of metabolizing local florae and their photosynthetic products are rather more likely to proliferate than those who vomit it back up, don't you think?
Plants didn't come about to serve us, we came about in parallel bound together by our common history.
5) Our respiratory requirements also didn't come about by chance. Oxygen, being the most electronegative element available to the majority of living species (save for some archaebacteria which can utilize sulfur as a culminating oxidative tool), and the second most common molecule in the universe, and the major gaseous product of photosynthesis, is a logical imperative in our evolutionary development here on Earth. It's not a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination.
See, these little questions rely on Bill O'Reilly-esque reasoning. They have answers that are anything but faith-based and ignorance of them really shouldn't be willful.
Like you said, we could burn or freeze, so our position is perfect and unless the building blocks for life exist on every planet then we had the most extraordinary luck of finding this planet, don't you think? How many of those other planets found also showed signs of life? None so far.
Early man may not have hunted at night? What makes you think that? In some areas of the world they would have had to adapt to hunt at night and other areas they would have had to protect themselves at night from other predators.
You say I exhibit arrogance for making a comment about the moon existing for us, but isn't it arrogant to assume it's wrong and dismiss the idea because you feel your knowledge and intellect supersedes mine on this topic?
Bottom line is all you've said is that there is another way to look at things, which I agree with. Did we adapt to the environment or did it adapt to us? We can make educated guesses, but we can't know for sure. Science is arrogant. Religions is arrogant. Both rely on faith when things aren't 100% clear and provable.