How has this generation gained any more insight than the world 5000 yrs before?

Question

Sure, weve made many scientific discoveries but there is still so much we dont understand. Evolution has still yet to be proven and yet so many still follow it like a pre-historic people attributing a falling star to the finger of God. Many still reject God and place their hope and future in their careers, intellect or ability and yet consider nothing beyond their own reality. At least people back then acknowledged the fact that they are mortal and were not in control of their own destiny.

Answer 1

Simple, we are selfish, self-seeking, GODLESS, and image conscious. In other words we only contribute to ourselves. Check out the fall of Rome...because of their apathy...they fell...and darling that will happen again because NO ONE CARES.

Answer 2

Evolution has been proven, for all intents and purposes, time and time again, it can be easily observed in bacteria, among other things. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognise that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Also, look at the fossil record. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions, which is essentially proof of evolution. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favourable to fossilisation make that inevitable. Also, transition fossils (fossils of organisms between two lineages) may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

Many creationists also claim that evolution relies purely on chance, and is therefore statistically impossible. There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

We are far more enlightened, we know where we came from, evolution. We know about the stars and the universe. We know about bacteria and viruses and what causes disease. We know about atoms and subatomic theory. We even know, roughly, how old the universe is, although how it started is a bit of a mystery. In general, we have explanations for many things in the world that were previously attributed to god. Yes, there are still things we don't know, that isn't evidence of God. When people can't understand something, they say 'God must have done it!', always have and always will, it's the same today for people who reject science, it's god of the gaps, and nothing more. There is proof of evolution, none of God, whether or not you believe in him.

People today know they are mortal, science doesn't teach otherwise, I don't know what point you're trying to make there.

Answer 3

We probably have less insight. There are simply too many distractions that overload our senses and cause most people not to think about insight. Where as the Greeks, for example, may have sought insight, we seek fun and pleasure instead. We live in a society that for most people their number one goal is self-gratification. I ask you, how long can a society like that sustain itself?

Answer 4

I think we've lost grown spiritually speaking... we've come to think of doctors as Gods... and many teens seem to worship the latest music group rather than our Lord. I believe that we will have a spiritual reawakening... and people will realize how important God is in everything.

Answer 5

It's interesting - you seem to be suggesting that we should return to calling everything the "finger of god" and simply giving up.

I, for one, would much rather have antibiotics than a priest were I sick. Now that's progress!

Answer 6

just like the years change people and their beliefs change. humans are more independent now and its because technology has improved so much that they want to make it better.