Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

[atiguhya padma]

I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

What are the mathematical odds of there being a god who designed the Universe and all life within it? I would say that the chances have to be better for evolution than for the existence of god. Firstly, we have evidence for evolution.

[cuppajoe_9]

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.I've given you the odds that the chimpanzee and human genomes got the way they are by a process other than common ancestry (billions to one against, even discounting the genes that are actually functional). I can give you some other proofs that can be given to a high level of statistical probability as well, if you'd like.

[Redzeppelin]

What are the mathematical odds of there being a god who designed the Universe and all life within it?

How does one calculate such a thing? And, either way, you have shifted the focus; I asserted that evolution struggles with the math required to make it believable. You didn't address that.


I would say that the chances have to be better for evolution than for the existence of god. Firstly, we have evidence for evolution.

The "evidence" is not conclusive - and it relies upon the tacit acceptance of numbers that are beyond reason, beyond belief.

[Dante Wodehouse]

I've dealt with it. It's an argument from ignorance. In addition, Behe hasn't been able to come up with an irreducibly complex structure, even by his own defitintion.

What about the eye, or even cilia?

[cuppajoe_9]

What about the eyeWe've done this before, Dante. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4)


, or even cilia?Cilia are incredibly simple.

[atiguhya padma]

RedZeppelin,

I would have thought that the evidence relies upon a measurable rate of change in the construction of a species genetic makeup. Measure the average rate of change in genetic makeup of a species over x amount of generations, then work out the percentage difference in genes from any given species to the earliest life forms and calculate the total duration of time elapsed. If this vastly exceeds our dating of life on earth, using other independent techniques, then we can say that evolution theory requires a worrying amount of faith (although it will never require as much as creationism). So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?

You say that evolution requires 'the tacit acceptance of numbers beyond reason, beyond belief'. What are those then? What numbers do you find unbelievable, unreasonable? Life has been here a long time. Long enough for us to have evolved.

[Redzeppelin]

So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?

I will deal with the rest of your post later. For now - I said what I said because I'm not sure how you calculate the probability of a supernatural being. I do know that we can calculate things like the probability of evolution because the theory requires that we use evidence that is readily available here on earth (to an extent). Simply because I'm not sure how you calculate the odds of a supernatural being doesn't mean the odds are against it - it just means I'm not sure how to go about it.

[DRK3RD]

Evolution is just a theory!:yawnb: But, then, again, so is Creationism!!:flare: So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to.;)
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!:angel:

[Dante Wodehouse]

Evolution is just a theory!:yawnb: But, then, again, so is Creationism!!:flare: So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to.;)
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!:angel:

It is possible to believe that God created the world, but the world has evolved. It isn't a True/False answer.

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolution is just a theory!:yawnb: But, then, again, so is Creationism!!In scientific terms, creationism is a hypothesis.

[The Atheist]

The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.

Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.

To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.

As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.

Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.

[Redzeppelin]

The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.

Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.

To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.

As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.

Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.

The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.

[andave_ya]

Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis. Full taxonomy of Homo neaderthalensis here.


Edit: a Google revealed that the species was originally clasified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.


I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source. And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source.It's cited, I believe, and you can follow it up if you'd like.


And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.The species was originally classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens, but it is now generally accepted that it could not or did not interbreed with other homo sapiens, and therefore qualifies as its own species.

[kilted exile]

Red, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?

[Redzeppelin]

Red, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?

Which post are you referring to?

[kilted exile]

Which post are you referring to?

Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:


"Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.

&


Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.

As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice:)

[Redzeppelin]

Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:

As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice:)

I think I'm saying this:

1) Foundational presuppositions are the basis of our beliefs; these presuppositions act as "filters" through which we consider the nature of reality. Naturalism posits that only the material world and its measurable/observable phenomenon is the basis of reality; Christianity posits that God is the source of reality. These presuppositions mean that evidence that is convincing to one side of the fence will more than likely not convince the opponent on the other side of the fence - because the presuppositional foundations prescribe what is and is not credible evidence; hence, the Naturalist automatically dismisses all supernatural claims of evidence because God's nonexistence is a given, a requirement for Naturalism. Conversely, the Christian will automatically not consider valid any evidence that suggests that God is not who He says He is and that the Bible is not reliable - because the Christian foundation says that the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God.

2) Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.

Let me know if I continue to be unclear (I'm prone to being such).

[kilted exile]

Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.

I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).

[3kixintehead]

The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.
The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

[Babbalanja]

Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.It's not that scientific endeavor dismisses the possibility of supernatural entities, it simply requires evidence of their existence and/or influence in our world. It's easy to condemn naturalism as closed-minded if you forget that the burden of proof is on the believer to provide evidence of supernatural forces.

Methodological naturalism (the basis of empirical evidential inquiry) doesn't claim that natural forces are either a subset of all forces that exist or the only forces that exist. MN merely assumes the pragmatic stance that only verifiable entities should be considered as having relevance to scientific inquiry.

[hyperborean]

The reason why many people believe in evolution because it exists. We don't know for sure how life started, but evolution does exist. It's easier to tag initial creation with something we know exists than with something we made up.

[Orionsbelt]

Evolution is a mechanism for change. It is not the essence of life itself. It is growth like a root that finds it's way through a crack in the rock. In that sense it ties all life together. However, It pre-supposes the existence of something that will evolve. At the basic level change in based on genetics.. mutations...so... no genes, no mutation, no evolution. Pools of organic chemicals are not genes. You cannot use evolution to explain the start of life. The evidence only suggests that life did not appear suddenly.. it appeared to have come about slowly. Find the link between volition and matter and you will have indeed found something. As it is right now, like gravity, we can only describe the material mechanics.

[The Atheist]

The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.

Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.

You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.

[The Atheist]

The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

Can I suggest that before you accept any of the lies about the odds for evolution that you check them with someone who actually understands them.

The algorithm for evolution shows evolution to be mathematically almost a certainty.

Comments from creationists that the odds are agaist evolution are nothing more than baseless lies. This just shows what a hopeless position they're in - they [B]never/B] present any evidence (because they don't have any) and they attack evolution with silly lies in the knowledge that most people don't understand calculus.

Unfortunately, lots still do understand it and those people also understand that the weight of mathematical probability is on Darwin's side. The odds of creationism being correct are so low that nobody's even bothered to work it out. Creationism is wilful ignorance.

[The Atheist]

I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).

See, this is the thing - I have considered all the possibilities, unlike you.

Evidence for ceationism: the bible says so.


Evidence for evolution: 4 billion years of fossils, genetic evidence, geological evidence, intemediate species, thousands of man-years of research proving the links and refining the theories and currently-living species add up to an astronomical amount of evidence.

If creationism ever presents one tiny iota of evidence in favour of it, I will certainly consider it. Feel free to bring one to the table.

[Redzeppelin]

Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.

You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.

No, you may not. May I suggest that you stop making suggestions?

Here:

Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.

"Chirality" is the term given to the necessity that all nucleotides in a DNA or RNA chain be of a certain molecular orientation ("right-handed," technically dextroform) for the chain to work. The nucleotides are the "rungs" of the DNA ladder, composed of four ingredients: every single one must be right-handed. Likewise, nearly all 20 different amino acids used in cellular protein chains must also be of a specified orientation ("left-handed," technicaly levoform) for a protein to work. Not one can be defective. If the chirality requirements are not met, the entire process of manufacture from DNA to RNA to "working protein" fails. Hence, for the first bacterium, a perfect mix of both nucleotide orientation (right handed) and amino-acid orientation (left-handed) had to occur.

In nature we find that all amino acids occur randomly in equal proportions of right- and left-handed (a recemic mixture). After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids. To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up - the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time - all left handed. This is the only way tehy would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA. Likewise, all 100,000-plus nucleotides would have to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way - all right handed - to form a functioning DNA molecule.

In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row.

Attempts to prove that chirality is not necessary have failed. Dr. Alan Schwartz of the Evolutionary Biology Research Group at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands describes such an attempt:

"In an experiment designed to test the requirement for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficient to terminate the reaction" (Joyce et al, 1984).

Back to the coin flipping: The probablility of each flip being correct is 1 out of 2. One bad flip and the game is over. A direct calculation would simply be multiplying 1/2 X 1/2 110,000 times. What are the odds that result? 1/2 to the 110,000 power, or, in base-ten: 1 in 10 to the 33,133 power. This number is so large that it is the equivalent of winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each. Or, if we counted all the subatomic particles in the entire universe (10 to the 84 power) - in fact, in nearly 400 universes - it would be the same as the odds of selecting a single, predesignated particle from that number.

I contend, as I have more than once (and you have never responded to in any substantial way) that the odds that I would need to accept for the evolutionary beginning of life as suggested by the "primordial soup" model, are beyond fantasy - and that they are equally unbelievable and equally unprovable as God appears to you.

I await your response.

[Babbalanja]

After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids.Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here. (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Chirality)

And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?

[Redzeppelin]

Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here. (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Chirality)

And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?

Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a particular reaction taking place at a particular time and in a particular way with just the right components and timing and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.

Your 2nd question - what's it for?

edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.

[Babbalanja]

Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a particular reaction taking place at a particular time and in a particular way with just the right components and timing and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.

Your 2nd question - what's it for?

edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.Well, I guess short of replaying the course of history so you could witness the particular reaction taking place at a particular time, you'll deny that the ability of abiotic reactions to produce chirality is a scientifically valid avenue for origin-of-life investigations. Does anyone else see this as stacking the deck or is it just me?

And what specifically is the creationist alternative? And how does it serve as a framework for further scientific inquiry?

[billyjack]

its not just you. the deck is being stacked.

no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.

[cuppajoe_9]

Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses. Via wiki:


In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes. [emphasis added]That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.

[The Atheist]

I await your response.

Easy, you're wrong.

As Cuppajoe pointed out, you're so wrong that it's quite laughable.

Will you please make some attempt to actually look at some real evidence, please.

Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.

Next.

[Redzeppelin]

Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses.

I prefer you not tell me what I know, sir.

Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."



That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.

Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on. So I'm okay with your criticism.



Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.
Next.

Anybody who's spent even a little time looking at my posts should note that I'm not trying to prove or provide evidence for creation in the least - surely you've noticed that, sir?

[Pendragon]

True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

I haven't dropped by in a long time, for a very good reason, as I have said before, beating the dead horse won't make it get up and walk. But I find this statement here very credible, I hope Kix doesn't mind my adding italics to one line. This is what I have always said, however we began, we obviously evolved since, or the human race would all have one skin color, one type of features, and forensic anthropology would never solve a single crime.

“What did the suspect look like? Any identifying features?”

“Gee, guv, ‘ave you looked in th’ bloody mirror lately? We all got the same mug, loike!”

Some animals have made little change because they haven’t yet had the need to change. Others are still changing, adapting to new environments. At the North Carolina Zoological Park they have bio-domes constructed to represent conditions of jungle and desert. But guess what? Last time I was down there, a full grown banana plant was growing fine—outside the bio-dome on American sandy soil. Even had bananas. Adapted rather well, and rather quickly…

“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools…” Romans 1:22

The Bible can tell you more than you think…

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Angelstar.gif

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

Did you really expect that a conversation on this topic could be endlessly renewed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'm trying to be practical. Your suggestion, though it sounds new, really isn't; there have been attempts to bring out intelligent design arguments here - which each time have been dismissed by the evolutionists as "irrelevant" or "outdated" or "already been disproven" or called "lies" and "distortions." The problem is that this discussion boils down to two different philosophic views - each is (essentially) contradictory and irreconcilable. I get that. That's why I don't spend a lot of time posting ID theories and "evidence" - to one with a presupposition of Naturalism, there is no ID argument that will be accepted as tenable because the foundational belief of the Naturalist already rules out ID because of its very suggestion of something beyond humanity (and by implication, beyond empirical testing and verification) guiding the creation of life. Any argument put forth by ID proponents here will more than likely be dismissed with the same dogmatic stubbornness that the creationist will dismiss evolutionary "evidence." The evidence doesn't matter - the presuppositonal base does, because it decides how the evidence will be interpreted.

That's why I have not been arguing for the believability of creationism; I have simply tried to point out the presuppositons beneath the evolutionists' question-begging assertions that evolution-as-fact is a done deal. It isn't. I imagine that I'll get bored and post elsewhere for a while eventually - because the reality is that the arguments won't change: only the posters will. Nobody will be argued into "switching sides" because of "evidence" or "argument." That would require a radical shift in world-view - something that often occurs despite the evidence, despite the logic, despite the reasoned arguments we come across.

Sorry - I wan't helpful in providing you with what you asked for. I'm not the least surprised by the circularity of this thread - why should it be any different if the two philosophical foundations don't change?

[hyperborean]

its not just you. the deck is being stacked.

no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.

Bingo. This is the reason why this topic goes around in circles.

[WayneMan]

Well. I think the Creation Theory is the only logical one out there. It just doesn't seem possible for there to be a big bang in the universe out of nothing, and then to have planets just some how appear, and then for there to just happen to be the right stuff come together, no matter how great the odds against it happening were, and form life. Not only that, but how we came from the simple single cell life forms that are suggested to the people we are today. it's just not adding up to me. And if evolution is the way to go, and we did come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today? wouldn't they all grow up to be people, or just not exist anymore because they have evolved into humans so they are no longer the dominate species. I have full faith and believe that each and everyone of us was created but God.

[kilted exile]

I'm not expecting renewal, I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds.

I am however interested in learning, exposing myself to new ideas, and gaining a better understanding of why people hold the beliefs that they do. This thread is going nowhere though.

[Pendragon]

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.Hi Kilted:

You may be old enough to remember this, I confess, that in spite of all the birthday sonnets I write, I can't keep up with how old who is on this forum! Gerardo had a seemingly brilliant idea one time: Racial trouble being sadly fact, as much as either side would like to say no, he decided to have a live show and bring together White Supremacists and Black Panthers on the same stage. That caused one of the worst knock-down drag-out fights in the history of live television, and Gerardo received a broken nose so badly broken he had to wear a mask that made him resemble Bozo the Clown for quite some time. People here are never going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. There is no win/win solution. God bless.

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

People here are never going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. There is no win/win solution. God bless.

Pen

Hi Pen - I hope you don't think I've ever "kicked" you. I have less a problem with evolution (in terms of adaptation) than with the idea that this happened without the controlling/initiating guidance of God. I disagree (obviously) about evolution's role in our history, but I have great respect for your opinion.

[cuppajoe_9]

Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.

I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.


Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on.Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2. A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.

[cuppajoe_9]

Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2.

No. Via wiki:

An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen; therefore, carbides, carbonates, carbon oxides and elementary carbon are not organic.


A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

[Redzeppelin]

He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.

Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.

I think his statement has nothing to do with what organic compounds contain but with how the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.


I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.

And what exactly, is the new hypothesis (good ol' stable science and its certainty in action again I see) as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented?

How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?


Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.

Relevant to me in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge. I just like to keep things in perspective and fair, that's all.

[cuppajoe_9]

Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.


I think his statement has nothing to do with what organic compounds contain but with how the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.


And what exactly, is the new hypothesis as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented? I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.


(good ol' stable science and its certainty in action again I see)Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.


How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.


Relevant to me in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge.When I attack the God hypothesis, then my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.

[Dante Wodehouse]

No. Via wiki:

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.

[cuppajoe_9]

They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

Yes. So what?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Yes. So what?

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

[cuppajoe_9]

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

The first self-replicating molecules don't need do be chemically the same as RNA for the hypothesis to hold.

[Redzeppelin]

Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.

I would assume that DNA is as far down as one can go in terms of "life." I'm probably wrong, but allow me to blunder on. The hypothesis is not so much about bacterium as the DNA/RNA necessary to create life. The suggestion is that chirality is negatively effected either by the presence of oxygen (oxygen decays life) or its absence (protective ozone is missing from earth's atmosphere and ozone allows life to exist on earth). Since chirality is inherent in the construction/replication of DNA/RNA, I'm not sure how you've dismissed my post unless you're going to suggest that DNA/RNA had nothing to do with the initiation of life on earth.


The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.

The suggestion points to a radically "streamlined" DNA (100,000 pairs) which is far less complex than modern DNA(1 million odd pairs). If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?


I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.

Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.


Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.

No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision. If the Bible altered its ideas about morality like science does about the nature of reality, the Bible would be dismissed as valid by even Christians.


If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily; evidence for the other things you mentioned (in the words of Porfiry in Crime and Punishment) "cuts both ways."


When I attack the God hypothesis, then my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.

In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.

[cuppajoe_9]

If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.


Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.
I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.


No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision.Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

[cuppajoe_9]

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarilyFine but that's not what the thread's about.


In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

[Redzeppelin]

Fine but that's not what the thread's about.

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.


Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.


Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

[atiguhya padma]

<True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. >

I thought that there was an equation based on the amount of carbon in the Universe, and that this suggested that carbon-based life should be found somewhere.

[Jay]

General mod note:

Please, don't personalize your posts and respect each other's beliefs and/or opinions even if you don't agree with them.

[peaches054]

To me it doesn't matter of evolution or creation, i mean believe what you want to believe but it's mostly how and what you did for your little world it's how to make a difference and know that you did something good in your life as one of my fav quote says not quoted directly but while your planning your life it's litterally passing you by, so instead of talking what you believe in why not do something to better another persons' life and share what you every day throw away or abuse

[Redzeppelin]

Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.


I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

I don't want to pursue this line much farther because I think we're hair-splitting; any belief system that advocates that the only reality is material and that denies the existence of God is Naturalistic in nature. I suppose some theists have compromised their beliefs in order to reconcile science with the Bible: so be it. But evolution contradicts the Bible - and unless the entire Bible is true, then there's no need to take any of it seriously as the "Word of God." Just my position. We're free to let this point drop (and I ought not have pursued it).



Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.

A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.


I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.

I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.


Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

A fact I'm aware of; my attacks on the "certainty" or "stability" of science are indirect attacks on its often dogmatic adherents - not upon science itself. To listen to some of the posters here, you would never guess that science is often tentative in its conclusions and is always open to revision, or (worse) that it might be wrong. Even I (liberal arts man who is fairly science-ignorant) get that.

[cuppajoe_9]

I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.


I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.


A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.

[Redzeppelin]

Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.

That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.


The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.

I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity.


Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.

No one is saying you couldn't say what you wanted; what you said may indeed "be possible" - so might the existence of God.

I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).

I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.

[cuppajoe_9]

That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.4.5 billion years is plenty.


I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity. Understandable. However, Selfish Gene is not about Christianity.


I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem – to my jaded eyes, at least – to be specifically designed to avoid testability.


I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.

[Redzeppelin]

4.5 billion years is plenty.

Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?


Understandable. However, Selfish Gene is not about Christianity.

A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title. I would probably read a book where Dawkins discusses Christianity because I would enjoy the laugh.


However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem – to my jaded eyes, at least – to be specifically designed to avoid testability.

Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him - something of a straw man (because I didn't bring up that God was a reasonable hypothesis - I just proposed we work with what is existent - so that we were working from within the evolutionist methodology of Naturalism).


Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.

No: my assertion is that the odds indicate that it is impossible. I personally cannot know if it's impossible because I wasn't there and I'm not a scientist. We don't have to have a debate about it - I simply posted what the odds against abiogenesis are believed to be and nobody has effectively refuted them yet (as far as I'm concerned). You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?

[cuppajoe_9]

Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.


A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title.I know you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.


Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him.1) You brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.


No: my assertion is that the odds indicate that it is impossible.You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that is impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.


You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.

[Redzeppelin]

Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.

No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.


I know you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.

The reason I point out his militant anti-Christianity is because it makes it difficult to read anything of his without my defensiveness being on "full alert" (which means I wouldn't be very receptive to his arguments), which, probably indicates my own issues. I'll consider checking the book out.


1) You brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.

Honestly, I do not recall doing so. I proposed the chirality odds, you dismissed them by stating that there might have been some other now-nonexistent life form that has since disappeared besides the DNA or bacterium. God's not involved in that.


You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that is impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.

Nope. As stated above - I gave the odds for the chirality of DNA randomly assembling.


The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.

How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?

[cuppajoe_9]

No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.


Honestly, I do not recall doing so.
I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).See?


How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.

[Redzeppelin]

Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.

Without another reasonable substitute, we should assume that DNA was necessary for the development of life.


See?

Almost. The second post you quoted was not my original argument - it was a further attempt at clarification; as well, the reference was a tangential jab at the provability of your hypothetical now-nonexistent life form.


It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.

As I thought. I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.

[The Atheist]

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

We've been waiting for 4000 years for anything more than "goddidit". You're a bit keen expecting them to come up with actual evidence now.

[cuppajoe_9]

I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.But, again, this will yield testable predictions. You would to far better to discuss this with somebody who knows what he or she is talking about, I'm afraid, but if a proto-DNA that doesn't look like the current model is necessary for an abiogenetic hypothesis to workm Occam's Razor, which states that no more things should be presumed to exist than are necessary, is not violated.

[Pendragon]

OK. I really am not prepared to stir this pot, for myself, the horse has been dead so long it should be carbon dated to determine how long, but I do propose a question. We are faced here with people with diametrically opposed views. We have the view that God created the Universe and everything therein. We have the view that chance created the universe, and evolution formed life on this planet. Now we come to the question of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God? What can the creationist say that will produce the evidence necessary for the evolutionist to give it credence, instead of dismissing it as retoric? And vice-versa. There is a mound of evidence in favor of evolution, provided you are inclined to believe that way already. But to someone who has his or her doubts, what is the single defining undisputable evidence that says, this is correct beyond any reasonable doubt?

Again, for the record, I believe God created the universe, yet evolution has and is taking place and shaping the world into what it is today.

[cuppajoe_9]

What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God?Well He presumeably has my phone number.

All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.

Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity better than the theory of evolution.

Then, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, and as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.

At this point, you'll have me convinced that some sort of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.

[Redzeppelin]

Well He presumeably has my phone number.

Yes - He does. As a matter of fact, He may very well have already tried calling you a few times; don't panic if you missed the call; He's very patient and I guarentee you He'll try again. He's anxious to hear from you.


All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.

Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity better than the theory of evolution.

Then, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, and as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.

At this point, you'll have me convinced that some sort of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.

I assume you're familiar with this concept:

"Design" is predicated on two principles:
1. Degree of complexity
2. Degree of specificity

Example: Lets pretend we have serveral trays of Scrabble-type letters. The following letter sequences were randomly formed:

Tray 1. E T H
*not complex
*not specific

Tray 2. I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO
*complex
*not specific

Tray 3. THE
*not complex
*specific

Tray 4. UNITED_STATES
*very complex
*very specific

Note: the probablility of those letters randomly forming the words UNITED STATES is 1 chance in 6 billion.

Tray 5. I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A
*extremely complex
*extremely specific

Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th power (the equivalent of winning 12 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each).

Your sand example qualifies for #2.

[hyperborean]

He's anxious to hear from you.

I'm sure he is :D He's got my cell phone # as well

[Redzeppelin]

I'm sure he is :D He's got my cell phone # as well

Excellent! Perhaps we could all join together in a conference call? I would love to be in on the conversation. :D

[cuppajoe_9]

Red:

I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.


Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th powerNo, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long.

One more problem:

I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages aren't designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.

Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there is no particular reason why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is only found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why kanji-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm way off topic. It's late.

In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.

[Pendragon]

Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.

I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable.

God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that? And if man actually saw it happen, an entire group of people, would not the rest of the world simply shake their collective heads and call them insane? You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven. Do I personally believe in God? Yes. I have my own reasons, which would mean nothing to you. The only way for someone to believe in God is not through experimentation but experience. You either can accept it or you simply cannot. Or like many, you can pretend to accept it, while secretly thinking "Well, it looks good on the old résumé.”

I have been totally honest. I can’t prove God. Convincing you of God’s existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, I’m happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, I’ll leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.

God bless.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/EasterCross.gif

[cuppajoe_9]

Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question.


I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable.The way around this is that every time any guesswork is involved, a plethora of paleantologists spring up to 'guess' something else. Except in reasonably clear-cut cases, one can find a respectable source to testify that just about any Homo genus fossil belongs to a creature that walked upright, or on all fours, or swung from trees; used tools or didn't; had expressive language or didn't; hunted in groups, or alone, or raised crops, or pracitsed husbandry, or fished, or survived entirely on wild berries and grubs. In fact, if you can get two randomly selected paleantologists to agree on anything, it's a pretty good indication that it's fairly clear. Paleantologists will fight about anything (or so I've heard).


God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that?Ah, I should have specified: I outline a sequence that would leave me fairly convinced in a deity who spontaneously created all the animal species on the earth more or less as they are today. A deity who creates universes through such methods as Big Bangs and evolution (mysterious ways indeed) is an entirely different kettle of fish.


I have been totally honest. I can’t prove God. Convincing you of God’s existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, I’m happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, I’ll leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.

[Lote-Tree]

Evolution - Theory in a nutshell -Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.

5. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.

6. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.

7. Much of this variation is inheritable.

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.

9.The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

Which bit is False?

[Guzmán]

An interesting thing about probability is that in a given experiment, the fact that an event that has, by definition, cero probability of happening doesn't necessarily mean that it wil never happen.

Take the following experiment: suppose i ask you to choose a real number between cero and one (im treating you as a sort of random number generator here). Suppose you choose pi/4. Now given the nature of the experiment the probability of you choosing that number (or any other one nuber for that matter) is by definition, cero. However you did choose that number which means that an event with cero probability did in fact happen.

Also to take into account is the difference between continuous and discrete probability distributions. When playing around with the letters of the alphabet youre abviously in the discrete casel. However, if you are talking about design of a living being shouldn&#180;t you take into account a continuous model? Anyway, here&#180;s as far as my knowledge of applied probability theory takes me, however in regards to that question i would guess a continuous model fits best although its all conjecture.
I gather from the examples you provided, the pledge of allegiance and such, that you computed favourable cases over all cases possible which assumes some sort of uniform distribution of the characters... Anyway i dont think that example holds much water either since (this is all conjecture) i suppose biological developments are far from random in a uniform sort of way (as far as i know, the sum of various uniform distributed factors contribute in a gaussian distribution) nor would they be independent (as i gather you considered all the letters to be). Besides if you add time into the equation you end up with a random process and boy... (Im well over my head here)
Ergodicity comes to mind if you want to estimate time development with instantaneous stadistics but anyway this isnt a math forum... my point is that, I consider the random word analogy a pretty poor one to compare to species develoment (hell even to the english language or any other language), not to mention the fact that you didnt justify why did you consider certain things complex or specific, but i think this point was addressed by cuppajoe in the Xerzicon alien being example.

Anyway, even though as i already stated my knowledge of probability is very vague (an undergraduate course of theoretical probability and some applications in communications courses) it would be interesting to discuss your analogy and to make conjectures about if it fits or not biological development in a stricter way and not in the form of a rant I just churned out but i dont think this is the place and i, for myself, am way over my head, i just wanted to add my two cents on the issue since i dont think all that talkabout probability serves as any sort of argument for ID.

Again sorry for the rant

[Pendragon]

I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question.

I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.
No need for the "Sir", mon ami, we are friends. I too, abhor the constant door to door visits, but I have my own way of dealing with them. They do not like to answer my questions. They are quick to leave on their own! Good luck, mon ami!

[Redzeppelin]

Red:

I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.

That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.


No, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long.

I was speaking of the latter.


One more problem:

I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages aren't designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.

Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there is no particular reason why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is only found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why kanji-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm way off topic. It's late.

In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.

The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth. Whether or not you've found a weakness in the example doesn't invalidate the point it is trying to make; metaphors - by their very nature - call up associations - they are made to point out qualities of the thing compared to, but they are not the thing compared to; therefore, the idea persists: in nature, meaningful, complex, and specific structures indicate the hand of a designer. In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.

[Dante Wodehouse]

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

[Dante Wodehouse]

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

[cuppajoe_9]

That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you? Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.


The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth.In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.


In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.


I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

[Redzeppelin]

So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you?

A silly question - another one that flirts with insult.


Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information. How does it "work" then?


In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.

Laguage is an agreed upon system of conventions. It does not "evolve" in the way you're suggesting. It "evolves" in terms of change, but not in terms of creation. It is an artificial creation.


It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.

The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information. I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

[cuppajoe_9]

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information.The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.


How does it "work" then?Every living speices is equally the end product of evolution, at least for the time being. In a few million years, most of them will be extinct – us included – and there will be a new set of 'end points'.


The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information.Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.


I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.Again?

[Pendragon]

We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance. Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

[JGL57]

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

How would a creator come without a creator? Ad infinitum?

By what sound logic would we analogize from a human creating an airplane to an invisible all-powerful person creating a universe ex nihlio - other than just letting the imagination run wild? Such an imagination would be good for writing award-winning science fiction, otherwise what?

[Lote-Tree]

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

If matter/energy is neither created or destroyed and they are in a constant state of transformation then there is no need of a creator.

[cuppajoe_9]

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

[Pendragon]

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.No, no. I understood what you meant, Cuppa. You were just pointing out that because we don't know how life began doesn't prove the existence of God. What I was saying was, your statement "We don't know, yet." was clear and precise. Also saying that it wasn't enough to prove the existence or non-existence of God was clear. My own statement was that "There is no way to explain God that can be tested." That statement is very clear. I just figured that people might fire a salvo at you and if they did, they could also turn the big guns on myself. Both believing diametrically opposite, we have made honest statements. Neither has blasted the other. So why can't people accept honest answers? http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/QWERTY.gif

[Redzeppelin]

The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.


Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.

Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical. You like to use the argument alot that suggests that without a frame of reference (here English) that a specific pattern of meaning would be meaningless. Sure. But since the frame of reference does exist, then I don't think you can so easily bat away the point. Getting rid of the frame of reference can destroy just about any argument (evolution included); but the frames are there, so lets argue from there. Arguing from an essentially "deconstructionist" platform (where all meaning is made arbitrary) totally destroys our ability to consider any argument.


Again?

Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

[cuppajoe_9]

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.But the genetic code does not communicate anything any more than the mineral content of a rock communicates to geologists or a speck of ash left in a hotel carpet communicates to a detective.


Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical.Only because you're defining your target beforehand. The odds of getting any pre-defined string of letters are the same, whether they 'contain information' or not.


Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

[Redzeppelin]

It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

I give up.

[Adolescent09]

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

[atiguhya padma]

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

[Redzeppelin]

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

Certainly.

[Pendragon]

If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.Bingo, AP. None of us was there—evidence that seems overwhelming to some is unacceptable to others; some people's solemn belief seems mere fairytale to others. The horse is dead. To continue with the beating is ludicrous, as no agreement will be reached. Let us all agree to disagree or whatever, and let's bury the poor dead horse!

[hyperborean]

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our language and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

I like this guy. Nicely put.

[Redzeppelin]

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move.

An interesting polarization - one that contains believers and atheists on both sides.


I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal.

On the contrary, I am well aware as to why there is such widespread belief in evolution (despite the astronomical odds against such a thing happening).


I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc.

You'll need to qualify how these beliefs are "childish" - since "childish" would be defined as (essentially) "immature"; I, for one, am unsure as to how the beliefs you listed qualify as "immature"; they do qualify as illogical and miraculous - yes; but, I don't understand how illogical and miraculous things qualify as "childish" except that that is your term of disparagement which functions to make your position seem more "mature." Care to clarify?


A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism.

Would you mind sharing what the "full-baked" beliefs might look like?


With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe.

Mind explaining this claim? What exactly exists "outside of time"? What created the matter of which the universe is composed?


Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

Probably true - and largely so because the magnitude of the universe is a reflection of the magnitude of God Himself.

[atiguhya padma]

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

[ennison]

No doubt the tenuous connection with Mr Claus and the fairy world (the Picts who ran away to hide from us Scots and Norsemen) will be another justification for my Free Prebyterian friends not to celebrate Christmas. Ah but they fairly give the Bliadhn' Ur a whack.

[Adolescent09]

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

Absolutely brilliant. Even as a strong abiding Christian I find it hard to rival your statements. I agree with you so much... What a purely reasonable and intelligent post!

[Redzeppelin]

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

Neither the tooth fairy and Santa Clause are part of a larger narrative that attempts to answer the questions of existence, morality, human depravity and the solution to the existence of evil and suffering. Try to find comparisons that are comparable.

As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate.

Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.

[Adolescent09]

As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate.

Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.

These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.

[Redzeppelin]

These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.


Thank you. I am greatful for your kind words. :)

[ennison]

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

[hyperborean]

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. {edit} Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? {edit}

[The Atheist]

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does


Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right.

That's the problem. I like and admire many chrsitians and I will be the first to tell you that many christians are good-hearted, generous people. So are many atheists.

I would be enormously surprised if atheists and humanists aren't every bit as generous and good-hearted as christians. The problem is with "apathetic agnostics" or the non-religious who just don't have any interest in the eternal verities. The lowest common denominator of society, if you will. Unfortunately, many christians, as well as being generous and good-hearted, tend to lump those non-religious people in with atheists as a group, which in terms of a descriptor, is fair, but in terms of philosophy, is not.

An atheist - to me (and I am, after all, THE Atheist) - is a person who has looked at the evidence for and against gods and has reached a decision that the "god" option is an empty shell. Much as christians will argue that only xyz are True Christians, I resent being classed with people who are too lazy or too ignorant even to think about these questions.

I know sufficient atheists [as described] and christians to be able to assure you that they are every bit as humanist and caring as any christian.

[Pendragon]

Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. {edit} Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? {edit} You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.

God Bless.

Pen

[JGL57]

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

Without the existence of christians there would be no charity in the world.

Right.

And the four billion plus people on earth who are not christians spend their time either ignoring each other, or callously using each other as merely objects and means to an end.

Right.

.
.
.
.
.

When donkeys fly.

[atiguhya padma]

<As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone.>

So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?

Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?

To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.

[hyperborean]

You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.

God Bless.

Pen
Maybe you don't discriminate against atheists, but many Christians do.

I believe in God as well, but I on the other hand took the leash off my collar.

[Derringer]

I replaced the word 'gender' with 'religion' in Judith Butler's Gender Trouble

and nothing happened. It still didn't make sense.

The Bible is nothing more than a code of ethics, which many people claim to live their life by, but don't - me included.

Why does anyone care if God exists or not? It's not like you have to believe that He exists to live by a code of ethics -- and even if you could prove that he exists, then what? Are we going to be contempt and quit living life because we know the end? Is He going to come to my anti-birthday party?

' Oh, Jesus got so drunk and pushed over the poker table. Some weird Freudian problem he has'

The issue seems to be enlightenment - solving philosophical problems is enlightenment for us (see Plato); but should it be? What happens in Lear:

Nothing! x5

and nobody can explain the same word repeated five times.

So find enlightenment elsewhere? Hmm. I wonder where? Maybe in literature? We all like books, right?

[JBI]

I believe in evolution, but not evolution as an answer. I believe there is no answer, and therefore we shouldn't go looking for it since there is no proof. Everything in a sense is relative, and one cannot even proof that existence exists.

[Redzeppelin]

So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?

Not by my beliefs, no; by God? Yes.


Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?

"Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.


To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.

Suggest away - because the Bible tells us that God implanted "eternity" in our hearts and an awareness of God; as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Lewis to argue that prefigurations of Christ were anticipations, not models, of the myth-made-real to come.

[The Atheist]

Not by my beliefs, no; by God? Yes.


Fundamentalism 101: god exists, QED.






.

[Lote-Tree]

Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.


But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.

[Redzeppelin]

But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.

Why don't you address my challenge instead of telling me about the unverifiability of my position (which I have never, for the record, claimed).

[Guzmán]

"Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.


If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?

I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.

Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?

[kari]

I watched this show once, that was discussing these things. Anyways, it was a bit interesting because their theory (based on findings and whatnot, I don't recall all the specifics) was that we did pretty much evolve, but that Adam was the first intelligent human being placed on the earth. I found it extremely interesting because this idea sort of put the two theories that have been debated for years together into one. Just thought I might throw that out!
Kari

[Redzeppelin]

If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?

The point is this: people who claim that belief in God is no more credible than believing in "green men" The Matrix or fairies oversimplify the issue: Christianity is based on God's word - The Bible. People who say it is composed of nothing but "myths" and such really haven't read it closely or considered what it actually does and claims. No other mythical narrative deals with the scope of issues that the Bible does; no other narrative answers our fundamental questions and provides insight into all areas of life; no other narrative offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God like the Bible.


I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.

Sure you could - and then what?

No: there is a larger difference that you are conveniently ignoring: the Bible is a unified whole that verifies and validates itself. Your work would be derivative. The Bible is unique in its answers to the questions of where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going. As well, credibility is established by the veracity of the claims. The Bible's teachings on human nature and morality are spot on.


Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?

Popularity has nothing to do with it unless the "popularity" has morphed into something more substantial; things don't stay merely "popular" for a few thousand years. Paris Hilton is "popular." The Bible is far more.

[kari]

I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so.
Kari

[Redzeppelin]

I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so.
Kari

I'm not suggesting that my belief system is true - and I've never tried to prove that it is; for some reason people do not seem to understand my argument. It goes like this: in response to people who try to "equalize" the Bible by comparing it to mythical/imaginative narratives, I am countering that the Biblical narrative is distinctly different from most other mythical/imaginative narratives or "beliefs" (green men, fairies, Santa Clause, et al) in that its cohesive narrative has a cosmic scope that other narratives and/or "beliefs" cannot match. That in no way implies that I'm right, that Christianity is true or that God is real; it simply suggests that the comparisons being made are inaccurate in terms of the content, scope and results of the Biblical narrative lived out in one's life (as opposed to living out, say, some sort of Greek mythology narrative as a guide to life, the universe and everything).

[kari]

I guess I don't understand your argument. Even after that explanation, I would still say the same things. That it doesn't matter the content to some, that it is still free agency to pool the Bible in with mythology type literature if they see it as the same. People that are Christians, of course view it differently, and most times probably can't understand how others would view it as mythical. Anyways, I would just be repeating myself. Sorry to have stepped in then...I still don't see what you are saying is any different than my original view of it...so I will leave it to others to comment more!
Kari

[Redzeppelin]

I guess I don't understand your argument. Even after that explanation, I would still say the same things. That it doesn't matter the content to some, that it is still free agency to pool the Bible in with mythology type literature if they see it as the same. People that are Christians, of course view it differently, and most times probably can't understand how others would view it as mythical. Anyways, I would just be repeating myself. Sorry to have stepped in then...I still don't see what you are saying is any different than my original view of it...so I will leave it to others to comment more!
Kari

I'm trying to say this: saying that all mythological narratives (and those that seem mythological) are equal without regards to content is like saying that all books are equal because they contain stories - so Harry Potter is equal to The Grapes of Wrath. No - content matters. The Bible offers a narrative that reflects the reality of life; it offers prophecies (many of which have come true); it names historical dates and people; it offers a cohesive narrative dealing with the fundamental questions of existence; other writings compared to it do not do so. That is all I'm suggesting. I'm primarily responding to those who equate the content of the Bible with mere fairy tales. Mere fairy tales do not provide answers to the questions of existence like the Bible does - they can't.

[kari]

I seriously am pretty sure I understand you. I get that you are saying you feel the Bible is on a different level of literature than other mythical type of books.
Kari

[Redzeppelin]

I seriously am pretty sure I understand you. I get that you are saying you feel the Bible is on a different level of literature than other mythical type of books.
Kari

Yes - in terms of the questions it attempts to answer, the picture of reality it presents, and the cohesion of the world-view it gives (in terms of creation, human nature, evil, and the identity of God). I didn't say "better" or "more truthful" - I'm simply pointing out that if one wishes to make comparisons to the Bible, one should pick examples that are comparable (rather than fairy tales or Santa Clause - which do not answer the questions that the Bible does).

[kari]

I think that maybe people might catagorize their books a bit differently. I know you say content matters...and that the Bible is on another level. But it sounds like if someone was comparing the Bible to other mythical books, that maybe the way you catagorize them is not as broad as theirs. For example, someone may just lump all children's books together. But of course, there are others that might have different catagories of books within children's books, such as books on weather, counting, bedtime stories. Others might think the Bible is comparable to mythical books...maybe not in the sense of answering those questions the Bible does, but in the sense of it being nonsense to them. That was pretty much where I was coming from...they can group them however they choose to.
Kari

[Lote-Tree]

Why don't you address my challenge instead of telling me about the unverifiability of my position (which I have never, for the record, claimed).

I again ask you what is the point if your cosmic origin can't be verified? I can give you cosmic origins from Quran which is more in line with science ie Earth not 6000 years old or Bhagavad Gita etc...but what is the point? Without verification we will not go anywhere.

[Redzeppelin]

I again ask you what is the point if your cosmic origin can't be verified? I can give you cosmic origins from Quran which is more in line with science ie Earth not 6000 years old or Bhagavad Gita etc...but what is the point? Without verification we will not go anywhere.

Ho-hum: still on the "verifiable" kick, eh? If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in: love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al. Life requires faith on all sides. Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is real. Please. Please.

[Lote-Tree]

Ho-hum: still on the "verifiable" kick, eh?


That is the only way to make progress. That is the only way to agree on. This is the way we make computers work and send probes to distant planets. This is the way we banish superstitions to the pages of myths that they belong to. This is the way we remove the fear of ghosts and goblins and other magical and hellish creatures that inhabit our nightmares.



If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in


We should only accept the verifiable and keep treat the unverifiable with a degree of skepticism until they become verifiable.



: love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al.


All these love and hate behaviour are verifiable. We observe it. We see it in action. We can quantify the oxytocin in the brain and the mao inhibitors in the synapses etc...there is nothing unverifiable about these behaviours.

What we can't do is "experience" how another individual "feels" love or hate. These are subjective experiences of the individual.

As for Psyche - we can now capture thoughts in the brain and direct them to operate a mechanical device...early days yet...but we have made a start.

As for creativity - with neural networks we can now have the creativity of a 2 year old - early days yet but we have made a start.



Life requires faith on all sides.


Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...



Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is real. Please. Please.


Only verifiable is something that we can agree on. Rest is just subjective experience of the individual.

[Redzeppelin]

That is the only way to make progress. That is the only way to agree on. This is the way we make computers work and send probes to distant planets. This is the way we banish superstitions to the pages of myths that they belong to. This is the way we remove the fear of ghosts and goblins and other magical and hellish creatures that inhabit our nightmares.

True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.


We should only accept the verifiable and keep treat the unverifiable with a degree of skepticism until they become verifiable.

I am fine with a "degree of skepticism." It is the flat-out denial of possibility based on "unverifiability" that I dislike.


All these love and hate behaviour are verifiable. We observe it. We see it in action. We can quantify the oxytocin in the brain and the mao inhibitors in the synapses etc...there is nothing unverifiable about these behaviours.

Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified. I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.


What we can't do is "experience" how another individual "feels" love or hate. These are subjective experiences of the individual.

Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?


As for Psyche - we can now capture thoughts in the brain and direct them to operate a mechanical device...early days yet...but we have made a start.

You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.


As for creativity - with neural networks we can now have the creativity of a 2 year old - early days yet but we have made a start.

No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.


Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...

You assume this to be true. Your statement is unverifiable.


Only verifiable is something that we can agree on. Rest is just subjective experience of the individual.

But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way; thus, things that we cannot exactly verify we do accept the existence of.

[Lote-Tree]

True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.


We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.



I am fine with a "degree of skepticism."


That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.



Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified.


No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said.

Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.



I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.


Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".

But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then?

I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?

It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?

People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.



Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?


Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.



You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.


Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.



No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.


So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.

http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/lnsc/html/art7.jpg




Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...




You assume this to be true. Your statement is unverifiable.


LOL :-) - We have not found Dinosaur Temples in the fossil record where dinosaurs worshipped their Dino-God :-)




But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way;


Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.

[Redzeppelin]

We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.

That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.

No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said.

Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.

I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine: but what you miss is that the "verifiable" is occasionally obvious (gravity works) but, at other times, the "verifiable" is in need of interpretation (i.e. the fossil record, the complexity of life forms, etc); once interpretation is required, we are now off of the platform of objectivity and wading into the ever-deepening waters of subjectivity. That is the primary point that allows me to keep resisting your insistence on "verifiable" reality - and the examples I listed in terms of interpreting the external behaviors makes my point.



Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".

But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then?

I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?

It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?

People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.

Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can manipulate our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings legitimate.



Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.

This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.


Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.



So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.

Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.

"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience. I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.



Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.

I covered the holes in this idea above.

[ennison]

'Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right'
Well I would disagree but as this is largely about theism versus a- theism I leave it open to any of the other significant sets of religious belief to produce the same effect in their communities. I've certainly known and know many fine agnostics but I've never met any militant atheist that was not bitter, aggressive and plain nasty.

[Lote-Tree]

I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine


That's all you need to agree on. From this we can make computers work and send probes to distant planets.



Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can manipulate our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings legitimate.


But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can.



This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.


The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers.



I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.


Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.



Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.


LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.



"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience.


It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.



I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.


A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)

[Pendragon]

We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.


OK. What is truth? Verifiable by what means? Who decides what is and is not verifiable truth?

My reason for asking this is not a religious one. IMO, there is more evidence of the existence of Sasquatch than some of the members of the chart of human evolution. Fragments of a single skull could be anything, perhaps a malformation of a prediscovered race. But unless the human race kills a Sasquatch or finds a body, (there have been giant skulls found), the evidence is ruled "unconvincing at best." This in spite the fact that many scientists think the Patterson film to be genuine, just not as big an animal as claimed.

The recent Xing-xing proof from China, showed that all Orangutans are not from Borneo, and that Chinese peasants were not having hallucinations. Just wondering...

[Redzeppelin]

But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can.

Until I know more about this, I'm going to have to table this portion of the argument. I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment). If I feel righteous indignation one day, and irrational anger the next, I don't imagine there's a different chemical involved - but there is a difference between the two emotions; as such, I think the chemical is a vehicle, but not the content, of an emotion.



The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers.

You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot. That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.


Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.

But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.



LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.

I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being. The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity. Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.


It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.

And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?



A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)

False analogy - the two do not compare.

[Guzmán]

You know, you can't spell "evilution" without "evil"...
Oh wait, you can, cause its evolution baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C9CH3q9PLI

There must be no one from my generation in this forum, otherwise this would have already been posted. What a great band and a great video.
Enjoy and chill out a bit.

[weepingforloman]

Are you intentionally ripping off Eddie Vedder, Guzman?

[atiguhya padma]

Lote-Tree said:

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

Redzeppelin replied:

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

Since you seem familiar with the passenger yourself, maybe you'd care to explain what thought is then, and how it is possible to 'travel' along electrical impulses.

[Lote-Tree]

I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment).


Without the chemicals you will not have the emotion - no matter how you interact with the world. A person with very low level of Testostrine will not be able to have the feeling of arousal - however much his conciouness filters and demands one.



as such, I think the chemical is a vehicle, but not the content, of an emotion.


You need to elaborate on this.



You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot.


The Scientfific Method is just that - it removes human subjectivity.



That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.


False. Study the Scientific Method.



But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.


And how do we know when someone is dead? We measure the Brain's Electrical Impulses - and when no impulses - we say that person is fully dead.



I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being.


That can only be your belief. But we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet..very early days yet...



The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity.


Again that can only be your belief. And we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet...



Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.


As I said Neural Neworks do not work on the principle of "do as your are told"...it learns from Experience. It has to be taught and from this teaching it learns..You can't program neural network to do as you are told...it learns from experience...Our reserach into neural networks is early days yet...



And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?


We shall together explore the limitlessness of the imaginations :-)



False analogy - the two do not compare.
[/quote]

I was not making an analogy but showing views of the unimaginitives ;-)

[Lily Adams]

Thought some of you here might be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

"Light Years Ahead of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.

Enjoy.

[JGL57]

I think this video may be relevant to the discussion, i.e., what about the concept of unintelligent design? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI

[hyperborean]

Thought some of you here might be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

"Light Years of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.

Enjoy.

This video owned. I would like to see some rebuttal if you masters of spin can handle it. :lol:

I'm watching the "unintelligent design" right now.

[Turk]

http://www.harunyahya.com/

[JGL57]

http://www.harunyahya.com/

From this website:

"In a few scientific circles, Darwinism is still a widespread obsession, but this does not preclude the knowledge that its days have come to an end. All the scientific suppositions that once supported the theory have crumbled, one by one. The only reason why Darwinism is still alive is because in some scientific circles, a few fanatics still passionately espouse the materialist philosophy it's based on."

That is f-ing hilarious - one of the funniest satires on a delusional mind I've seen recently. If I didn't know better, I would suspect this whole website is a production of Landover Baptist Church

landoverbaptist.org

[Turk]

There's a lot of good books in that website and after reading some of them the statement you tried to make fun of (but couldn't unfortunately) are seem quite possible.

[linz]

Evolution and Creation are one and the same, as all you atheist say that a vastly dense mass caused the big bang, then what caused the dense mass? Therefore if God is Omnipotent, could he not still know exactly how to start the sequence which lead to the single celled organism, and end it with Mankind's emancipation.

[Lote-Tree]

[QUOTE=Turk;392108]There's a lot of good books in that website and after reading some of them the statement you tried to make fun of (but couldn't unfortunately) are seem quite possible.

LOL :-) Harun Yahya?

That man is not a scientist! He uses other people's work out of context to further his creationist objectives! He has no understanding of biological evolution nor science as a whole.

[JGL57]

Evolution and Creation are one and the same, as all you atheist say that a vastly dense mass caused the big bang, then what caused the dense mass? Therefore if God is Omnipotent, could he not still know exactly how to start the sequence which lead to the single celled organism, and end it with Mankind's emancipation.

Well, sure, there is nothing wrong with deism or pantheism. I doubt big bang cosmology is taught in grammar or high school science classes - probably only in certain physics classes at university. But, at the latter, the teacher or professor would be out of line to say "Thus, there is no god, including deistic or pantheistic" at the conclusion of the course. He or she could only say that the singularity (that exploded to be the "big bang") is the start of both space and time, and scientific theories (at our level of knowledge at this time) regarding its "origin" - if that word even applies - is purely speculative.

I think the science vs. religion problem is the NOTION of the monotheistic god - the one that interferes in the natural order in historical times, e.g., popping complex beings into being ex nihlio and other sheer acts of magic.

And I use the word "notion" above because such does not arise to the level of scientific theory, as it is unfalsifiable in principle.

Gods who do not interfere - the deistic and pantheistic - are irrelevant, as such are by their nature trivial claims.

[weepingforloman]

Speaking out of personal experience (I'm only a few years removed from middle school), teachers DO teach the big bang. Obviously they are prohibited from making religious assumptions based on the theory-- but it IS taught, and taught as fact.

[hyperborean]

Here is a good video from Carl Sagan about the universe. It's funny as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

[Lote-Tree]

Gods who do not interfere - the deistic and pantheistic - are irrelevant, as such are by their nature trivial claims.

But God's who tinker with the world after it has been created is absurd?

[Lily Adams]

Here is a good video from Carl Sagan about the universe. It's funny as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

Ha ha. I have this one as one of my favorites on my YouTube account. (As well as the one I posted earlier.)

"Mountain Dew is the best soda ever made."

[JGL57]

But God's who tinker with the world after it has been created is absurd?

The way I would put it is - to give credence to the notion that a good explanation for an observed phenomenon is that an assumed creator god is tinkering with reality - that would be an absurd explanation. Traditionally, such goes by the name of "god of the gaps", i.e, if humans don't understand some observed phenomenon (i.e., can't prove an mechanistic theory), then a religionists runs in and shouts "goddidit" - and badda bing, badd boom, "knowledge" is created. That's absurd.

[weepingforloman]

Is it absurd to observe the laws of nature, and then to infer that a God exists? Because that is mostly what modern theistic philosophy is based upon.

[hyperborean]

Because that is mostly what modern theistic philosophy is based upon.

And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.

[JGL57]

Is it absurd to observe the laws of nature, and then to infer that a God exists?...

In a word, yes. Reread my previous post for why this is.

[weepingforloman]

And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.
Ah, don't get ahead of yourself. I said PHILOSOPHY, not religion.


In a word, yes. Reread my previous post for why this is.
I do not mean the God did it! response. I mean looking at the seemingly odd, somewhat random things we continue to find out about our universe-- speed may be limited, it is possible that I might sink through the chair I sit in, electrons exist in two places, but never at a between point... And assuming that something more than Nature is present. This is not how I arrive at my conception of God, far from it... But I do not find it absurd.

[Yogi]

The hypothesis is why the evolution ? Rationality of Avatara. Rationality of plotting a chart, reaching the conclusion. How the scientists work out. If there is any truth in whatever they say, the experiment must work out.

The sense and the non-sense of the search. The knowledge of the Absolute by two sources: 1) by the Unconscious; 2) by the Incarnations. It was available to the enlightened ones. Later on, institutions and organizations were established in the name of the enlightened ones. The unenlightened, when exposed to these institutions, felt the sense of power in these institutions and they created an area through which they could dominate these organizations.

In the life of Jesus Christ, who was the highest expressed essence of spiritual innocence, the human beings understood the sacrifice of the dearest and only son of the Father for the sake of humanity. This gave a very human perception of God’s love for humanity. Thus, the human beings, as physical witnesses, envisaged the immortality of Spirit within man.

Therefore, the advents of incarnations are milestones in the progress of spiritual awareness. They echoed in the darkness of the ignorance, the sound of spirituality and touched every time a new boundless perception, new fragrance, a new color to the beauty of the creation.

Because man cannot move towards God, God has to come to him as an incarnation. Books cannot do that.

Believing also is only possible through seeing an incarnation at work.

Metaphysics depends on the human conception of God which is limited. The human awareness can not comprehend reality. It has to evolve to the point of Self awareness.

[atiguhya padma]

If you believe that the laws of nature are set in stone, then I can't see how you can also believe in the resurrection; the virgin birth; miracles; the transubstantiation etc. If you believe that god set the ball rolling, and designed the universe in such a way that he could not tinker with it, then god just becomes a weak and useless attempt at explaining the origins of the universe (if you cannot explain the origins of god - other than to say that god is eternal: we might as well save time and energy and say the universe is eternal - then your explanation for the origin of the universe is useless).

[JGL57]

...I do not mean the God did it! response. I mean looking at the seemingly odd, somewhat random things we continue to find out about our universe-- speed may be limited, it is possible that I might sink through the chair I sit in, electrons exist in two places, but never at a between point... And assuming that something more than Nature is present. This is not how I arrive at my conception of God, far from it... But I do not find it absurd.

There's no denying the "weirdness" of our experienced reality. Modern day science pertaining to evolutionary cosmology, quantum mechanics, biological evolution, brain research, etc. all collectively paint quite a mind-blowing picture.

But there is no excuse, therefore, for getting carried away and defining mythic narrative as historical events. In the final analysis, there IS a difference between fact on the one hand and and fiction (expressive metaphor and allegory) on the other. Read some Joseph Campbell. It might clear a few things up for you.

[nishachara]

I think you know too much of religion and very little about science

[JGL57]

I think you know too much of religion and very little about science

It would help if you identified the poster to whom you are addressing your comments - other than just using the generic "you". Some of us here may be paranoids and you don't want to feed into that. ;)

[Lily Adams]

But there is no excuse, therefore, for getting carried away and defining mythic narrative as historical events. In the final analysis, there IS a difference between fact on the one hand and and fiction (expressive metaphor and allegory) on the other. Read some Joseph Campbell. It might clear a few things up for you.

Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons.

And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.

It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe.

[MysticalWriter]

Hm, I am not going to read 129 pages worth of posts, but- I will say I believe in Creation.

Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.

Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?

[Lily Adams]

Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.

Yes.

Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI


Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?

And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.

[weepingforloman]

If you believe that the laws of nature are set in stone, then I can't see how you can also believe in the resurrection; the virgin birth; miracles; the transubstantiation etc. If you believe that god set the ball rolling, and designed the universe in such a way that he could not tinker with it, then god just becomes a weak and useless attempt at explaining the origins of the universe (if you cannot explain the origins of god - other than to say that god is eternal: we might as well save time and energy and say the universe is eternal - then your explanation for the origin of the universe is useless).

I never said I believe they are set in stone.
I don't believe in transsubstantiation (I'm not Catholic, as I've said elsewhere).
Miracles, by definition, ARE interference with the normal workings of nature.


Yes.

Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI



And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.

I would caution you against attempting to disprove biblical statements: if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.

The real question is whether Christ was who He claimed to be; if He was, then the miracles were no big deal; if He wasn't, then there is no need to believe anything He said because anybody who claimed to be God who wasn't is certifiably insane.


I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons.

"Magic"? What does that have to do with the Bible or God? Miraculous events are not "magic" - they are an intervention in the natural world by the hand of God. Example: if a vase falls off a table, the laws of nature indicate that - barring some intervention, like me reaching over and catching the vase - it will hit the floor. God is the intervening hand that alters what normally occurs in nature. No "magic" involved.

Next: God chooses not to reveal Himself in the same ways He did in the New Testament; His primary mode of revelation is personal in nature - something that the New Testament makes quite clear. There will come a time when miraculous things occur, but by that point, nobody's mind will be changed from where it's at.


And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.

Find what "arrogant"? That religions are exclusive in nature? The only ways they could all agree would be to either all have the same ideas as to who God is or to have no beliefs whatsoever about Him. All "roads to God" cannot be right; either one is right, or all are wrong.


It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe

No, you would be wrong. Created in God's image doesn't suggest our importance; it suggests a fundamental characteristic of our make-up.

[JGL57]

...if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

[Redzeppelin]

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

The same proof that life is the result of a random mixture of chemicals in the primordial oceans.

[weepingforloman]

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods. Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism... So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God.

[Ylana]

I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

[weepingforloman]

There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.

[JGL57]

Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods...

This is a time-honoired logical fallacy quaintly known as “the bandwagon appeal”.


Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism…..

Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying “the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism” – assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as “argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).


So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God ….

Assuming normal and agreed upon definitions of "god" and "supernatural intervention", at some point that would follow - of course – so your statement is a mere redundancy, i.e., no new information is being proffered.


I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

Per the particular issue of evolution vs. creationism – your pronouncement of 95 per cent of people having “no mind of their own” smacks of ad hominem. The overall thrust of your post seems to be an argument from radical skepticism or radical relativism or radical agnosticism (i.e., since we can know nothing for certain, we can know nothing). I think that is a bad thing, as I see it as equivalent to taking out one’s brain, making into jelly, and serving it up for lunch. I think you’ll have a hell of a time selling that to anyone, theist or non-theist.


There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.

Of course. There had to be straight line creation by an invisible sentient being (god), theistic evolution, non-theistic evolution, or some four concept could be the “truth” that is beyond our capacity at this time to even conceive of. As mentioned above, radical skepticism does not help in the attempt to understand reality.

[weepingforloman]

Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying “the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism” – assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as “argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).

I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?

[Redzeppelin]

in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

This statement is absurd. Right and wrong absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

[billyjack]

This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.

[JGL57]

I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?

Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.

Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.

You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?

Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues.

That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.

So, in return, I will read the bible. - - No, wait, I have already read it -twice, all the way through. So, looks like I'm ahead of the game.

(BTW, I see that many of Campbell's lectures are on youtube. You could start there, I guess.)

[bazarov]

My ratio says Evolution, but man is to perfect to be result of X and Y.

[weepingforloman]

Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.

Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.

You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?

Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues.

That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.

So, in return, I will read the bible. - - No, wait, I have already read it -twice, all the way through. So, looks like I'm ahead of the game.

(BTW, I see that many of Campbell's lectures are on youtube. You could start there, I guess.)

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc.). If you have already read the Bible twice (I admit I have never read Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Malachi, or Lamentations all the way through... but hey, I've got about 56 years left in life!) I recommend reading some of the great theological works. I myself am currently reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and, as a sixteen-year-old with semi-ADD, I have spent roughly three months on the first 350 pages. You will probably finish before me if you start in January.

[JGL57]

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc...

Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?

As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything.

God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.

[weepingforloman]

Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?

I did not mean, by mentioning them, that I had read them... That post was made by me in a vacuum. I am curious to hear these explanations. If you know them off the top of your head, will you please post them?


As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything.

God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.

I'm afraid you misread. I said science is not INcompatible with God. I'm very aware that God is beyond the reaches of my mind, if He was not, no doubt I would be doing something else at the moment.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology...

Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.

[Redzeppelin]

we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.

You just proved my point - one must contradict himself to be a moral relativist. Your statement is loaded with inaccurate uses of language. First, who says we've "accepted" moral atrocities "for centuries"? What do you mean "accepted"? Said it was OK? Found it agreeable? What? Next, what do you mean "accept" immorality? How does one do that and what does that accomplish? Your use of "accept" is clearly problematic. Finally, you've made an inaccurate comparison in your final sentence; it's a different thing to face the truth about oneself (I'm an addict) than it is to allow actions that one knows is wrong. No comparison - one is facing truth, the other is denying truth exists.

[weepingforloman]

Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.

Theologians are comfortable taking information from authorities in other fields. I see no reason why a theologian should not be allowed to merely study the work of a Jung or a Freud, and use their findings as the basis of discussion. I refer you first of all to The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.

[NikolaiI]

This statement is absurd. Right and wrong absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol. ;)

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically.

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol. ;)

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically.

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.

I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"

[NikolaiI]

If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.

I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"

Well, yeah, it's just that Jesus was a mystic, and other Christian mystics were remarkably similar to mystics everywhere, yet anything that approaches the ontology of eastern religions is ridiculed by so many westerners. Things like - there is no good or evil. That doesn't mean you think evil is good, and it quite likely indicates a belief in a similar ontology, which is the opposite of the assumption that Red made, which is that it is all about compassion, empathy, etc. As well as saying that the definitions and boundaries we create are illusions, anyway - like Good and Evil, subject and object, us vs. them, East and West, etc. Christianity, atheism, religion (imagine), countries, etc.

I guess I don't really know what I'm talking about, it's just my beliefs. A lot of it is Zen Buddhism influenced, and Hindu. Cognizant ontology might be a new thing, I couldn't find it on google or wikipedia, so I don't know. I read an article about it once, which is gone now. I guess basically it's the same thing as the Buddhist idea that we're not seperate from the world, etc.

-And it is not absurd. Just about everything else is.

[weepingforloman]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

Do you never weary of this Rubik's Cube of turning and twisting to get all the colours aligned? Just as physicists posit the Grand Unified Theory that underlies all the laws of nature, do you never wonder if there IS a God, that the path to him would be clear and straight, and not require armies of theologians? Instead, something like Be at peace and extend peace to all your neighbours. All the rest is chaff.

[NikolaiI]

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

That's what I said, that Christ was a mystic, and the Christian mystics I know were like mystics of other religions; words don't say it. You should read Henri Nouwen.

[weepingforloman]

Not all Christian mystics are non-dualists. Christ was not a mystic in the ordinary sense, He was God. And, unless He was a total liar, He believed in a dual universe, and a universe in which souls are distinct.

[Redzeppelin]

Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol. ;)

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically.

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."

[Pendragon]

Am I missing something, or has this thread gone off target for sometime now? How is the discussion of various religious books actually coming close to the meat of the stated problem, which is evolution vs creation? Can it be that every arguement both sides could think of have already been presented, discussed, and neither side is prepared to move an inch, convinced that they were right to start with? And those of us who will say that it took a God to start things, not chance, but evolution has absolutely been proven as the shaper of the world as we know it, what of us? To the evolutionist, we do not go far enough, for we still insist on God. To the Creationist, we are near blasphemy, for we use the horrible word "evolution" freely.

I have said it before and will say it again. When the horse is dead, bury it. No amount of beating it will make it get up and walk. And this horse, this arguement, is dead. It seems people grope for things to argue about.

[Dark Star]

First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religiosu belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"

Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!' ;) Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy.

Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.

[Pendragon]

First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religious belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"

My apologies if you found the word derogatory. I certainly did not mean it in that manner at all. Because I believe in God does not blind me to science. Look how far we have progressed in the last century, and yet that is still so very little. We learn, but we have learned more than anything else not to rush things, because rushing is where costly mistakes happen.

In a way, I do think it takes faith, not to believe in evolution, but to believe that chance started everything. That is where I must deviate a bit. I cannot accept chance, I think it took a much higher power, a God.


Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!' ;) Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are Christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and Christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy. And you may be right. I know that many atheists on the forum respect me, as I do them, for I refuse to get caught up in the name-calling stuff that is bad form for either side and does nothing to further either cause. If the person disagrees, let them. I have found very few switch sides.


Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.Well, it isn't just religious texts, but this and that philosopher, and quote every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The reason I have problems with this is there is always a "Christians and/or religious people cannot think for themselves." stated somewhere along the line. Now, if a person patterns their stance on life after a certain philosopher, and quote him or her constantly, who is doing the thinking there, the person or the philosopher? Many things have a double edge.

It could be argued, "But this has been proven empirically true." Not according to this other, equally well-known philosopher, with opposing views. Difficulty arises. In a way, I'd like to see a thread where people were forbidden to quote anyone. A complete “Think for yourself” thread.

God Bless

Pen

[Dark Star]

To clarify: I didn't mean that you were using it in a derogative manner...just that that's the origin and common use of the word. I didn't get that vibe from your statement. As for the philosopher issue: I believe we (the forum members, not you and me) actually discussed this in another thread somewhere around here... :)

[weepingforloman]

Requiem interra Pax, thread. (Hey, look at me, I used Latin and I'm not even Catholic!)

[NikolaiI]

I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."

You have it wrong, though I won't try to prove it to you beyond this. I could give you articles and point you in the direction of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism that support this ontology, among others, but that's not my place. The basic idea is that we are not seperate from the world. To believe so is delusion, and a fallacy. We're part of the world, and part of each other, not removed in any way. Everything is connected, and part of a pleonasm, etc., etc.

As for the other, whether right and wrong exist, I was only agreeing with someone else on this forum. And yes, right and wrong do exist in the human world. Here's an enlightening excerpt from an article on zen, that is mentioning right and wrong. I guess differences arise when we look at the world framed on different levels.


"It is indeed the basic intuition of Zen that there is an ultimate standpoint from which "anything goes." In the celebrated words of the master Yun-men, "Every day is a good day." Or as is said in the Hsin-hsin-Ming:

If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind.

But this standpoint does not exclude and is not hostile towards the distinction between right and wrong at other levels and in more limited frames of reference. The world is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not framed: that is to say, when we are not looking at a particular situation by itself - out of relation to the rest of the universe. Within this room there is a clear difference between up and down; out in interstellar space there is not. Within the conventional limits of a human community there a clear distinctions between good and evil. But these disappear when human affairs are seen as part and parcel of the whole realm of human nature. Every framework sets up a restricted field fo relationships, and restriction is law or rule..."

Anyway.

[atiguhya padma]

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

[Gorilla King]

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

Christianity isn't about morals. This is an absurd straw man. Christianity is about a relationship with Christ and accepting the salvation that comes only through Him. Most moral systems whether religious or not are the same. The difference in Christianity is Jesus.

[weepingforloman]

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

How, exactly, could there be right and wrong in the plant world, the unicellular world, or the inanimate world? It must be human or above to be moral.

[Redzeppelin]

You have it wrong, though I won't try to prove it to you beyond this. I could give you articles and point you in the direction of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism that support this ontology, among others, but that's not my place. The basic idea is that we are not seperate from the world. To believe so is delusion, and a fallacy. We're part of the world, and part of each other, not removed in any way. Everything is connected, and part of a pleonasm, etc., etc.

Well, then that is why you and I disagree - neither Hinduism nor Buddhism properly accounts for reality as far as I'm concerned.


As for the other, whether right and wrong exist, I was only agreeing with someone else on this forum. And yes, right and wrong do exist in the human world. Here's an enlightening excerpt from an article on zen, that is mentioning right and wrong. I guess differences arise when we look at the world framed on different levels.


"It is indeed the basic intuition of Zen that there is an ultimate standpoint from which "anything goes." In the celebrated words of the master Yun-men, "Every day is a good day." Or as is said in the Hsin-hsin-Ming:

If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind.

A chief flaw in Zen philosophy. Human behavior is rarely neutral in nature; our actions and attitudes have clear consequences in terms of effect upon ourselves and those around us. Some of the these actions/attitudes are harmful to ourselves and our relationships with others; these would logically be described as "wrong."


But this standpoint does not exclude and is not hostile towards the distinction between right and wrong at other levels and in more limited frames of reference. The world is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not framed: that is to say, when we are not looking at a particular situation by itself - out of relation to the rest of the universe. Within this room there is a clear difference between up and down; out in interstellar space there is not. Within the conventional limits of a human community there a clear distinctions between good and evil. But these disappear when human affairs are seen as part and parcel of the whole realm of human nature. Every framework sets up a restricted field fo relationships, and restriction is law or rule..."

Metaphysical rationalizations about right and wrong do little to deal with the reality that here on earth and amongst human beings there are behaviors and attitudes that are clearly beneficial and clearly harmful.


The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

The only thing we "have to believe" is that God is real and that it is through Jesus Christ that we may obtain eternal life. The belief in objective right and wrong is not to "validate" our "worldview" but is rather a result of believing in God. You have the cart before the horse. Christianity "stole" nothing from the ancient Greeks; the existence of the idea of right and wrong in culture is a reflection of the reality of God within all cultures - even those that don't fully acknowledge Him. One must actively reject God to remove His influence.


Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

Please - don't flatter yourself with the typical atheist "We are clearer sighted than the Christian" mantra. That's bogus all the way. Morality existed long before the Bible ever made it into print form. Cultures that have never even heard of the Bible have certain moral restrictions. Whether or not right and wrong exist outside of the human world is kind of a moot point, isn't it? Since we're humans and we're discussing these things, then it does matter.

[Pendragon]

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.No, wait my friends, AP makes a good point. It is the very nature of man, and many scientists would say, the animal nature of man that causes right and wrong. Why does a person suddenly go off it and kill when all of his or her neighbors are prepared to swear that they were very mild-mannered? Why is it that if a person does not develop a conscience by a certain age, they will never have one and be a sociopath? We are human, yes, but we are the highest order of primates and still animal. Even people who proclaim Christianity or other religions or some pathway of peaceful living have the danger of allowing the animal within to get loose at times. I do not really disagree with her stance as to where the right and wrong originates. I just believe in a power stronger than myself. Because if I depended solely on myself, I could easily slip over the line with all of the problems I have had.

That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...

[Redzeppelin]

That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...

You're right. Time for a topic realignment. I'll go first:

God created the world in six days; life began as a purposeful creation of a Divine Being as an expression of His love. Reality contains an order, purpose and meaning that points to an initiator with a rational mind rather than the chaotic and random forces of nature. The cohesive of reality cannot possibly have come into existence by accident, and evolution cannot (even with its massive time allotment) account for much of the complexity and purposeful nature of reality. Life cannot come into existence by accident; matter cannot create itself.


There.

[weepingforloman]

I agree with the premise of creation. I think you could guess that. But I have some points to raise: 1.) the first section of Genesis is written in poetic form, which is rarely meant to be taken literally in scripture. Don't get me wrong, I believe in ex nihilo creation, but it IS poetic form. 2.) Days... how? There wasn't even a sun until the third day, and the sun causes the rotation of the earth. Plus, the Israelites counted days by sunrises and sunsets. So, I don't believe in one day, two days, three days, etc. progression of creation. To this end, I find it plausible to accept the Big Bang, provided it is allowed that divine activity set the matter in place.

[Dark Star]

....And so the circle of argument begins again with the same debunked arguments as previously. This should be fun.

[Lyn]

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

[Dark Star]

One correction: God would be considered a hypothesis rather than a theory.

[Gorilla King]

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

There's plenty of material evidence for God. It's just that not all of it is so obvious. I would recommend reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life though. You may have a change of heart with regards to your notion that there's no evidence. Faith is not blind.

[Dark Star]

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

[Gorilla King]

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

So you even doubt Jesus existed? Well that basically renders your opinions meaningless doesn't it? The only scholars who still believe that are considered kooks, and that's even by people who aren't remotely sympathetic to Christianity.

[Dark Star]

When inquiring into the subject without the a priori assumption of his existence you'll find that there is not enough evidence of his existence to classify him as a historical figure. He's quite clearly classed as a mythological one, until of course, we can dig up some reliable evidence for his existence (assuming this ever occurs).

As for it rendering my opinions meaningless: No. What would render my opinions meaningless would be if I decided "I am a Christian, therefore Jesus Christ exists. This is a fact. Now, it's time to go find evidence to prove what I know to be a fact and anyone who disagrees with me is insane" like the scholars that you've recommended do and you yourself seem to do.

I fail to see what you mean by the scholars 'who still believe that' since this is a fairly recent development in historical scholarship and is not kooky in any sense. Doherty and Price for example are considered to be high quality scholars even if they are in the minority. If you would try reading works on the historicity or lack thereof of Jesus that aren't by Christian apologists and deal with the subject in a more balanced matter you would realize this.

By the way, I love the evasive tactics there. You will not find any material evidence to support the existence of God, and thus, you attack my point of view on the historicity of Jesus on some rather shoddy grounds.