How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Printable View
How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But getting a different result every time isn't a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
What I said was that it consistently produces a unique person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker every time. That is staggering to contemplate. I could see chance creating a template which then repeats itself ad infinitum, but many things which science has created by accident (chance), would be of great use to us, except that they cannot figure out exactly how the original formula was created. When they can, as with Vulcanized Rubber, the basis for our automobile tires, the accident becomes a great discovery. But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. “Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be wrong?”, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Yes, I see what you mean, but I don't think that consistently producing a unique person counts as a consistent result as such. There are so many variables at work that a unique result every time is precisely what you would expect, with or without an intelligent designer rigging the experiment. The number of heads, tails, heads patterns that one can produce from flipping a coin 30,000 times is, according to the cheap calculator softwear that came with this computer, infinity. I've tried to explain to my computer that infinity is not actually a number, but it seems that it is rather thick. And genetic code is only one factor of human uniqueness. Your exampes of fingerprint and retinal scan, for example, are not the result of genetic code at all: but rather are determined and formed by some bizzare process in utero, which is why even identical twins have unique fingerprints and retinal paterns. Even then, fingerprints can be changed by events later in life. I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
In fact, this kind of variation is exactly the kind of thing we don't see in things that we do know for certain to be intelligently designed. If my computer, for example was subject to that kind of variety, I would be sending it back to the manufacturer. God, however, is usually seen more in the vein of artist than atisan, and could certainly produce unique works each time if He wanted, but, since uniqueness is just what we would expect from chance, I have trouble seeing human variation as evidence either for or against design. Regardless, said variation is, and you could not possibly have put it better, staggering.
Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be right before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Some critiques of ID by people who hold far more PhDs than I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
This is fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, if you have the time, the bandwidth and the inclination to watch (it is over two hours long). Mr. Miller is the author of the textbook which had the infamous "Evolution is theory and not fact" stickers attached to it, before being presented to students for their consideration. Miller is not, as one might expect, an atheist, but rather a Roman Catholic, although I'm not quite sure that this fact qualifies him as a balanced viewpoint, seeing as the Vatican endorses Darwin.
http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-a...y11122006x.mp3
That one's a bit shorter. It's a Guardian podcast talking mainly about the ID controversy on the British Isles. The speakers include an ID proponent from the Truth in Science group, a theistic Darwinist and an atheistic one, who sounds quite a lot like Sir Ian McKellen. McKellen is, of course, the actor who recently charmed the American intelligent design crowd by being a homosexual atheist who appeared in The DaVinci Code and made smart remarks about Jesus on television. There are side discussions of life on Mars, left-handedness and rapping urban birds. Really.
Excellent link. The Ken Miller lecture is fantastic. Too bad i couldnt see the whole thing: it is supposedly two hours long yet it only runs up to 51 min?
I cant believe that guy isnt an atheist.
I get 117 minutes, but who knows?
I regreat to inform you, Cuppa, that you are not unique. Left-index finger? I also have a mass of callus, from a botched skin graft when I got said finger hung in a machine! Makes a good weather predictor, but makes it difficult sometimes to play guitar well!Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
And you are ever the Gentleman, mon ami. I would that many more were. God bless! :)
Ouch! Interestingly, my callused left hand is a result of playing that same instrument to excess. I've met people with the shapes of strings permenantly etched into their fingers, but I'm not quite at that point yet. Most instruments will destroy your hands one way or another, except, for some reason, the piano. Pianists always have beautiful hands.
But I digress...
In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on
No, there are plenty of coherent abiogenic theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B.
Does it not, therefore, also prove that a recurring myriad of other gods existed before the present one, each creating the next?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B.
Hi Miss Darcy,
Y'all have pretty much debated this to death, so I won't add to it--other than to say that to me, evolution is fact, and does not necessarily preclude a creator. My real reason for posting is to introduce myself (I just joined the forum a few minutes ago). And to tell you that your Aldous Huxley quote is one of my favorites too.
Cheers
I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?
Hi Stephanie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B.
I'd suggest that you take this opportunity to learn. Sign up for a biology class at your local college; talk to a biologist; research on your own. The questions you have asked demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. The evidence is there, all you need do is open your eyes and your mind.
But the key is happiness. If your happiness will be diminished by learning some stuff that may contradict what you've always believed, then don't take that step. When you get to the end of your life and look back, the amount of true happiness you've experienced will be all that really matters.
Try watching the video linked in cuppajoes post a few posts ago, there's an explanation at the beginning about theories and facts in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B.
Still:
Evolution: Scientific theory
Creationism: Religious belief
Should beliefs be taught in schools instead of theories?
Not in my opinion.
what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?
but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...
and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...
...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain:
In my opinion, science is a tool that can be used by people to examine and explore their world, and explain what has happened. and religion is the metaphor, or story that presents the facts in a means that is universally understandible. by this I mean, that not all people are "scientists", and need to be able to understand there surroundings...
the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics.
The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things. :)
Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...
2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...
So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”
I suppose it's just a matter of empirical data...quantity vs qaulity...but...there are some very questionable theories protected, by lack of disproof, and but beliefs, IMO, are the same as tehories...one must believe in the theory or not...both "sides" ( a term I hate since I consider science and religon to be as the same) have theories, with their own concept of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
(BTW I am not a scientologist...I just think science and religion, are basically the same things described differently)
I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of evolution/creation (both seem unlikely to me. I prefer to not think about it.), but my take on the bible is that it is in NO way different from the hundreds of other religious books.
Yes, it has some historical base, but there is no historical record of Jesus. You'd think a historian or two would've noticed a guy going around doing mircales...Many other religious books have that much historical basing, and much more.
Anyway, I like to keep in mind that in the long run it doesn't matter too much what I think on this subject. It matters a lot, of course, to me, but no very many other people.
The main problem with Christians is that they believe if you don't agree with them on anything (especially creation though) you're going to hell. Don't say that I'm stereotyping, I grew up in a conservative chruch, it's true.
Basically both evolution and creation are unprovable, so I personally do not bother get stressed out about it. Which is my philosphy for life in a nutshell: avoid stress.
unless that stress will provide you with food. or a dog. than its excuseable (gah I really get off topic sometimes...)
Ok, i'm done now =P
Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. God’s choice, not man’s. God bless. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by brainstrain
Judgement from the church...the religion...or from the "followers"?
In my exp. its not the church, or even the religion that throws one into the 'hell category' but ones own peers and oneself.
I think it is a terrible misfortion to be born a christian...it seems to me that you are destined for hard times...where as if you don't know anybetter...you just sort of get in via the ignorance card...maybe I'm just misreading the situation, but thats what it looks like to me...If anyone knows better (which I am sure someone here must) I would be grateful if they could explain it to me.
the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.
I was thinking more in the terms of doctrine, rather than practice...ie...the fables in the bible stating that the rogue...or the ignorant, or the rebel child/person has a greater chance to get into heaven...maybe I am just being to literal, but that seems awfully unfair...as dose the random, but intense testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triskele
"but that seems awfully unfair..."
Not unfair, just unfashionable.
It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.
Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.
As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.
.
My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.
One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.
So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.
Just a thought.
Rich--a believer in the living Christ
Before I began forming any decision regarding my choice between Evolution vs. Creationism, I first asked myself if I were able to completely and utterly denounce all the attributes/ideas that either one is advocating.
To a certain extent I believe in science and empirical observations and discoveries - in other words, I believe that we are in some ways related to chimpanzees. Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.
Have any of you chanced upon the above picture before, or its concept? According to Wikipedia: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design (a form of creationism) as an alternative to biological evolution.
Like Bobby Henderson, it is rather difficult for me to have faith in the thought that a supreme being or deity created us. But it is possible. Our present-day science is gravitating towards the experimentation of life forms, DNA, cloning, and such other similar activities. Who is to deny the fact that humans could easily create a life form, yet a life form not intelligible enough to realize it is a mere guinea pig of mankind? Now take that, and multiply it so that you have an entire civilization of these "guinea pigs". Who is to say that humans and all other life forms in this reality are not a part of something similar?
While earlier I mentioned I could not believe solely in either of the theories, I can, however, believe in a mixture of both of them at once. At some point of time, everything that the universe is made up of had to have a beginning. All these elements, matter, entropy: they had to come from somewhere. It is The Beginning of the existence of such "things" that I found troubling. However, suffice to say, something similar to Creationism seems to explain the reasoning behind how these "things" got here better than Evolution. After these "things" came into the story, I am more inclined to believe in Evolution then taking over.
As you can see, the above synthesis is only if I were forced to believe that how the world came into being today is a cause of either Creationism or Evolution. But, this is not so. From what we know, both theories are equally flawed and disputed amongst people. We do not have to believe that it was either Creationism or Evolution that brought us to the present. Therefore, my position in this matter is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in either of the two - I believe that a better reasoning for our existence, one that will incorporate the believable points of Creationism and Evolution and have the evidence to back it up, is ahead of us, waiting to be discovered.
(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)
Exactly...It's impossible (for me atleast) to pin down one idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
:D awesome observation...easily justified by...er justifications. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mtpspur
"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"
That is one side of the coin.
Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."
The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."
This sounds like an abusive relationship. Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
"Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill."
Well, I'm not going to argue that it is right - only that it is a paradox not to be dismissed lightly.
Of course I have over-simplified. However, even in the bit that I have quoted there is enough to show that the relationship is not abusive. "joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be gloriied together." Given that most Christians believe that Christ is God, and suffers as god and as a man, it is consistent that humans should share in God's suffering in order to share in God's glory.
That brings us to a point beyond which I have no explanation - I can only suggest that you read Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Hebrews, with a view to understanding what he is saying, rather than looking for reasons to reject what he is saying. When you understand him, then reject him if you like.
okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion.
"okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion."
You weren't being confrontational - and my closing comment certainly looks rude, when I re-read it - apologies for that - please take it literally, not as an expression of contempt.
I seem to remember somewhere that you said you were a Roman Catholic. If so, then you should be able to accept the notion that, amongst God's other attributes, He has a capacity for suffering. This idea is madness to non-Christians, but it is an essential part of Christianity.
The implications of God's suffering are far too complex for forum discussions, and they just give me brain-ache. Paul wrestled with the concepts, and you can imagine him beating them into some sort of submission, as he wrote. And all the time, trying to relate off-the-wall theology to every day behaviour.
Anyway, if you are a Christian, you start with the idea that God puts himself through greater suffering than anything that humans endure. So, suffering is something that Christians share with God, not something He inflicts on them. OK - back to Paul, i am out of my depth.
.
Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:
Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?
To say "rejoice" in suffering is not to say "enjoy" it, or that God wills it. To be told to "rejoice" means that we are being told that our definition of the value of suffering may not be correct - that rather than a time of mourning because we believe something "bad" is happening, we're being told that there is something (however incomprehensible to us) good about what we are experiencing. Christianity is built on paradox: this is one of them.
A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
All this does is show that in suffering, humans tend to get their priorities straight. Those who don't are often referred to as vengeful (instead of grieving for their mother's death, they assume someone killed her and become a...a...*the word escapes me* mass murderer *close enough*).
If, however, that person cannot find a way to deal with that suffering then they try to find something to help them. That is the main purpose of religion: to provide comfort in times of suffering. I won't get into my personal views too much, just wanted to point out your slightly flawed example.
nota bene - good luck finding an example that works with my views :sick:
- If the above post makes no sense, tell me. I have nerotic tendencies :lol: comes from being a mild Schizofrenic i suppose.
>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
You say all this assuming there will be a Judgement day. I don't think there will. I've been trying for years to fit religion into my view of the world. I've tried to alter my view of the world, but I can't change who I am to please our culture.
By culture I mean the traditions, stereotypes, and general kind of person which follow a certain religion.
:sick: sorry I just had to fend off my mother, shes been nagging me all day...I have yet to figure out what for. something about email...
anway, I appreciate your open-minded view. It has taken me years to break free of the bonds I was bound by through growing up in surronded by people who...its hard to find a word to describe them. Narrow-minded is a good start though.
I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...
basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.
And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...
again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^
Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."Quote:
Originally Posted by brainstrain
Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtpspur