Oh, this thread is still going!
*quietly vanishes into the air*
Printable View
Oh, this thread is still going!
*quietly vanishes into the air*
"Oh, this thread is still going!"
No - its evolving creatively.
.
:D But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . :confused:
No blood, no foul. May I also state that never assume people will always stand by you no matter what. When I had my own problems, my genetic condition that had already caused havoc with panic attacks and whatnot finally took me for good, the people I trusted in churches I preached in across the country deemed me demon-possessed and threw me out. It didnot kill my faith in God. I keep fighting the battle. But I am a changed man. If I can reach one person, I will go for that one. One has become as important as a churchfull. And to reach the world, you must not attack, but reason. You can't show the love of God if you have none of your own, and are ill-mannered towards people. What do you expect them to want that you're selling, when they can get talked about, run down, and called names anywhere? My Native American ancestors would say, "Speaking with forked tongue." God bless. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by brainstrain
Quite true. Which is why so many cultures are so rich in oral history. My Native American blood is Cherokee. The tribe could not write until Sequoyah invented the alphabet that written Cherokee uses. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundOnPekes
Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D
Wow - how cool. That just made my day. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by brainstrain
(PS: Shoutgrace: "But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . " - Nice :thumbs_up
You just made a lot of people's day a little brighter. Any help I may be in anyway, don't hesitate to PM me. We all need somebody to lean on sometimes. God bless you as you seek out your path. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by brainstrain
You've heard of HIV? SARS? Avian Flu? All completely new species of virus that have evolved by completely natural means within the past century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie B.
Wrong wrong wrong, it's so very very wrong. Theories explain facts, and can be disproven. Any scientific theory can, if it is incorrect, be disproven by experiment. The theory of evolution would have to be thrown out if some paleontologist were to, say, find a complete human skeleton in pre-cabrian rock. The theory of gravity could be disproven by an experiment whenin one drops lead weights in a vacuum to see which direction they fall. The Big Bang theory would be thrown out if a red-shift experiment gave conclusive evidence that the universe is not, in fact, expanding. Scientific theories are not monotlithic, carved-in-stone slabs of physical law. They are constantly changing and evolving to account for new evidence and better explainations. The modern scientific concensus on evolution and gravity would be almost indistinguishable to Darwin and Newton were it not for the fact that both of those gentlemen are, in actual fact, dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
I'm going to give an explaination of phi a shot, but math is not my dicipline, and I encourage you to find out about it from somebody who knows what they are talking about. To the best of my understanding, phi is simply an efficient ratio that spirals, such as those of snail shells and the like, tend to fall into. The fact that it is a very complicated ratio, and must be expressed using irrational numbers, should not imply design. Pi is a very complicated number. You can, if you wish to waste your money, buy a very thick book consisting of pi to a terrifying number of decimal places, and ending with an elipsis. However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.
Hm..I think I should clarify my point. My intended meaning is that I will believe the theory of Evolution up to a certain extent - that is to say, I believe it verily possible for humans to have evolved from chimps, but am more doubtful as to whether that line of evolution stretches all the way back to fish. While it is true that the evidence for the relation follows from the same line of empirical methods used to identify our connection with chimps, you could say that this line grows thinner as we travel further into the past, where evidence then becomes sparse. Hence my doubts for the concept of humans having evolved from fish. It should also be noted that empirical data is not always to be trusted, as it is our observations of the empirical data that determines their meaning; human interpretation may not always be 100% accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted. While you believe in that, at the same time you don't know why it works that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I agree with you that it is "difficult to comprehend" such concepts as well as to prove that such rules hold true for every single case. The other thing we have to know is that it is also for this same reason that we call them mathematical "postulates" - because we have no way of proving them absolutely, and as a result have to just to assume based on reason and logic that they will hold true (because logic and reason tell us this must be the case - yet another dependence on human intelligence which has its own flaws). These are, after all, theories designed by humans as models for the sake of convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
What the true way to solve such mysteries as well as how they work still remain veiled and unknown to us. It is because of this that I believe some sort of divine intelligence may be at work here, excluding that belonging to humans such as Einstein and the like. To better explain this, we could recall the example of Copernicus and his heliocentric theory of the solar system. At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise? The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.
Therefore, as I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of Divine Creation and Evolution, but not by all means do I strictly narrow my mind to either one or the other.
//Edit: Typos and re-positioning of paragraphs.
Thank goodness for you rationality Cuppa. I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The universe is a wonderful thing. By my [human] logic, there should be nothing--an empty void. Yet here we are, reading, laughing, and loving! To me that indicates that something really amzing is going on. But to take it any further than that is folly. To assume that I'm going to burn in the firey pits of hell because I'm unable to accept that the creator of the universe would send someone to this little planet to get nailed to a cross because things weren't working out as it planned is just plain egotistical. The idea that humanity is central in some sort of grand cosmic plan is just the product of ignorance, ego, hope and a fear of death.
That being said, damn I'm glad I'm alive! What an gloriously beautiful thing we have here! Rejoice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
The above quotation of what I said earlier can be applied to what you're saying about Pi, or anything similar. Pi is a number humans found that happens to aid in calculations - a ratio or number that's there for us to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be anything, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.
No, I don't either Silv. I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.oQuote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.
Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be anything - anything is possible. :D
*This is assuming none of us here are discussing other things like subjectivism, which would be an argument from ignorance (there's a word for this but I can't remember it at the moment. If anyone does please post it, it's bugging me. XD)
//Edit: Eek. Wrong post. XD *deletes stuff here and goes to "Taming of the Shrew" thread*
YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
I have posted a link to an nteresting article surrounding this topic... There are a myriad of convictions surrounding these philosophies and some actually embrace the reality of both. Given your interest in the subject matter, I thought you would find this article
While I am a creationist, I also believe in evolution to a point. I do not believe man evolved from apes though.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter5.html
It's what scientists and their relatives say to keep on earning. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by WriterAtTheSea
So what do the preachers say so that they can keep on earning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laindessiel
Do you have any idea how much the average research scientist at a university makes?? It ain't making them rich, I can tell you that. Also, by making such an uneducated statement you are condeming all scientists as liars. Why? Real evidence bothers you?
Really? Did he (it) create himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laindessiel
No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)
He is already a "someone" before anything. Nobody can answer where He came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Only if you're right - but what if you're wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Exactly - hence the existence of God becomes possible, and science - perhaps - uncertain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Silv's point still stands: why should anything be "like it is"? To just say (as cuppa did) that "that just happens to be the way geometry works" creates a problem with the words "that just happens." What is "just happens" - magic? Life "just happens"? The Golden Ration "just happens" to show up everywhere in nature? Ideas about "right" and "wrong" "just happen" to have "evolved" from human experience? The conditions on this planet that make it conducive to life "just happened"? Chemical reactions in my brain "just happen" to create the feeling of joy, sadness, heartache? The answer that much of reality "just happened" to me is equal to any charge against the vague, un-empirically proven ideas of God that atheists level at Christians.
And, finally, Wintermute, what makes it OK for you to dismiss something many people find very profound as "silly"? Is an attempt to trivialize your opponent's argument supposed to be a solid response to the issue - or simply an attempt to devalue your opponent's position and put them on the defensive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WriterAtTheSea
Who does believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).
By the way, that Leadership U is a great website. They hold WLC's material. ;)
Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaindessielYES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No, as I've explained, phi shows up a lot of places in nature (hardly 'everywhere', but in a lot of places) because it is an efficient to build certain structures in that ratio. If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'. It's not a coincidence by any means. Note that I am not a mathematician, so all of the above should be taken with a grain of salt, but I would be willing to bet that the correct explaination is very close to what I just said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
If you saw that common ancestor walking around on the street you would say "Hey look, there's an ape walking around on the street".Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
Well, do you know what I made/still make as a minister, taking into account that I am, while ordained quite properly, non-denominational? Nothing. I traveled as a evangelist at my expense, and if they took up collections and it covered my expenses and I had extra, OK, and if not, I'd still be back next time. I usually stayed with a family, no four star hotel treatment, and drove as much as 750 miles one way. Now, church is in my home, and whosoever will comes, no one is refused. I ask for nothing. If God ever grants that I can start a church again, I will do so. Until then, we press on. But I'm not the one to argue with scientific fact. Evolution partially explains things for me, but not how they began. For that, God works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
That's me you're quoting, cuppajoe. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Right, sorry. Long day.
Just for Redzeppelin's sake. ;) But it is getting late, at that . . .
There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal. As to the listing of deities, well, I never denied they existed. Whether they do or not doesn't change anything. Why do you think God says in Commandment #1 "thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Those "gods" may be figurative, but neither I nor C.S. Lewis have ruled out the existence of other "gods."Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Again: I did not post that the existence of this number implied any deity. The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Fine. But explaining how something happened does not necessarily mean that the origin of that event is a settled thing. If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place. (And personally, I'm not much interested in how weak that analogy is, so deconstructing it - in my opinion - won't accomplish much.) I think my point is clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
It's different if you die and that's the end than if you die and "wake up" to find that eternal life could have been yours. And, God does not "send" anybody to hell. He allows you to choose (there's that pesky word again!) your destination. One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer. C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce contends that not everybody would like what heaven has to offer. It's a great (quick) read.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
You're right - I don't understand. That may be due to my ignorance, or your inability to offer me something that answers my question in an effective, convincing way. I'm not sure which it is - I'm not a math guy, so I should probably step away from the phi debate. My initial comments were in support of Silv's comments. I'm not sure I buy that physics - as a non-sentient natural force - explains the prevalence of phi, but I'm not going to debate that point because I have no authority in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Perhaps it is "meaningless", but it was meaningful to me. The number doesn't matter - it's its reoccurrence as a pattern that interests me. Physics can explain some patterns - can it explain them all?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Well, as much as you feel you repeat yourself, I feel the same. If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty. Like yourself, I think the universe offers clues as to its origins. I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe. Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
cuupajoe, I hope you didn't miss out my response to your arguments earlier on - at the bottom of P.78
So could Ptolemy. I don't see a point here. Pinker can explain to you how those things happened based on human intelligence - what we believe to be true, even the simplest things. He also uses simple theories and concepts which were formulated by us humans. We take a lot of things for granted, believing in our reasoning. Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"? That is a consequence that you believe in - who's right? who's wrong? Do we know for sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
..Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think what cuppajoe is saying is that we're just using pi as an example, and that it would be the same case for any other theory or model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
All the underlined bits already show uncertainty. We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that. Even the simple notion of believing in the Big Bang is already casting your faith on Evolution, when either of the two cannot be proven valid over the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The above is what Wintermute said earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
To which I replied:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
I also re-explained this point later on:Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
..It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silv
As I said before and I'll repeat again, there is not a reason for us to believe strictly in either Evolution or Creationism: anything is possible.
Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is certain that no gods exist, I simply do not believe that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very likely that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
That question lends itself more to an encyclopaedia than a message board, but I think I've been giving it a shot. Evolution is one important part of the answer. Simple structures combine to form complex structures when their environment demands that they do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
*doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?
From earlier (I did, in fact, miss that response, and I apologize):
Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
Well if he wouldn't then Pascal's Wager is invalid anyway, and I remain entirely without a reason to believe in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, oh so very emphatically wrong. We DO have evidence for evolution. Mountains of evidence. Huge piles of evidence. Large museums filled with evidence. Wonderfully thick, lucid, well-written books filled with evidence. I can't prove that there is no God, or that there is no Thor, or that there is no Flying Spaghetti monster, true, but do you want me to accept that all of those things are equally likely just because I can't meet your impossible standard of proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
Correct. However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.
*Sigh* - for the sake of brevity I spoke thusly, so as not to turn this thread into a sermon. "Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord. The point was about being "sent" to hell - not the requirements for getting into heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Sorry if I've done this - but my post did not say the "certainty" was connected to the existence of gods. The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source. And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Me? Why yes, as a matter of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliv
BOTH OF YOU? *faints and slides away*
Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red