Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

: 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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

I am fine with a "degree of skepticism."

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redzeplin

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 :-)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

---

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

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 :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

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.

Are you intentionally ripping off Eddie Vedder, Guzman?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

You need to elaborate on this.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

False analogy - the two do not compare.

---

[/quote]

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lily Adams

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.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

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

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.

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.

[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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

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

---

And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.

---

Ah, don't get ahead of yourself. I said PHILOSOPHY, not religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

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.

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.

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).