Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 165 of 165

Thread: How can you believe in Evolution?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    [quote="Ophiolite"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberius
    I am not surprised that many people deny the reality of evolution. I am, however, hugely disappointed.
    People do not "deny the reality of evolution", people are just not convinced of the theory of evolution.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    People do not "deny the reality of evolution", people are just not convinced of the theory of evolution.
    Yes, people do deny the reality of evolution. Not all people, but, exactly as I stated, many people.
    Those people who are not convinced by the theory of evolution, yet accept the reality of evolution, simply aren't trying hard enough. The evidence is there. The theory is quite solid, the details remain to be worked out, the periphery of the structure will undergo refurbishment, the foundation will remain firm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Ophiolite,

    Yes, people do deny the reality of evolution. Not all people, but, exactly as I stated, many people.
    Maybe those people do not distinguish the difference between "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", as most evolutionists insist there is no difference between them.

    Those people who are not convinced by the theory of evolution, yet accept the reality of evolution, simply aren't trying hard enough.
    The evidence is there.
    Its not a case of not trying hard enough, we are not fully convinced by what is regarded as evidence, although we can understand why some people are.
    I know people who thoroughly believe they know TOE to be a fact of life, who know less about it than I do, who cannot explain how it occurs.
    I personally cannot do that.
    I could believe that TOE is a fact, but that would take it out of its scientific context.
    The only way TOE could be classed as a scientific fact, IMO, is direct observation of one species changing into another, because that is its claim. All technical explanations can be argued either way, which makes it not a good basis of understanding, and only ends in bitterness and more division.

    The theory is quite solid, the details remain to be worked out, the periphery of the structure will undergo refurbishment, the foundation will remain firm.
    And untill then there is no reason to accept it as a fact, unless;.

    a) you want to believe it is so
    b) you know it is so, but cannot as yet conduct an experiment to show that it works.

    Either way, it is not fair to expect people to believe it is a fact of life, and those that do not accept it (at present) should not be classed as not trying hard enough, or morons and the like. Wouldn't you agree?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Maybe those people do not distinguish the difference between "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", as most evolutionists insist there is no difference between them.
    Doubtless this is true of some of them, but for many evolution, certainly macro-evolution, is simply non-existent.

    I think you misrepresent the position of evolutionists (a term I tend to abhor, but will accept for convenience in this discussion). Evolution occurs. This is an observed fact. The theory of evolution accounts for this observations (and the myriad of details of which it is made up) more effectively than any other. No evolutionist whose brain was properly functioning would confuse the observation with the theory developed to account for the observation. Perhaps you could offer specific examples of where one has done so. I shall then join in roundly condemning such unscientific behaviour.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Its not a case of not trying hard enough, we are not fully convinced by what is regarded as evidence, although we can understand why some people are.
    My positiion is that if you are not convinced by it then your understanding of it is incomplete. This can be due to one of two things: lack of intellect; lack of effort to understand. I have presumed you have the necessary intellect, therefore your lack of acceptance must be due to lack of effort. :wink: (Could try harder.)
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I know people who thoroughly believe they know TOE to be a fact of life, who know less about it than I do, who cannot explain how it occurs.
    I also find gullible fools in all walks of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The only way TOE could be classed as a scientific fact, IMO, is direct observation of one species changing into another, because that is its claim. .
    You are setting standards on validation of the theory of evoution that are higher than those set on the other sciences and theories. The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that this single observation is unecessary.
    However, do I take it from this, that if I can provide you with well documented information on one species changing into another you will become a scientific believer in evolution?
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    All technical explanations can be argued either way, .
    Not if they are argued from a scientific stance.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The theory is quite solid, the details remain to be worked out, the periphery of the structure will undergo refurbishment, the foundation will remain firm.
    And untill then there is no reason to accept it as a fact, unless;.
    .
    I could get quite emotional at this point. What utter bilge. You fail completely to understand that all theories are in a permanent state of flux, and were we to take your position on this we should never accept anything established by science, ever.
    The reality of evolution by common descent is proven. The precise application and relative importance of the various mechansims is the only thing that is disputed.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Either way, it is not fair to expect people to believe it is a fact of life, and those that do not accept it (at present) should not be classed as not trying hard enough, or morons and the like. Wouldn't you agree?
    Apparently I wouldn't agree, for the reasons expounded above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Its not a case of not trying hard enough, we are not fully convinced by what is regarded as evidence, although we can understand why some people are.
    My positiion is that if you are not convinced by it then your understanding of it is incomplete. This can be due to one of two things: lack of intellect; lack of effort to understand. I have presumed you have the necessary intellect, therefore your lack of acceptance must be due to lack of effort. :wink: (Could try harder.)
    I share Ophiolites fustration and the same tempation to look at people with contempt, in regards to the Special Theory of Relativity. The evidence for this theory is just as overwhelming (as for evolution) but people would rather put their faith in Star Trek which is more fun and easier to understand. But, of course we know, that I have reason to feel some sympathy for the opponents of evolution because I share their faith if not their judgement in regards to the theory of evolution. The reason in question is neither lack of intellect nor lack of effort but prejudgement. No matter what the evidence or how convincingly it is explained it will still be rejected because their faith is far more important to them than some scientific theory.

    To paraphrase Kiekegaard, philosophy is pointless if does not help man deal with the human predicament. As a derivative of philosophy this is quite applicable to science as well, especially something as theoretical as evolution. The purpose of the theory of evolution is explanatory only and compared to the role of faith in the life of a Christian, the theory of evolution is nothing more than idle speculation. Why then should the Christian take it seriously?

    It is sad, however, that Christians confuse science with rhetoric, and have created this pseudoscience in opposition to the theory of evolution. But I find it hard to blame them. When so many atheists and opponents of Christianty have already indulged in the same confusion of science with rhetoric in order to wield science and evolution as a weapon against them.

    After all, battlegrounds are predominantly populated with fools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I What utter bilge. You fail completely to understand that all theories are in a permanent state of flux, and were we to take your position on this we should never accept anything established by science, ever.
    The reality of evolution by common descent is proven. The precise application and relative importance of the various mechansims is the only thing that is disputed.
    Yes, bildge indeed. But that is the predicatable result of this chaotic confusion of science, religion and philosophy submerged in a sea of rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Either way, it is not fair to expect people to believe it is a fact of life, and those that do not accept it (at present) should not be classed as not trying hard enough, or morons and the like. Wouldn't you agree?
    Apparently I wouldn't agree, for the reasons expounded above.
    I would agree with jan, but not for the same reasons of course. Christians opposed to evolution should acknowledge that they stand on faith. There is no shame in this. Science also stands on faith. It is a different faith. It includes, for example, a faith that the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I would agree with jan, but not for the same reasons of course. Christians opposed to evolution should acknowledge that they stand on faith. There is no shame in this. Science also stands on faith. It is a different faith. It includes, for example, a faith that the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality.
    It seems to me that you have an odd definition of the word faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is nothing wrong with using faith as a guide to one's model of the world. However, scientists do not use faith, as they are able to challenge their beliefs and alter them on occasion based on logic and evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    This is a critically important point you make Hermes. The faith of the scientist is a temporary faith, intended to carry them through the experimental phase of their work, until their hypothesis can be validated or abandoned. It is more of an expectation that their conjecture will be shown to be correct (or they would not invest effort in investigating it). Unlike religious faith there is no major crisis if the faith is shown to be unfounded, for in science a negative result is still a result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    It seems to me that you have an odd definition of the word faith.
    Not at all. That the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality is something which the scientist believes without logical proof or material evidence. It is a basic axiom upon which he operates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    According to dictionary.com, faith is: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is nothing wrong with using faith as a guide to one's model of the world. However, scientists do not use faith, as they are able to challenge their beliefs and alter them on occasion based on logic and evidence.
    But no belief rests entirely on logical proof or material evidence. That is precisely the point. Logical proofs start with axioms and material evidence is interpreted through a filter of presuppositions. Faith is an essential part of the act of knowing. Every time you say to know something you are putting your faith in it. Sure you have your reasons including your proofs and your material evidence, as do we all. But absolute proof is a pipe dream and certainty (without faith) is an illusion.

    So of course scientists use faith. In fact you could say the scientist uses faith more consciously and systematically than do the religious. Not all faith is blind faith. But even blind faith is endemic to all human beings. The use of faith is so automatic that a lot of scientific advance comes when scientists uncover the limitations of those things which they have put faith in for so long. Challenging the faith that the position and momentum of a particle could be measured simultaneously to any degree of precision is part the break through that led to quantum physics. Challenging the faith which scientists had in the practice of making linear approximations to non-linear equations led to chaos science. Both of these new science involve a considerable amount of dismissing beliefs which scientists were taking for granted without any real proof (and often without much critical thinking about it either).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This is a critically important point you make Hermes. The faith of the scientist is a temporary faith, intended to carry them through the experimental phase of their work, until their hypothesis can be validated or abandoned. It is more of an expectation that their conjecture will be shown to be correct (or they would not invest effort in investigating it). Unlike religious faith there is no major crisis if the faith is shown to be unfounded, for in science a negative result is still a result.
    Your lines are arbitrary. The temporary faith in hypothesis or theory is not the only faith that a scientist relies on and religious faith is not as permanent as you make it out to be either. Religious faith is naturally a much longer term affair because its propositions are much harder to test. However, people do change their religious faiths when they find them unworkable and death is often the final test of the religious hypothesis. I am not saying that religion and science are in any way equivalent, far from it. But the use of faith is not the difference.

    The biggest difference is frankly that in religion the final arbiter is authority rather than evidence. Scientific truths must be prepared for independent verification. This verification is even part of the proceedure for scientifc advance. Verifying or repeating the result of another scientist is part of understanding his result and is an important way of looking for areas of new research. But religion seems largely based on some revered authority whether human or written text. Certainly the faith that is placed in this revered authority does seem rather blind and unconditional compared to the use of faith in science.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Ophiolite,

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Maybe those people do not distinguish the difference between "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", as most evolutionists insist there is no difference between them.
    Doubtless this is true of some of them, but for many evolution, certainly macro-evolution, is simply non-existent.
    That is a different situation altogether.

    Perhaps you could offer specific examples of where one has done so. I shall then join in roundly condemning such unscientific behaviour.
    Some do blur the lines for the purposes of argument. I do not have any to show right now, but when I come across it, I will post it.

    My positiion is that if you are not convinced by it then your understanding of it is incomplete. This can be due to one of two things: lack of intellect; lack of effort to understand.
    My position is; I am not convinced by it, because I see nothing which convinces me (wholeheartedly) of it, maybe it is there and I just can't see it, but I don't see what intellect and understanding over and above average, has to do with it. I understand other aspects of science including evolution, without increased effort, why not this one.


    I have presumed you have the necessary intellect, therefore your lack of acceptance must be due to lack of effort. :wink: (Could try harder.)
    Or maybe the "evidence" are powerful explanations by brilliant minds, expected to be accepted because it sounds so brilliant?

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The only way TOE could be classed as a scientific fact, IMO, is direct observation of one species changing into another, because that is its claim. .
    You are setting standards on validation of the theory of evoution that are higher than those set on the other sciences and theories. The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that this single observation is unecessary.
    Well the claim is higher than any other claim made by other sciences and theories IMO.

    However, do I take it from this, that if I can provide you with well documented information on one species changing into another you will become a scientific believer in evolution?
    I could easily accept it as a scientific fact, but is it actually a fact? This is the only thing that interest me regarding TOE. Is it true or not?
    If it is actually a fact, but we can never actually see it in action, then I don't see how it affects me, here and now. I don't see the point of these heated debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    All technical explanations can be argued either way, .
    Not if they are argued from a scientific stance.
    How so?
    Scientists can professionally disagree can't they?

    The theory is quite solid, the details remain to be worked out, the periphery of the structure will undergo refurbishment, the foundation will remain firm.
    And untill then there is no reason to accept it as a fact, unless;
    I could get quite emotional at this point. What utter bilge. [/quote]

    I think you have misunderstood my point.

    You fail completely to understand that all theories are in a permanent state of flux, and were we to take your position on this we should never accept anything established by science, ever.
    That's not what I'm saying, you are taking it to its extreme.

    The reality of evolution by common descent is proven.
    Here is a good oppotunity to show what you mean by "proven".

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,


    The evidence for this theory is just as overwhelming (as for evolution)

    How can it be as overwhelming?
    We have present examples of evolution, it there for everyone to see.


    …but people would rather put their faith in Star Trek which is more fun and easier to understand.

    That’s just plain silly (as far as this discussion is concerned). :-D

    But, of course we know, that I have reason to feel some sympathy for the opponents of evolution because I share their faith if not their judgement in regards to the theory of evolution.

    Let’s get something straight. I am not “an opponent” TOE.

    The reason in question is neither lack of intellect nor lack of effort but prejudgement. No matter what the evidence or how convincingly it is explained it will still be rejected because their faith is far more important to them than some scientific theory.

    Convincing arguments shouldn’t be the only reason one accepts something, unless one wishes to be conned.
    Secondly, there are people who profess to have faith but still believe in this theory.

    The purpose of the theory of evolution is explanatory only and compared to the role of faith in the life of a Christian, the theory of evolution is nothing more than idle speculation. Why then should the Christian take it seriously?

    This statement is “idle speculation”, the TOE attempts to explain how we came to be.
    A “person” should take it seriously based on its point. There are those who will never accept it, just as there are those who will never accept God as an explanation, but we are not concerned with those.

    A personal question;

    How do you think everything started?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman weirdesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27
    I could easily accept it as a scientific fact, but is it actually a fact? This is the only thing that interest me regarding TOE. Is it true or not?
    If it is actually a fact, but we can never actually see it in action, then I don't see how it affects me, here and now.
    If I am not mistaken, didn't Darwin show evolution by looking at the species on an island in the pacific. But that isn't my main point, since peniccillin was devoloped it has been reached for as a universal antibiotic. Eventually bacteria got resistant to it and evolved so it wouldn't affect them anymore. That I'm quite sure must have affected some of the people you know, so yes it can happen in your lifetime.
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
    It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
    The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
    Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
    The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by weirdesky
    I could easily accept it as a scientific fact, but is it actually a fact? This is the only thing that interest me regarding TOE. Is it true or not?
    If it is actually a fact, but we can never actually see it in action, then I don't see how it affects me, here and now.
    If I am not mistaken, didn't Darwin show evolution by looking at the species on an island in the pacific. But that isn't my main point, since peniccillin was devoloped it has been reached for as a universal antibiotic. Eventually bacteria got resistant to it and evolved so it wouldn't affect them anymore. That I'm quite sure must have affected some of the people you know, so yes it can happen in your lifetime.
    I understand that to be evolution.
    The bacteria didn't evolve into something else, did it?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    mitchellmckain,
    The evidence for this theory is just as overwhelming (as for evolution)

    How can it be as overwhelming?
    We have present examples of evolution, it there for everyone to see.
    Same for special relativity and general relativity for that matter. List: Michelson-Morley experiment, the decay of muons, pions and kaons, redshift of light, time dilation effect on clocks in a rocket, electron-electron scattering, relative velocity measurements of high energy particles, fringe shifts from the rotation of a ring interferometer, anomalous magnetic moment of electrons and muons, the relativity chip in GPS satelites. These are just the direct tests of relativity. More convincing is the simple fact that all modern scientific theory relies on it and therefore all of scientific advance in the last 80 years supports and confirms the undeniable truth of the theory of relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    …but people would rather put their faith in Star Trek which is more fun and easier to understand.

    That’s just plain silly (as far as this discussion is concerned). :-D
    What do you mean by that? Is it silly that people put their faith in Star Trek rather than relativity? Yes. Crazy but it true. I have talked to such people numerous times.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The purpose of the theory of evolution is explanatory only and compared to the role of faith in the life of a Christian, the theory of evolution is nothing more than idle speculation. Why then should the Christian take it seriously?

    This statement is “idle speculation”, the TOE attempts to explain how we came to be.
    A “person” should take it seriously based on its point. There are those who will never accept it, just as there are those who will never accept God as an explanation, but we are not concerned with those.
    If you mean how the human species came to be then yes the TOE does explain a lot. The Christian knows that God created us but not how. That God created us is more important to the Christian than how He created us. God is not an explanation, but a black box into which you can put all your unanswered question into for safe keeping. God's role in the life of a Christian is not explanation at all but something quite different.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    A personal question;

    How do you think everything started?

    Jan.
    I believe that God, infinitely perfect in every way had no need for anything so His only motivation was to give of Himself. So God created the perfect object to which He could give: an object with infinite potentiality which could receive in fullness of His infinite actuality over a period of eternity.

    God designed the universe with one purpose, to make life possible. Life has the capacity (potential) to become more than it is. It can learn and become what it is not. Living things have the power of creativity and choice. But without guidance and care living things will most likely get stuck in a dead end and fall prey to ill chance and the challenges of a constantly changing environment. So God plays the role of the careful gardner to raise up life from its tiny and fragile beginnings to realize its greater potentialities. God played the role of shepherd to breed diversity and encourage those with promise. God played the role of teacher to two humans to plant within them ideas like the seeds of all the possibilites of mind and spirit.

    And after Adam and Eve turned these gifts of mind and spirit to twisted ends shutting God from their minds, God has continued to play the role of cultivator, shepherd and teacher to mankind to raise him up to greater spiritual awareness. Finally He came to earth in the form of man to reopen the door which Adam and Eve had closed so that once again He can live in our minds to give us new gifts and help us realize our greatest potentialities.

    The atheist cannot see the hand of God in the creation of life for the same reason he cannot see the hand of God in the lives of Christians. Evolution is like the sped up film of a growing plant with all the actions of the humans caretakers between frames or edited out. Sure living things live and grow by themselves. Sure living things creatively learn to find new ways to live their life, but that doesn't mean that there is no one there from whom they are learning.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The bacteria didn't evolve into something else, did it?
    .
    Yes it did. It evolved into a different kind of bacteria. That is evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    mitchellmckain,
    The evidence for this theory is just as overwhelming (as for evolution)

    How can it be as overwhelming?
    We have present examples of evolution, it there for everyone to see.
    Same for special relativity and general relativity for that matter. List: Michelson-Morley experiment, the decay of muons, pions and kaons, redshift of light, time dilation effect on clocks in a rocket, electron-electron scattering, relative velocity measurements of high energy particles, fringe shifts from the rotation of a ring interferometer, anomalous magnetic moment of electrons and muons, the relativity chip in GPS satelites. These are just the direct tests of relativity. More convincing is the simple fact that all modern scientific theory relies on it and therefore all of scientific advance in the last 80 years supports and confirms the undeniable truth of the theory of relativity.
    I don't get your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    …but people would rather put their faith in Star Trek which is more fun and easier to understand.

    That’s just plain silly (as far as this discussion is concerned). :-D
    What do you mean by that? Is it silly that people put their faith in Star Trek rather than relativity? Yes. Crazy but it true. I have talked to such people numerous times.
    What does that have to do with this discussion?

    The Christian knows that God created us but not how.
    Why? There's a small, but adequate understanding of creation in genesis.
    In short the spiritual mixes with the material which becomes animated, and everything is occuring by the will of God.

    That God created us is more important to the Christian than how He created us.
    TOE, is more important to the naturalist than the original cause of our existence.
    Nobody knows how we came to be, including scientists and evolutionists, and it doesn't seem as though we will ever know (for sure), as noone was present at that point in time.

    God is not an explanation, but a black box into which you can put all your unanswered question into for safe keeping.
    Said like a true atheist.

    God's role in the life of a Christian is not explanation at all but something quite different.
    You seem to think that God and christianity have some kind of cosy arrangement or agreement. Or that they are necessarily compatible, and you cannot have one without the other.
    If we are going to talk about God, then lets not talk about religion, let's look at all the bona-fide scriptures so that we can understand who and what God is, in relation to us and this cosmic manifestation. The only part of christianity which bears complete relation to God, is Jesus, so his teachings and understandings are totally relevant. Everything else is superfluous.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    A personal question;

    How do you think everything started?

    Jan.
    I believe that God, infinitely perfect in every way had no need for anything so His only motivation was to give of Himself. So God created the perfect object to which He could give: an object with infinite potentiality which could receive in fullness of His infinite actuality over a period of eternity.
    Where did you get this idea?

    God designed the universe with one purpose, to make life possible. Life has the capacity (potential) to become more than it is. It can learn and become what it is not.
    That doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can simplify it.

    Evolution is like the sped up film of a growing plant with all the actions of the humans caretakers between frames or edited out.


    Sure living things live and grow by themselves. Sure living things creatively learn to find new ways to live their life, but that doesn't mean that there is no one there from whom they are learning.
    I'm not sure how TOE, plays a role within your idea.
    If you are a christian, then you must believe that God is the original cause of everything. The TOE, says that all life started naturally, from simple cellular lifeform, and from there we get all the diversity of life we see today.
    In all scriptures (including bible) it states that God created via His will, all the lifeforms we see today. So how can you believe TOE is a fact, and be a christian at the same time, as they contradict each other.

    jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The Christian knows that God created us but not how.
    Why? There's a small, but adequate understanding of creation in genesis.
    In short the spiritual mixes with the material which becomes animated, and everything is occuring by the will of God.
    Is it really that simple? Sounds like a child could do it. Or maybe this is just a childs understanding of it. So you think Genesis is a "How to manual" a "creation for dummies" book so we can do it too?

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    God is not an explanation, but a black box into which you can put all your unanswered question into for safe keeping.
    Said like a true atheist.
    No, said it like a born again Christian with two masters degrees (one in physics and one in ministry) who knows that being Christian is about the eternal life found in a personal relationship with Christ and not about knowing everyting about God, the universe and ourselves. Salvation does not come from knowledge but by the grace of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You seem to think that God and christianity have some kind of cosy arrangement or agreement. Or that they are necessarily compatible, and you cannot have one without the other.
    If we are going to talk about God, then lets not talk about religion, let's look at all the bona-fide scriptures so that we can understand who and what God is, in relation to us and this cosmic manifestation. The only part of christianity which bears complete relation to God, is Jesus, so his teachings and understandings are totally relevant. Everything else is superfluous.
    Now it is me who cannot quite grasp what you are saying, unless you are just saying "it all about Jesus". To which I would only say, "Amen".

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    How do you think everything started?
    I believe that God, infinitely perfect in every way had no need for anything so His only motivation was to give of Himself. So God created the perfect object to which He could give: an object with infinite potentiality which could receive in fullness of His infinite actuality over a period of eternity.
    Where did you get this idea?
    Long story. But I do think about things and speak my mind rather than simply quote scripture. Sorry if that bothers you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    God designed the universe with one purpose, to make life possible. Life has the capacity (potential) to become more than it is. It can learn and become what it is not.
    That doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can simplify it.
    Why are we made of tiny particles following the mathematical laws of physics? If God created us then why are we made of such things? What have these particles and mathematical laws to do with us? It is all an essential part of the process which is life and the nature of living things. Living things have the innate capacity for creativity and learning. It is part of what it means to be alive. Living things grow and as they grow, they make choices and learn to live in new and different ways. Living things learn not just as individuals but also as communities and even as species. Evolution really is just a reflection of the species ability to learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Evolution is like the sped up film of a growing plant with all the actions of the humans caretakers between frames or edited out.
    Having the capacity to learn, living things are not isolated and autonomous but open to the influences of everything. A student does the learning but that does not mean that there is no teacher. The tomatoes in the grocery store come from plants which grow by themselves and yet they do so only because the farmer plants them and provides for them. That is how all living things are created. They are not designed but cultivated, pruned, chosen, raised, nurtured, bred, and taught. Only dead things like watches and rugs are designed and manufactured.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Sure living things live and grow by themselves. Sure living things creatively learn to find new ways to live their life, but that doesn't mean that there is no one there from whom they are learning.
    I'm not sure how TOE, plays a role within your idea.
    The atheist looks at the Christian and sees only people following the behavior patterns impressed upon them by their family or community. The atheist cannot see the relationship they have with Christ who transforms them from within. That relationship is not something the atheist can see, touch or measure. Likewise the atheist looks at the development of life on this planet and sees only the forces of nature and organic chemistry. The atheist cannot see the hand of God in the development of life, who has cultivated plants, bred the species and been the shepherd and teacher of all the living things on this planet from the beginning. The theory of evolution is just what you see happening when you cannot see this vital role of the Creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    If you are a christian, then you must believe that God is the original cause of everything. The TOE, says that all life started naturally, from simple cellular lifeform, and from there we get all the diversity of life we see today.
    God is the creator of time and space, energy and matter. He is the creator of life and the universe. He is not the God of the Deist who set the universe in motion like a great clockwork machine. He is the God of the born again Christian who actively particpates in the lives of His creatures as cultivator, shepherd and teacher. TOE only sees the effect and not the cause. TOE only sees the living things growing and changing and diversifying and not the God whose care, will and knowledge provides the direction and key to success. But this is only natural and expected because after all, TOE is just a scientific theory and scientific theories are only based an what can be seen, touched or measured.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    In all scriptures (including bible) it states that God created via His will, all the lifeforms we see today. So how can you believe TOE is a fact, and be a christian at the same time, as they contradict each other.
    If God created us by design via his will and power alone then we would be made of his will and power (like His thoughts or imaginations) and we would be precisely what he intended and no more and no less. What we are and what we do would be a result of His will alone and our desire would be irrelevant. In such a case, the responsibility for what we are and what we do would be His alone. Our failures would be according to the script which He gave us and all God's work of salvation and judgement would be nothing more than a play which He conducts for His own amusement or gratification.

    This is not the God which I believe in. We are not made of His will and power alone but particles acting according to mathematical laws to give us an independent basis of existence. And yet he put limits on how much these mathematical laws control of things, allowing spirit also to play a role in determining the course of events. This allowed Him to be active participant in the events which formed the universe we see around us, without even violating the laws of physics. It allowed him to encourage a process of interaction between matter and spirit which is called life, whereby living things could make choices of their own. And yet as a participant God could still lead these living things in a productive direction towards greater complexity and capability. It is like raising a child, for child starts as the tiniest seed invisible to eye and capable of nothing, but growing day by day to learn more and more, slowly becoming more and more like us.

    I think there is a rather broad consensus in today's Christianity about what it means to be Christian, derived most clearly from the writings of Paul in the New Testament and the eccumenical councils like Nicea. This includes most of the major denominations of Christianity, like Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, etc. etc.... Within this consensus is still a great diversity of belief about what are considered the non-essentials, including the where, how and when of Baptism, and including beliefs about the end times and evolution. Of course you could have a more exclusive definition Christianity like the Jehova Witnesses who think that they own all the rights to God and that everyone else is of the devil. In which case I may not fit your definition of the word "Christian" and I wouldn't want to either.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitch,

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Why? There's a small, but adequate understanding of creation in genesis.
    In short the spiritual mixes with the material which becomes animated, and everything is occurring by the will of God.
    Is it really that simple? Sounds like a child could do it.
    For God, yes, I believe it is that simple. Why wouldn't it be?
    As for a child doing it, it is not possible.
    God…..child…two different types of capabilities.

    Or maybe this is just a child’s understanding of it.
    That is a nice compliment, thanks.

    So you think Genesis is a "How to manual" a "creation for dummies" book so we can do it too?
    No I don’t.
    I think genesis basically explains the process of creation.
    It simply explains the relationship between spirit and matter.

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    God is not an explanation, but a black box into which you can put all your unanswered question into for safe keeping.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    Said like a true atheist.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    No, said it like a born again Christian with two masters degrees (one in physics and one in ministry) who knows that being Christian is about the eternal life found in a personal relationship with Christ and not about knowing everyting about God, the universe and ourselves. Salvation does not come from knowledge but by the grace of God.
    I believe that eternal life can be found in such a relationship, and one needs not know everything (if it were possible) about God, the universe or ourselves. So there is no need to flex your academic qualifications, you only need flex your understanding of such a relationship.
    I used the term “atheist” in what I believe is its real term, denial of God, period.
    You imply God could not create this phenomenal world by His will. You are denying what is written in the scriptures are you not?
    Did Jesus contradict genesis?
    Did he teach that we all evolved from simple creatures, that God did not bring forth the animals and man by His command, and God did not create Adam from mud?

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You seem to think that God and christianity have some kind of cosy arrangement or agreement. Or that they are necessarily compatible, and you cannot have one without the other.
    If we are going to talk about God, then lets not talk about religion, let's look at all the bona-fide scriptures so that we can understand who and what God is, in relation to us and this cosmic manifestation. The only part of christianity which bears complete relation to God, is Jesus, so his teachings and understandings are totally relevant. Everything else is superfluous.
    [/quote=mitch]Now it is me who cannot quite grasp what you are saying, unless you are just saying "it all about Jesus". To which I would only say, "Amen".
    I’m saying it’s all about God, and I’m sure Jesus would agree, because his whole life/being was dedicated to God, that is his legacy. The fact that he was totally dedicated to God, is the reason why God can be understood and revealed though him. So to have a “personal relationship” with him can only be complete when one surrenders unconditionally, by choice, to him. For this personal relationship to work, you must have faith in his whole being, from the moment of surrender, otherwise it cannot work, and this marks the beginning of self-understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    I believe that God, infinitely perfect in every way had no need for anything so His only motivation was to give of Himself. So God created the perfect object to which He could give: an object with infinite potentiality which could receive in fullness of His infinite actuality over a period of eternity.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    Where did you get this idea?
    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    Long story. But I do think about things and speak my mind rather than simply quote scripture. Sorry if that bothers you.
    No. It doesn’t bother me. I’m pretty much the same.
    I just wanted to analyse what you said, and wanted to know how you came to believe this to be true.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitch,

    [quote][quote=mitch]God designed the universe with one purpose, to make life possible. Life has the capacity (potential) to become more than it is. It can learn and become what it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    That doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can simplify it.
    Why are we made of tiny particles following the mathematical laws of physics? If God created us then why are we made of such things? What have these particles and mathematical laws to do with us? It is all an essential part of the process which is life and the nature of living things. Living things have the innate capacity for creativity and learning. It is part of what it means to be alive. Living things grow and as they grow, they make choices and learn to live in new and different ways. Living things learn not just as individuals but also as communities and even as species......
    I had hoped you would explain the "It can learn and become what it is not" statement.

    ]Evolution is like the sped up film of a growing plant with all the actions of the humans caretakers between frames or edited out.

    Having the capacity to learn, living things are not isolated and autonomous but open to the influences of everything. A student does the learning but that does not mean that there is no teacher. The tomatoes in the grocery store come from plants which grow by themselves and yet they do so only because the farmer plants them and provides for them. That is how all living things are created. They are not designed but cultivated, pruned, chosen, raised, nurtured, bred, and taught. Only dead things like watches and rugs are designed and manufactured.
    I am still non the wiser to your original point.

    Only dead things like watches and rugs are designed and manufactured.
    Don't forget dead bodies. :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    Sure living things live and grow by themselves. Sure living things creatively learn to find new ways to live their life, but that doesn't mean that there is no one there from whom they are learning.
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    I'm not sure how TOE, plays a role within your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    The atheist looks at the Christian and sees only people following the behavior patterns impressed upon them by their family or community. The atheist cannot see the relationship they have with Christ who transforms them from within. That relationship is not something the atheist can see, touch or measure.
    Maybe what the atheist sees doesn't amount to much in his estimation, and therefore concludes that it is a waste of time (for whatever reason).
    If you have been transformed from within, there should be some evidence of this transformation i.e. the way you live your life.
    The atheist most probably has seen that, and decided that he does not want to live life in this way.

    The atheist cannot see the hand of God in the development of life, who has cultivated plants, bred the species and been the shepherd and teacher of all the living things on this planet from the beginning.
    I think it is a little judgemental of you to assume what the (non-fanatic) atheist can and cannot see. The atheist could simply deny what he sees, for whatever reason. You yourself are in denial regarding Gods ability to create as explained in genesis. Why? Because you have chosen to. How are you any different, in that regard, to the atheist?

    The theory of evolution is just what you see happening when you cannot see this vital role of the Creator.
    So you are saying that the theory of evolution is atheistic by nature?
    That's interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    If you are a christian, then you must believe that God is the original cause of everything. The TOE, says that all life started naturally, from simple cellular lifeform, and from there we get all the diversity of life we see today.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitch
    God is the creator of time and space, energy and matter. He is the creator of life and the universe. He is not the God of the Deist who set the universe in motion like a great clockwork machine. He is the God of the born again Christian who actively particpates in the lives of His creatures as cultivator, shepherd and teacher. TOE only sees the effect and not the cause. TOE only sees the living things growing and changing and diversifying and not the God whose care, will and knowledge provides the direction and key to success. But this is only natural and expected because after all, TOE is just a scientific theory and scientific theories are only based an what can be seen, touched or measured.
    The God of the born-again Christian, is the God who Jesus devoted his life to. Is it not?
    It is claimed that he created man/woman and beast etc.. Is it not?
    So where does TOE fit into all of this?
    Why would God appear to bring forth beasts, birds, insects etc, simultaneosly (from His perspective), and not give any hint whatsoever, of TOE?

    If God created us by design via his will and power alone then we would be made of his will and power (like His thoughts or imaginations) and we would be precisely what he intended and no more and no less.
    If you read genesis it says that God made man out of the dust, then breathed life into him. From that you can understand who and what we are. We are part and parcel of God, in essence, and we are contained within the vessel known as the body (material). That is the relationship which produces life.
    The part of us which is of God, has to be exactly the same as God, in quality, but as soon as we asociate with matter (body), we start to forget our real position due to material urges.

    What we are and what we do would be a result of His will alone and our desire would be irrelevant. In such a case, the responsibility for what we are and what we do would be His alone.
    If that is what we wanted, yes, but that is a very high position, in terms of purity of mind and body.

    Our failures would be according to the script which He gave us and all God's work of salvation and judgement would be nothing more than a play which He conducts for His own amusement or gratification.
    No, we have a choice, we can take our chance in the material ocean, enjoying and suffering, or we can try to remember our original position by not being a slave to the material senses. The basis of religion, is to come to that point of understanding.

    We are not made of His will and power alone but particles acting according to mathematical laws to give us an independent basis of existence.
    I agree.

    I think there is a rather broad consensus in today's Christianity about what it means to be Christian, derived most clearly from the writings of Paul in the New Testament and the eccumenical councils like Nicea. This includes most of the major denominations of Christianity, like Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, etc. etc.... Within this consensus is still a great diversity of belief about what are considered the non-essentials, including the where, how and when of Baptism, and including beliefs about the end times and evolution. Of course you could have a more exclusive definition Christianity like the Jehova Witnesses who think that they own all the rights to God and that everyone else is of the devil. In which case I may not fit your definition of the word "Christian" and I wouldn't want to either.
    Does seem a bit hodge-podge.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    That the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality is something which the scientist believes without logical proof or material evidence.
    I don't follow your reasoning. If there is no evidence, then why would anyone accept anything as representative of reality? Furthermore, your claim of what scientists believe is a gross generalization that cannot be correct, even if so in specific instances. What qualifies as "objective"? Your use of the word proof is not correct, as science is not based on, or dependent on, proof.

    no belief rests entirely on logical proof or material evidence. That is precisely the point. Logical proofs start with axioms and material evidence is interpreted through a filter of presuppositions.
    This is both true and an excellent point, one that should be hammered home repeatedly to all students of science. That being said, however, I do not understand how this supports your point. Science is not about proof, but about models of nature that must be open to challenge and refinement or change. Religion is not open to challenge or change, except on minor points of doctrine, which are open to minor challenges by certain individuals of authority only. Therefore, scientists are theoretically able, although typically not so in practice, to recognize and challenge their presuppositions, their axioms, whereas followers of religion are not. That is a very significant difference, is it not?

    Faith is an essential part of the act of knowing. Every time you say to know something you are putting your faith in it. Sure you have your reasons including your proofs and your material evidence, as do we all. But absolute proof is a pipe dream and certainty (without faith) is an illusion.
    Yes. However, science is not about knowing the truth, only searching for it. It is religion that claims to know the truth.

    So of course scientists use faith.
    If you define faith in a way that I do not. Yes, there is faith by science that their axioms are more meaningful than they perhaps should. Yes, that is human nature. However, in science the axioms are theoretically subject to challenge, and the conclusions on the basis of them are subject to challenge. In religion, such challenge is considered heresy, and is discouraged.

    Challenging the faith that the position and momentum of a particle could be measured simultaneously to any degree of precision is part the break through that led to quantum physics. Challenging the faith which scientists had in the practice of making linear approximations to non-linear equations led to chaos science.
    I do not consider this a valid usage of the word faith, because when you use the same word in a religious context your meaning cannot be the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    That the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality is something which the scientist believes without logical proof or material evidence.
    I don't follow your reasoning. If there is no evidence, then why would anyone accept anything as representative of reality? Furthermore, your claim of what scientists believe is a gross generalization that cannot be correct, even if so in specific instances. What qualifies as "objective"? Your use of the word proof is not correct, as science is not based on, or dependent on, proof.
    The Buddhists believe that all of this world is an illusion. Therefore they do not accept this belief that "the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality". As an illusion the theories constructed to explain what is observed need not be consistent nor meaningful in any way. What the Buddhist rejects on faith the scientist accepts on faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    no belief rests entirely on logical proof or material evidence. That is precisely the point. Logical proofs start with axioms and material evidence is interpreted through a filter of presuppositions.
    Science is not about proof, but about models of nature that must be open to challenge and refinement or change. Religion is not open to challenge or change, except on minor points of doctrine, which are open to minor challenges by certain individuals of authority only. Therefore, scientists are theoretically able, although typically not so in practice, to recognize and challenge their presuppositions, their axioms, whereas followers of religion are not. That is a very significant difference, is it not?
    Perhaps you should have read my whole post. Then perhaps you would not be wasting your time. Here let me make it easy for you and quote myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I am not saying that religion and science are in any way equivalent, far from it. But the use of faith is not the difference. The biggest difference is frankly that in religion the final arbiter is authority rather than evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Faith is an essential part of the act of knowing. Every time you say to know something you are putting your faith in it. Sure you have your reasons including your proofs and your material evidence, as do we all. But absolute proof is a pipe dream and certainty (without faith) is an illusion.
    Yes. However, science is not about knowing the truth, only searching for it. It is religion that claims to know the truth.
    Now that is the biggest bunch of malarky and fullest load of BS rhetoric I have ever heard. Think about what your are saying. "Biologist do not claim that there is any truth to the theory of evolution, they only think that the theory of evolution is a sign post on the road to their search for the truth." Well this would have to be true if in fact the biologist was indeed completely without the use of faith. But I think you are bending over backwards in your attempt to deny the scientists use of faith. As a physicist I know that all physicist do in fact claim that the special theory of relativity is TRUTH, they put their faith in it absolutely. Now it is true they have a great deal of evidence to support the theory but that evidence is not an absolute proof, therefore their claim to knowledge is partly an act of faith. Therefore, although I am not a biologist, I have every confidence that over 99% of all biologists claim that the theory of evolution is TRUTH, putting their faith in it absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    So of course scientists use faith.
    If you define faith in a way that I do not. Yes, there is faith by science that their axioms are more meaningful than they perhaps should. Yes, that is human nature. However, in science the axioms are theoretically subject to challenge, and the conclusions on the basis of them are subject to challenge. In religion, such challenge is considered heresy, and is discouraged.
    Let me remind you of what you said faith was again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    According to dictionary.com, faith is: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
    Yep we are talking about the same thing. Definition is the same. Unless in fact your definition is really a slightly different one: "belief that contradicts all logical proof and material evidence". But religion does not use this kind of faith either, for if it did there would be no theology or apology. Well what about this definition: "belief that contradicts some logical proof and material evidence". Unfortunately this cannot distinguish between the use of faith in science and religion either because both follow the majority of the evidence and seek to explain the exceptions. Part of your confusion I think is in the insistence on seeing religion as a competetor of science. This is no doubt encouraged by certain religious people who also see (at least parts of) science as a competetor to religion. For example on the issue of the origin of the species, it certainly looks like biology follows the evidence while religionous opposition contradicts the evidence. If the second is to be called faith, then I can quite understand your reluctance to attribute anything like this to scientists. But I am just as unwilling to attrubute anything like this to my practice of religion.

    Again you have to remember that I am not saying there is no difference between science and religion. The methodology is different, and the biggest difference in methodology is the role of revered authority. But another important difference is not methodology, but subject matter and the type of evidence which they consider. Science studies the natural world. Physics studies the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. Biology studies the structure of, processes in and behavior of living organisms. Naturally, therefore, physics relies on the evidence of measured quantities and biology relies on the evidence of the observation of living organsims (and their remains).

    Religion is not about the natural world but about an invisible supernatural reality that is believed to be ultimate cause of everything but more importantly plays a critical role in the effectiveness and well being of human beings. Observations of the natural world provide only indirect evidence of this belief that an invisible supernatural reality (God) is the ultimate cause. Obviously there must be connections. Science as the direct study of the natural world could inform the claims of the religious. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like jan who rely on revered authorities to the exclusion of all observation. People like jan is in fact another example of how some people do not accept this basic faith of the scientists that "the objective appraisal of the evidence reveals an accurate reflection of reality". They seem to think the fossil record represents some kind of fantastic illusion devised to deceive us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    However, in science the axioms are theoretically subject to challenge, and the conclusions on the basis of them are subject to challenge. In religion, such challenge is considered heresy, and is discouraged.
    Beliefs in religion are also subject to change. Some of the religious even inform their beliefs with the discoveries of sciences. The attitude toward revered authorities like the Bible or church organization change as the circumstances of life change. The protestant revolution brought about a major adjustment in the attitude towards the authority of the church organization leading to a much greater reliance on the authority of the Bible. There is even a kind of evolutionary process operative in religion with the increase of diversity and the extinction of religious communities which prove to have no viability or become unviable as the circumstances of human life changes. It is true these changes are very slow and inflexible compared to the sciences. It is also true that there is a greater resistance to change. In a free society, religions are more likely to split and diversify as a result of the challenges you speak of.

    But science is not so different as you imagine. There is a scientific orthodoxy and those who challenge it are ridiculed. We use the word "pseudoscience" rather than "heresy", if we pay any attention to them at all. It is true that the acid test of independent verification provides a much more flexible standard of consensus than the Christian acid test of agreement with scripture and Nicean creed. The Christian acid test does provides for consensus but does not allow challenges to fundamental beliefs to bring change and an advance of knowledge. Compared to science religious knowledge is in a state of stasis rather than advance, preserving rather than seeking.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    All information taken from dictionary.com

    be·lieve Audio pronunciation of "believe" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
    v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
    v. tr.

    1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
    2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
    3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.


    v. intr.

    1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
    2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
    3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
    4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


    ac·cept Audio pronunciation of "accept" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spt)
    v. ac·cept·ed, ac·cept·ing, ac·cepts
    v. tr.

    1. To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract.
    2. To admit to a group, organization, or place: accepted me as a new member of the club.
    3.
    1. To regard as proper, usual, or right: Such customs are widely accepted.
    2. To regard as true; believe in: Scientists have accepted the new theory.
    3. To understand as having a specific meaning.
    4. To endure resignedly or patiently: accept one's fate.
    5.
    1. To answer affirmatively: accept an invitation.
    2. To agree to take (a duty or responsibility).
    6. To be able to hold (something applied or inserted): This wood will not accept oil paints.
    7. To receive officially: accept the committee's report.
    8. To consent to pay, as by a signed agreement.
    9. Medicine. To receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without immunological rejection.


    v. intr.

    To receive something, especially with favor. Often used with of.

    sup·port Audio pronunciation of "support" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-pôrt, -prt)
    tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports

    1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
    2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
    3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw'd heart... too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
    4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
    5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
    6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
    7.
    1. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
    2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
    8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson).
    9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).


    n.

    1.
    1. The act of supporting.
    2. The state of being supported.
    2. One that supports.
    3. Maintenance, as of a family, with the necessities of life.


    re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
    n.

    1.
    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


    Idiom:
    get religion Informal

    1. To become religious or devout.
    2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.


    sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
    n.

    1.
    1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
    2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
    3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
    4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
    5. Science Christian Science.

    na·ture Audio pronunciation of "nature" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr)
    n.

    1. The material world and its phenomena.
    2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
    3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
    4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
    5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
    6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
    7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
    8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
    9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
    10. The processes and functions of the body.

    Make of it what you will.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Why are we made of tiny particles following the mathematical laws of physics? If God created us then why are we made of such things? What have these particles and mathematical laws to do with us? It is all an essential part of the process which is life and the nature of living things. Living things have the innate capacity for creativity and learning. It is part of what it means to be alive. Living things grow and as they grow, they make choices and learn to live in new and different ways. Living things learn not just as individuals but also as communities and even as species......
    I had hoped you would explain the "It can learn and become what it is not" statement.
    A child grows up and learns and in the process becomes what he wasn't before, a scientist, an actor, a fireman, etc... There was even the first child to become the very first fireman. These are usually gradually changes, after all you might call the very first person to throw water on a fire the first fireman. But the point is that we do become things that have never been before at least in some small detail, bringing something new into existence that has never been seen before. I am saying that this is charactersitic of all living things. All living things have the basic ability to learn and become at least in some small detail something that has never been seen before. It could be a horse with reddish spots or a dog that climbs trees or a man like Charles Darwin who sees a consistent pattern in the diversity of living things.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Having the capacity to learn, living things are not isolated and autonomous but open to the influences of everything. A student does the learning but that does not mean that there is no teacher. The tomatoes in the grocery store come from plants which grow by themselves and yet they do so only because the farmer plants them and provides for them. That is how all living things are created. They are not designed but cultivated, pruned, chosen, raised, nurtured, bred, and taught. Only dead things like watches and rugs are designed and manufactured.
    I am still non the wiser to your original point.
    But I am making 10 times the effort to explain than you are to understand. Count the words. I am being sincere in answering your questions. You could explain your difficulty or simply declare your honest lack of interest. Remember this did all start with your personal question: "How do you think everything started?"

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The atheist cannot see the hand of God in the development of life, who has cultivated plants, bred the species and been the shepherd and teacher of all the living things on this planet from the beginning.
    I think it is a little judgemental of you to assume what the (non-fanatic) atheist can and cannot see. The atheist could simply deny what he sees, for whatever reason. You yourself are in denial regarding Gods ability to create as explained in genesis. Why? Because you have chosen to. How are you any different, in that regard, to the atheist?
    Huh? I am being judgemental because I take the atheist at his word that he doesn't see the hand of God in the development of life. You think that you are being non-judgemental when do not take the atheist at his word but claim that he denying what he sees?

    I am only denying that Genesis is a "creation for dummies" book just as you have. Genesis does not need to supply all the details which are not relevant to the story. Otherwise where is the discussion of elementary particles and atoms? Genesis does not say that God created them, so do you think that particles and atoms already existed or what? How about gravity? Is this a force which is independent of God and not created by Him, if so where is it mentioned in Genesis? How about the other planets? It says He made two great lights to rule night and day and that He made the stars but no planets. What? Where did they come from? Is it just possible that the people of that time did not know about the planets and that this was a detail that was not important to the story? And what about all the galaxies which we now know fills the sky but are too far away to see with the naked eye. Compared to these galaxies the stars we can see are utterly insignificant. How could Genesis fail to mention them? Is it not obvious that the point of Genesis was not any kind of complete description of creation but only a description in terms of what the people of the time could see and understand?

    The point is, that if there are (enormous) details left out of Genesis, then what gives you the right to dictate to me what details were left out and what were not? Look I have great respect for the Bible it is your misuse of the Bible that I find objectionable. People will use this book to try to prove the most absurd and ridiculous things and it is only right and just to point out their error. Therefore let us consider the passage about God creating Adam out of dust? Does this mean that Adam was different than the rest of mankind? 55% to 60% of the adult human body is water. Only the most farfetched of interpretations will include 55% water as a part of "dust." Sure God could have used nucleosysthesis to transform the dust into water (as stupid as this may seem since there was plenty of water available), but regardless there is no mention of this in Genesis. If we are to take Genesis as literally as you seem to requre, Adam must have been a body of animated dust. Ah I see, so you want to let science inform you just so far as to interpret "dust" to mean matter but you will revile me for letting science inform me about the interpretation of "formed" to mean something which is far more consistent with the nature of living things than the method of a potter or sculptor.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The theory of evolution is just what you see happening when you cannot see this vital role of the Creator.
    So you are saying that the theory of evolution is atheistic by nature?
    That's interesting.
    No, atheism is the belief that God does not does not exist. The theory of evolution like all of science make no comment on the issue of the existence of God. It cannot, because the existence of a supernatural being that cannot be observed or measured is outside the definitions of its subject matter and the evidence upon what it judges things be true. So by its nature none of science can see the role of God. But many scientists recognize that the subject of science and the reach of its evidence is not all that exists. In fact Eddington called this idea absurd. But as absurd as this idea is, it is true that some people embrace it to support their adherence to atheism. But that is their foolishness.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The God of the born-again Christian, is the God who Jesus devoted his life to. Is it not?
    It is claimed that he created man/woman and beast etc.. Is it not?
    So where does TOE fit into all of this?
    Why would God appear to bring forth beasts, birds, insects etc, simultaneosly (from His perspective), and not give any hint whatsoever, of TOE?
    Well you must be talking about Genesis, because it is only in this story that he appears to be doing such things. Well it is perfectly obvious to me that God does not tells us a great many things. God seems to leave us to find out a great many things for ouselves. He does not tell us precisely how to govern ourselves (though he did suggest once that monarchy was not a very good method). He does not tell us exactly what to expect after death, for example. He let us discover for ouselves the size and content of universe with all of its nebulas, supernovae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, galaxies and quasars. He let us discover for ourselves the hundred and something different atomic elements, the elementary particles and the four basic forces that move them.

    The point of Genesis was quite simply that God created everything and is responsible for the existence of the sun, moon, stars, the earth, all the animals and plants, and especially the existence of man. The TOE may tell me someone like me that all the different species of plants and animals came into existence gradually over a very long period of time but Genesis informs me that God is responsible for it all. Genesis informs me that the process described by TOE is not automatic or accidental but proceeded according to the will, purpose, and active input from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    If you read genesis it says that God made man out of the dust, then breathed life into him. From that you can understand who and what we are. We are part and parcel of God, in essence, and we are contained within the vessel known as the body (material). That is the relationship which produces life.
    The part of us which is of God, has to be exactly the same as God, in quality, but as soon as we asociate with matter (body), we start to forget our real position due to material urges.
    Well all I can say is that you certainly read a lot into that passage and not all of this is orthodox Christianity. I have been wondering what your religious affiliation is for a long time. I have seen hints of new age before, hints of fundamentalism in other parts of this discussion, and this particular statement suggests hints of Quakerism, Mormonism and even Gnosticism. Of course with the size and diversity of ideas in the Catholic church, and the slight suggestion of contempt for the Christian consensus as "hodge podge", you could be a Catholic.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    What we are and what we do would be a result of His will alone and our desire would be irrelevant. In such a case, the responsibility for what we are and what we do would be His alone.
    If that is what we wanted, yes, but that is a very high position, in terms of purity of mind and body.
    If that is so high and good then how could God fail to achieve this? Is God irresponsible?

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Our failures would be according to the script which He gave us and all God's work of salvation and judgement would be nothing more than a play which He conducts for His own amusement or gratification.
    No, we have a choice, we can take our chance in the material ocean, enjoying and suffering, or we can try to remember our original position by not being a slave to the material senses. The basis of religion, is to come to that point of understanding.
    Yes we have a choice, but why? How in the world could an all powerful being, with everything in existence under his absolute control create something with choice? You seem to think that everything is trivial for God. You make me pity Him. Most people like challenges, and that is not sinful nature. A life where everything was trivial would destroy us. The better we are at doing things the more ambitious are the things we try to do. I don't think there was anything trivial for God about creating something with choice. I think that choice is the very nature of living things and I think the entire universe and all its physical laws were all designed with that one objective (the creation of life and choice) as the goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    We are not made of His will and power alone but particles acting according to mathematical laws to give us an independent basis of existence.
    I agree.
    But why would we need an independent basis of existence? For two reasons. First, because otherwise free will and choice are impossible. Second, because the whole purpose of God for creating anything was to be able to give. But giving requires both giver and someone else to give to. We can pretend at giving by giving something to one of our dolls. But real giving requires someone to give to who exists separate and independent of ourselves, but preferably someone who doesn't have all the things we want to give them. It is one of the reasons we have children, because we hope to give to them some of the things we have gained and learned in life ourselves.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    God is not an explanation, but a black box into which you can put all your unanswered question into for safe keeping.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Said like a true atheist.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    No, said it like a born again Christian with two masters degrees (one in physics and one in ministry) who knows that being Christian is about the eternal life found in a personal relationship with Christ and not about knowing everyting about God, the universe and ourselves. Salvation does not come from knowledge but by the grace of God.
    I believe that eternal life can be found in such a relationship, and one needs not know everything (if it were possible) about God, the universe or ourselves. So there is no need to flex your academic qualifications, you only need flex your understanding of such a relationship.
    Oh! Excuse me. I thought you were trying to understand me not just name calling. So I was explaining my academic background to help you understand me better. I never implied that my academic accomplishments gave me any authority about anything. You turned the conversation on me so I identified myself. I thought it might help explain why I don't have a simplistic view of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I used the term “atheist” in what I believe is its real term, denial of God, period.
    I do not deny God, but I do deny your right to identify yourself with God to the point where you accuse anyone who does not agree with your point of view as being an atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You imply God could not create this phenomenal world by His will. You are denying what is written in the scriptures are you not?
    No, I am not contradicting Genesis only your particular interpretation of it which interprets "dust"="matter" but "formed"="instantaneous magical transformation".

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I’m saying it’s all about God, and I’m sure Jesus would agree, because his whole life/being was dedicated to God, that is his legacy. The fact that he was totally dedicated to God, is the reason why God can be understood and revealed though him. So to have a “personal relationship” with him can only be complete when one surrenders unconditionally, by choice, to him. For this personal relationship to work, you must have faith in his whole being, from the moment of surrender, otherwise it cannot work, and this marks the beginning of self-understanding.
    Amen.

    Hmmm.... you are a puzzle. Different religious communities say essentially the same thing but they use a different language - different words - different emphasis. Yours is some new syncretistic sect like Hari Krishna that has tried to unite the teachings of many different religions and then claim that they are the only ones with the complete truth. I have said amen because you have used the words of Christianity, but I have little doubt that the words mean something entirely different to you than what they mean to me. I am afraid you will not be able to flex in my face the moral superiority that you obviously feel without being more specific and thereby revealing more of your true identity, which is definitely not Christian. I mean I am sure that you think of yourself as a "true" Christian but I am pretty sure that you are not recognized as such by the Christian community.

    Look I am student of world religions and unlike many Christians I feel that they are all due respect. It my love and study of religion that make me try to figure out what you are. But I do not hide anything about myself and you can find practically my whole religion-philosophical history in my posts in the science forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    But I am making 10 times the effort to explain than you are to understand. Count the words. I am being sincere in answering your questions. You could explain your difficulty or simply declare your honest lack of interest. Remember this did all start with your personal question: "How do you think everything started?"

    You are quite right, I have a tendency to break up passages and individualise each passage, potentially diverting from the original point. Please accept my apology.
    But having gone through the posts again, I still don’t get a sense of how it all started, bearing in mind that you are Christian who believes TOE is evidently factual.

    Huh? I am being judgemental because I take the atheist at his word that he doesn't see the hand of God in the development of life. You think that you are being non-judgemental when do not take the atheist at his word but claim that he denying what he sees?

    Can you actually see the “hand of God” working in this development, or have you come to the understanding that it is the hand of God working?
    The atheist will ask for evidence of what “you can see”, and of course you will not be able to provide it. You will attempt to explain how you come to understand the claim, and they will offer a natural based explanation, and the argument will go on and on. The fact is, they deny yours, mine, religious, all scriptural, explanations. So it is not judgemental of me to say what they openly and obviously do.

    I am only denying that Genesis is a "creation for dummies" book just as you have. Genesis does not need to supply all the details which are not relevant to the story. Otherwise where is the discussion of elementary particles and atoms? Genesis does not say that God created them, so do you think that particles and atoms already existed or what? How about gravity? Is this a force which is independent of God and not created by Him, if so where is it mentioned in Genesis? How about the other planets?
    It is stated in genesis that the earth was without form, it does not say that it never existed, and then it came into being. That means all the particles and atoms were already existing.
    Philosophically speaking, I regard gravity as a force which occurs because of life, as long as life remains, the force of gravity will act.
    When God infuses his will with matter (dead), He brings it under his control, this control I believe are the laws of nature.
    The bible doesn’t mention “other planets” but it mentions regions, i.e. heaven, earth, and hell. In vedic scriptures, this is known as the 3 worlds (upper, middle and lower), and within these levels are many planets.

    It says He made two great lights to rule night and day and that He made the stars but no planets. What? Where did they come from?
    Is it just possible that the people of that time did not know about the planets and that this was a detail that was not important to the story?


    I believe people understood planets differently to how we do.
    The folks who attempted to go heaven by building a tower, for example.
    To them, “heaven” must have been a tangible place, either that or they were all ga-ga goo-goo.
    But I think that intimate knowledge of individual planets was futile and non important in the face of spiritual rejuvenation, and still are if you really think about it.

    Is it not obvious that the point of Genesis was not any kind of complete description of creation but only a description in terms of what the people of the time could see and understand?

    No one is saying it is a “complete” description in terms of every single aspect of the cosmos. It does however give a complete description of how it is manifested. So we can assume that all planets were manifested by the union of spirit with matter. If that is indeed true, then all other knowledge is superfluous. But as we know, this is the dilemma.

    The point is, that if there are (enormous) details left out of Genesis, then what gives you the right to dictate to me what details were left out and what were not?
    I am not dictating anything to you, I’m just bringing to the fore your acceptance and non-acceptance of the book. Either you accept what you believe to be Gods word, totally, or you question what you believe to be his word.
    The word of God is not only to be found in the bible or the Christian interpretation, there are scriptures in which those “enormous missing details” of the process of creation, are not left out. If you ignore these, but insist on filling in the gaps yourself, then it will always seem like I am dictating to you.

    Look I have great respect for the Bible it is your misuse of the Bible that I find objectionable.

    Huh? What do you mean by “my misuse”?
    Please point out my “misuse”.

    Therefore let us consider the passage about God creating Adam out of dust? Does this mean that Adam was different than the rest of mankind? 55% to 60% of the adult human body is water. Only the most farfetched of interpretations will include 55% water as a part of "dust."

    I believe Adam was different to the rest of mankind, in that his body was personally fashioned by God, and his soul came directly from God. This whole act is unique to the biological way we come into this world.

    If we are to take Genesis as literally as you seem to requre, Adam must have been a body of animated dust.
    You’re missing the point, he wasn’t “animated dust” and his body was fashioned by God, according to the book.
    Now you are saying you don’t believe God could do that, because your finite knowledge of nature cannot fathom such an act.
    This is why you have to have faith in God. Because there is no way you or I can understand how these things work, due to our current position. Either you believe or not. Then you take it from there.

    Ah I see, so you want to let science inform you just so far as to interpret "dust" to mean matter but you will revile me for letting science inform me about the interpretation of "formed" to mean something which is far more consistent with the nature of living things than the method of a potter or sculptor.

    First of all, the “potting and sculpting” was a one off act in the bible. It does not say everybody was potted and sculpted, and neither does it say that Adam was the first human being on the planet. So Adam was a special case.
    Secondly it says that God “formed” Adam out of the dust, not that Adam was the result of a theoretical evolutionary system. In fact there is no mention of this theory in any religious scripture, so you are effectively personalising God, and scripture to fit into what you accept as knowledge.

    I have to go now, but please don’t respond until I have responded to the rest of your post.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitch,

    So you are saying that the theory of evolution is atheistic by nature?
    That's interesting.
    You replied;

    The theory of evolution like all of science make no comment on the issue of the existence of God. It cannot, because the existence of a supernatural being that cannot be observed or measured is outside the definitions of its subject matter and the evidence upon what it judges things be true.
    True, God cannot be observed or measured by our senses, so there is no need of such a being.
    Or that’s what future generations will be taught.
    By what criteria do you judge that TOE is” true”.

    So by its nature none of science can see the role of God.

    God is the answer, science is partly the working out. The reason people cannot see the role of God, is because they don’t want to (atheism).

    But as absurd as this idea is, it is true that some people embrace it to support their adherence to atheism. But that is their foolishness.

    The theory of evolution encourages atheism, because it postulates that God has no role in anything we perceive, that it all happened naturally. Eventually one will believe God is not necessary. They will look at the institute of Christianity and Islam, and say if such a God does exist, I don’t want to know him anyway.
    In the Qur’an before God asks the satan to leave, he (Iblis) asks for permission to lead some of Adams offspring astray (like himself), to which he is granted permission, maybe these are his legacies.

    Jan,

    The God of the born-again Christian, is the God who Jesus devoted his life to. Is it not?
    It is claimed that he created man/woman and beast etc.. Is it not?
    So where does TOE fit into all of this?
    Why would God appear to bring forth beasts, birds, insects etc, simultaneosly (from His perspective), and not give any hint whatsoever, of TOE?
    God seems to leave us to find out a great many things for ouselves. He does not tell us precisely how to govern ourselves (though he did suggest once that monarchy was not a very good method). He does not tell us exactly what to expect after death, for example.

    On the contrary, God completely advises us how to live life to the highest standard, we just don’t accept what He says, because we are rebellious and proud, for the most part, and easily lead astray for the rest. We do not relish the simple life that is required for us to see clearly. We are clutter-bugs, just take a loot at modern society.
    It would seem that books and gospels were removed from the bible which give more clarity as to the nature of living beings, possibly explaining what happens to the soul at the time of bodily death. There is a whole 18 years of Jesus’ life not accounted for.
    I would advise you to read Bhagavad Gita, try and understand it, then go back and read the bible.

    He let us discover for ouselves the size and content of universe with all of its nebulas, supernovae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, galaxies and quasars. He let us discover for ourselves the hundred and something different atomic elements, the elementary particles and the four basic forces that move them.

    What do you mean “He let us…”?
    Did He let Adam and Eve decide they want the knowledge of gods?
    Or did they decide that for themselves?
    Ask yourself, if the purpose of acquiring such knowledge was in the interest of mankind, or selfish motives?

    The TOE may tell me someone like me that all the different species of plants and animals came into existence gradually over a very long period of time but Genesis informs me that God is responsible for it all. Genesis informs me that the process described by TOE is not automatic or accidental but proceeded according to the will, purpose, and active input from God.

    They don’t add up.
    TOE is an atheistic concept, totally removed from the idea of God.
    It is in the interest of it proponents to leave in the idea that God could possibly be its cause, while maintaining a foothold in peoples minds, but once it takes a strong hold, its more radical personalities will campaign that there is no need for God. He cannot be measured, observed or understood, Jesus did not exist, and all religions are destined to destroy the world, and anyone who believes such myths are lunatics.
    It is only a matter of time.

    Well all I can say is that you certainly read a lot into that passage and not all of this is orthodox Christianity.

    You’re right, I do.
    And I don’t care that it is not orthodox Christianity, because the books of the bible are not exclusive to it.
    Again ask yourself why books and passages have been omitted.

    I have been wondering what your religious affiliation is for a long time. I have seen hints of new age before, hints of fundamentalism in other parts of this discussion, and this particular statement suggests hints of Quakerism, Mormonism and even Gnosticism. Of course with the size and diversity of ideas in the Catholic church, and the slight suggestion of contempt for the Christian consensus as "hodge podge", you could be a Catholic.

    I see religion as one thing, not lots of little off-shoots, so I don’t prescribe to any institutional religion. I read all scriptures and try to get a whole picture.
    Santana-dharma is what I try and understand, which means the eternal occupation of the soul, roughly translated as religion (in the west).

    mitch;

    What we are and what we do would be a result of His will alone and our desire would be irrelevant. In such a case, the responsibility for what we are and what we do would be His alone.
    Jan;

    If that is what we wanted, yes, but that is a very high position, in terms of purity of mind and body
    mitch;

    If that is so high and good then how could God fail to achieve this? Is God irresponsible?

    Where has God failed to achieve this?

    Yes we have a choice, but why? How in the world could an all powerful being, with everything in existence under his absolute control create something with choice?

    We have are able to choose, because God can choose.
    Again this boils down to understand the difference between spirit and matter. The simple process in genesis reveals how it all works. Man = a combination of individual spirit-soul (God) and matter, so we have characteristics of both.

    You seem to think that everything is trivial for God. You make me pity Him. Most people like challenges, and that is not sinful nature.

    Everything is ‘equal’ not trivial, because He is Absolute and absolutely correct, He is all knowing, and all powerful to Absolute proportions.
    Second, because the whole purpose of God for creating anything was to be able to give.

    In any city or town you go, you will find prisons. Prisons are built purely because it houses the criminals and deviants of society. It is not that governments want to build prisons.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    But having gone through the posts again, I still don’t get a sense of how it all started, bearing in mind that you are Christian who believes TOE is evidently factual.
    Without your explanation of what you do not understand, all I can do is just try again.

    It starts with God who is outside of time and space. It starts with the only motivation which is possible for Him. Being perfect Himself, He has no need. His only motivation therefore is utterly selfless. Having everything, He only desires to give, but not to fulfill any need of His own. His motivation is to give in perfect selfless love not for any kind of fulfillment or self-completion but because it is His nature. But in order to give He must have someone other than himself to give to. So He set out to create something completely other than Himself to whom He could give everthing He has. You imagine this to be trivial but the reality is that trival effort produces trivial results. He can instantaneously create anything with anything He wishes it to have. Therefore it would seem that He could achieve His goal instantly by duplicating Himself thereby creating another and giving it everything He has instantly. But God is not a finite being and the truth is that infinity plus infinity is still infinity. Duplicating Himself doesn't really do anything at all. Trivial effort produces a trivial realization of His purpose. I believe that He created the angels in this manner, created instantly with vast capabilities and knowledge, but the result is little more than the spiritual equivalent of computers and robots that do exactly what they are designed to do.

    So He devised another idea of creating something which has nothing but the ability to become more, by learning and receiving. But to make it non-trivial He wanted this new creation to be truly other than Himself learning and growing by its own choice. For this purpose, He created a world of time and space governed not directly by His own will but autonomously by complex mathematical laws. But obviously this is not enough because this would just be a giant clockwork doing everything predictably according to those laws. So He built in limits to those mathematical laws so that they could only determine events according to the limits we now know in quantum mechanics as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. On the other side of those limits events could be influenced by the interaction with spirit. Not only did this allow Him to interact with and influence the events in this universe he created without breaking a single one of the mathematical physical laws He gave it, but it also allowed the creation of a special interactive process which we know as life. Cyclical nonlear feedback processes can amplify quantum events to macroscopic consequences allowing an interaction between macroscopic physical reality governed by mathematical physical laws and spirit which is outside the space-time of these physical laws. This interaction changes the course of events in these cyclical processes in the bifurcation phenomena described in Chaos science, while simultaneously giving the spirit with which it interacts, form and definition. We know this process quite intimately as the choices we make. Our choices partly determine the course of events in this world by amplifying events in our brain to the actions of our body, while simultaneously creating and determining the nature of our spirit. We are truly responsible for our actions. Our actions are not the inevitable consequences of physics. Our actions are not the inevitable consequences of some creation by God. Our actions are the consequences of our choices and it our choices that create us. We are what we have chosen to be.

    This is the nature of all living things. So life started as the tiniest insignificant process of life which God carefully nutured and helped to grow to become more and more complex and capable. And it was in this way that God created all living things. It is the nature of living things to be created this way. The creation of life is a participatory process as reflected in words like nurturing, raising, breeding, and teaching. If something is created in any other way it may imitate life but it cannot by definition truly be alive, because it cannot be responsible for what it is. This means that living things are simultaneously creations of both God and themelves in partnership, just as the tomatoes in the grocery store are simultaneously creations of the farmer and the tomato plant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Can you actually see the “hand of God” working in this development, or have you come to the understanding that it is the hand of God working?
    The atheist will ask for evidence of what “you can see”, and of course you will not be able to provide it. You will attempt to explain how you come to understand the claim, and they will offer a natural based explanation, and the argument will go on and on. The fact is, they deny yours, mine, religious, all scriptural, explanations. So it is not judgemental of me to say what they openly and obviously do.
    Yes of course I can. If I point to a table and ask you if you see it, can you say yes truthfully? In reality it is just photons of different wavelength entering your eye to form a image, so why do you call this a table. Your brain interprets it as such. Now this is something fairly concrete. Now suppose I point to a child and ask you if you can see how clever he is? You can but only because your brain is doing a lot of interpreting. Another person may even say that they don't see anything particularly clever. Sometimes we only see what we want to see. Seeing is not an entirely objective operation. Which is why science does not rely on the seeing of one person only. It requires independent verification. I see the hand of God all around me and others do not, so God appears to be one of those things on which the process of verification does not work. This puts God outside the reach of science, but it does not mean that I cannot see Him, and that seeing is really no different than seeing of many everyday (abstract) things.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I am only denying that Genesis is a "creation for dummies" book just as you have. Genesis does not need to supply all the details which are not relevant to the story. Otherwise where is the discussion of elementary particles and atoms? Genesis does not say that God created them, so do you think that particles and atoms already existed or what? How about gravity? Is this a force which is independent of God and not created by Him, if so where is it mentioned in Genesis? How about the other planets?
    It is stated in genesis that the earth was without form, it does not say that it never existed, and then it came into being. That means all the particles and atoms were already existing.
    Philosophically speaking, I regard gravity as a force which occurs because of life, as long as life remains, the force of gravity will act.
    When God infuses his will with matter (dead), He brings it under his control, this control I believe are the laws of nature.
    The bible doesn’t mention “other planets” but it mentions regions, i.e. heaven, earth, and hell.
    Well I believe that God created everything - even those things which are not mentioned in Genesis like atoms, planets and even time and space. And I do not see any dependence of gravity upon life at all except for this: life is the purpose of every aspect of the design of the universe, so the potential for life is everywhere. As a womb of life the universe may be considered to have a sort of rudimentary life of its own but on a time scale so much vaster than ours and so alien to us that it is difficult to recognize as such. In other words, I believe there is more connection to life in my fingernails than there is in the force of gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I believe people understood planets differently to how we do.
    The folks who attempted to go heaven by building a tower, for example.
    To them, “heaven” must have been a tangible place, either that or they were all ga-ga goo-goo.
    But I think that intimate knowledge of individual planets was futile and non important in the face of spiritual rejuvenation, and still are if you really think about it.
    I agree and likewise all that is important "in the face of spiritual rejuvenation" about the God's work of creation is not how He did it but the fact that He is the creator of it all and more importantly that He is our creator and that in creating us He was creating something special, like unto Himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    In vedic scriptures, this is known as the 3 worlds (upper, middle and lower), and within these levels are many planets.
    ...
    No one is saying it is a “complete” description in terms of every single aspect of the cosmos. It does however give a complete description of how it is manifested. So we can assume that all planets were manifested by the union of spirit with matter. If that is indeed true, then all other knowledge is superfluous. But as we know, this is the dilemma.
    ...
    The word of God is not only to be found in the bible or the Christian interpretation, there are scriptures in which those “enormous missing details” of the process of creation, are not left out.
    Well I do not agree with your metaphysics nor do I place any faith in vedic "scriptures". So I guess I do not have your problems with making sense of both the Christian Bible and Hindu texts simultaneously, which I suppose makes it much easier for me to see God in the scientific view of the universe. Making my mind big enough to embrace both the Bible and science is difficult enough, so while I can appreciate your efforts I cannot join you in them. I must follow God where I see Him and I do not see him in Hinduism or in these Hindu texts.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What we are and what we do would be a result of His will alone and our desire would be irrelevant. In such a case, the responsibility for what we are and what we do would be His alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    If that is what we wanted, yes, but that is a very high position, in terms of purity of mind and body
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    If that is so high and good then how could God fail to achieve this? Is God irresponsible?
    Where has God failed to achieve this?
    In all those people whom you judge as less high and pure than yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes we have a choice, but why? How in the world could an all powerful being, with everything in existence under his absolute control create something with choice?
    We have are able to choose, because God can choose.
    Again this boils down to understand the difference between spirit and matter. The simple process in genesis reveals how it all works. Man = a combination of individual spirit-soul (God) and matter, so we have characteristics of both.
    This is Gnosticism and I do not accept it at all. Man's spirit is not God but is his own and God created matter for a very important purpose: to make life possible. Life is the union of spirit and matter precisely so that we can create our own individual spirit apart from God. True unity is neither uniformity nor identity but the coming together of separate parts in harmony and love to create a whole that is greater than either apart. I realize that this may involve logical contradictions when applied to God but I already know that God is beyond our logic and understanding and I do not pretend otherwise. But I believe that God created seeking eternal relationship with others not simply to absorb everything into Himself. I think that would be pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The point is, that if there are (enormous) details left out of Genesis, then what gives you the right to dictate to me what details were left out and what were not?
    I am not dictating anything to you, I’m just bringing to the fore your acceptance and non-acceptance of the book. Either you accept what you believe to be Gods word, totally, or you question what you believe to be his word.
    ...
    If you ignore these, but insist on filling in the gaps yourself, then it will always seem like I am dictating to you.
    On the contrary, when you say that I have no faith in God or that I am denying God. You are putting yourself in the position of God to judge between us. I guess I cannot be suprised since you seem to, in fact, identify yourself with God in some way. But I cannot see God in this behavior of yours at all. Instead I see a very dangerous and false doctrine. A proper relationship with God must include fear (or you could call it humility), which derives directly from the realization that you are not God. God alone is the author of salvation and He alone can judge. There is nothing you can do to make God cooperate with you. There is nothing you can say to manipulate Him. There is nothing you can believe to make God yours to command. There is no scripture you can quote to legally bind Him. That you cannot relate to God in this fashion is the proper fear of God and having this fear how is it possible to judge other people?

    So while I do not put any faith in Hindu texts myself I find impossible to judge you for doing so, not because I see any value in these texts, but because I do fear God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Look I have great respect for the Bible it is your misuse of the Bible that I find objectionable.

    Huh? What do you mean by “my misuse”?
    Please point out my “misuse”.
    It is misuse of the Bible to use it for a purpose for which it was not written. It is misuse to act like it is a "creation for dummies" book. It is misuse to think of it having purpose that has anything to do with the science. It is misuse to accuse other people of denying God or having no faith in God because they do understand it in the same way that you do. It was meant to unite us not divide us. I accept Genesis on faith as reliable as my own memory. But even my own memories are only one source of information about things. Distant memories of the past must be informed by the facts of the present. But no matter what "facts" I encounter I will never discard my memories (or Genesis) because they are part of who I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Therefore let us consider the passage about God creating Adam out of dust? Does this mean that Adam was different than the rest of mankind? 55% to 60% of the adult human body is water. Only the most farfetched of interpretations will include 55% water as a part of "dust."

    I believe Adam was different to the rest of mankind, in that his body was personally fashioned by God, and his soul came directly from God. This whole act is unique to the biological way we come into this world.
    Whereas, I believe that Adam was alive and fully responsible for who he was and fully responsible for all of his actions. After being given so much and learning so much from God, Eve chose to follow Lucifer and Adam chose to follow Eve rather than God. The point of this story is not that God demands obedience, but just opposite. The point of the story is that God gives us the freedom to chose but demands that we be responsible for the choices which we make. And that means that we must suffer the consequence of our choices. The sin was not just in the eating of the fruit but also what they said when God called them to account. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed Lucifer. Thus Adam and Eve not only chose to follow Lucifer but they refused to take responsibility for their action. Logically, by passing all the responsibility to Lucifer, they made him their master. What happened next was not a result of God's anger, but the only way that remained to keep our potential alive. For with Adam and Eve, God's project had entered a new phase, unlike all the other living things on this planet God chose to adopt them as His own children, to teach them things of the mind and spirit. It is evident to me that God views this kind of adoption, that He had with Adam and Eve, as unconditional and irreversible. So, instead of starting again, God found it necessary to find a way for His children (mankind) to come back to Him - to give us the opportunity to abandon Lucifer as our master and again to choose God as the true source of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    First of all, the “potting and sculpting” was a one off act in the bible. It does not say everybody was potted and sculpted, and neither does it say that Adam was the first human being on the planet. So Adam was a special case.
    Secondly it says that God “formed” Adam out of the dust, not that Adam was the result of a theoretical evolutionary system. In fact there is no mention of this theory in any religious scripture, so you are effectively personalising God, and scripture to fit into what you accept as knowledge.
    I think Adam was a special case too, but not because he was a magically animated golem of dust, but because God spoke to him and taught him directly in the place of his parents. I believe that it is only through what God taught Adam, that human beings came into existence, for before that, this planet had only animals on it. Information is the substance of life. It is the information contained in our DNA that allows our bodies to grow from the tiniest seed to the full grown human body. Likewise it is only the "information" first given to Adam by God and passed on to all his descendents (supplemented by sacred scriptures) that allows us to grow in mind (living as if abstractions like love and justice are real) to become human beings that are children of God (at least superficially or potentially) rather than just animals.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Now you are saying you don’t believe God could do that, because your finite knowledge of nature cannot fathom such an act.
    Yes my knowledge of nature is finite. Nevertheless everything I have learned in science and religion and in my own life tells my that this kind of creation you describe is inconsistent with the nature of living things. God did not create Adam in this way not because He could not do so but because the method of creation is not independent of the result. Not all things are as trivial as you think.

    I limit God far less than you might think. For example, how would you answer the question: can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? Most would answer this question in a way that limits God, but I would not. But what if you supply both method and objective in such a question? "Can God teach a child compassion by putting a gun to the child's head and saying that He will be killed if does not do exactly what he is told to do?" Answering no to a question like this does not limit God. But this is exactly what you are doing. You are supplying both the method and the result and telling me that I limit God because I say no He cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    This is why you have to have faith in God. Because there is no way you or I can understand how these things work, due to our current position. Either you believe or not. Then you take it from there.
    No, faith in God is not about believing what you believe. God is infinite and I am finite. So it is inevitable that God is beyond my understanding. But the universe is finite and as a creation of God it tells us great deal about its creator if we have the determination to look far enough and the "eyes" and heart to see what lies beneath what we find. God gave us knowlege in sacred scriptures but He also gave us the ability to learn and understand new things. Through Paul, He tells us in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,..." Some may seek the truth only in science and some only in religion, but what if the whole truth can only be found in both together. Let me ask what is the greater faith, to believe in God and then shut yourself from the world to preserve that faith so that it cannot be threatened, or could the greater faith be to believe in God so that your belief informs everything you see in the world and helps you to understand it better?

    Look I am not trying to say that I am better than you in any way. You say that "there is no way you or I can understand how these things work", but you understand some things and I understand some things. Only God can judge between us, but one of the reason why we talk to each other is because sometimes, miracle of miracles, we can even learn something from each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The theory of evolution like all of science make no comment on the issue of the existence of God. It cannot, because the existence of a supernatural being that cannot be observed or measured is outside the definitions of its subject matter and the evidence upon what it judges things be true.
    True, God cannot be observed or measured by our senses, so there is no need of such a being.
    Or that’s what future generations will be taught.
    No! Science makes no comment, saying neither yes nor no. And if the past is any indication the future you speak of will never happen. But it is true that religion can no longer compete by bullying people as it has in the past. Now it must truly makes its case or die. I am confident that Christianity will succeed because it already has. I hope for the day when there are no more governments that force its people to accept religious teachings, so that all people will be free to tell the truth about what they really believe.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    By what criteria do you judge that TOE is” true”.
    Not every true sentence has to have the word God in it. Science and TOE are full of these kind of sentences. But a person can use the word God in every sentence without being Godly and a person can be Godly without ever saying the word God. Likewise, just because science never uses the word God, does not mean that the presence of God cannot be seen within what it is saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    So by its nature none of science can see the role of God.

    God is the answer, science is partly the working out. The reason people cannot see the role of God, is because they don’t want to (atheism).
    No God is not the answer to every question. Sometimes the answer to a question is just yes or no. How about the question, "What did God create?" God is not the answer to this question either. God is not the answer to the questions which science asks either, and naturally so because it only looks at what God has created. Perhaps science does not agree with your metaphysics but neither do I nor do the majority of the religious people in the world. I do not think that this is because science is wrong but because your metaphysics is too simplistic and incomplete.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    But as absurd as this idea is, it is true that some people embrace it to support their adherence to atheism. But that is their foolishness.

    The theory of evolution encourages atheism, because it postulates that God has no role in anything we perceive, that it all happened naturally. Eventually one will believe God is not necessary. They will look at the institute of Christianity and Islam, and say if such a God does exist, I don’t want to know him anyway.
    In the Qur’an before God asks the satan to leave, he (Iblis) asks for permission to lead some of Adams offspring astray (like himself), to which he is granted permission, maybe these are his legacies.
    No! Science makes no such postulate. Instead it only asks what causes are observable and measureable and since God is neither observable nor measurable then God is simply not the answer to the questions which it asks.

    Thank goodness! For once God comes into questions then religious people must be involved and religious people are utterly disruptive to honest inquiry. Religious people have too much faith which is too much a part of their life to set aside for an instant. This makes them opinionated people that tend to misuse the revered scriptures in which they put their faith to "prove" that only they are correct and that everyone else must be wrong. Frankly, religion has a tendency to exacerbate a portion of the sinfulness of man and as a result it is full of division and disagreement. And for all the limitation and failings that you yourself see in religion, you unwittingly only add to to these same limitations and failings as all religion has done since the begining of time. The history of religion is full of people just like you who seeing the limitations and failings of religion around them, set out with the help of God and faith to set it right, but the result is inevitably just more religion and thus more division and disagreement.

    Don't get me wrong. I not only love God and am a religious person myself, but I love religion. But I have also made my mind big enough to love science as well. Perhaps it is kind of humility that I have learned that enables me to be less obsessed with my religious opinions enough that I do not need to argue about them all the time. I can put these opinions aside long enough to consider other questions that do not have God in the answer. Perhaps to you that makes me a appear faithless and Godless, but remember that appearances can be deceiving and that you are not God. Perhaps the truth is simply that I am a peacemaker and able to see things from more than one point of view.

    Well I am going to ignore a lot of your other comments because response would be repetitive. I have stated my position already and you have stated yours. It should be clear by now that I am not going to study the Bhagavad Gita and you are not going to see any value in the pursuits of science. You and I are going to have to accept this state of affairs - no miracles today I guess, at least, the only thing we seemed to have learned, is about each other (and maybe not even that).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitch,

    jan; Can you actually see the “hand of God” working in this development,
    mitch; Yes of course I can.
    I don't think so.

    If I point to a table and ask you if you see it, can you say yes truthfully?
    Yes.

    In reality it is just photons of different wavelength entering your eye to form a image, so why do you call this a table. Your brain interprets it as such.
    That kind of reality makes no difference to the fact that what you percieve is a table.

    Well I believe that God created everything - even those things which are not mentioned in Genesis like atoms, planets and even time and space.
    Why do you believe that?

    Well I do not agree with your metaphysics nor do I place any faith in vedic "scriptures". So I guess I do not have your problems with making sense of both the Christian Bible and Hindu texts simultaneously,
    I don't have any such problem, I am interested in God and spirituality, both sets of texts contain this, although the BG is much more detailed.

    ...which I suppose makes it much easier for me to see God in the scientific view of the universe.
    More so than the scriptures it would appear.

    In all those people whom you judge as less high and pure than yourself.
    Like who?

    This is Gnosticism and I do not accept it at all.
    No. This is me. I am not interested in this or that ism or shism, which is why I don't give out too much info.

    On the contrary, when you say that I have no faith in God or that I am denying God. You are putting yourself in the position of God to judge between us.
    That is complete nonsense. You do deny Gods ability, you make up your own religion based on what you think you know, and you discriminate between bona-fide scriptures. You don't have to be a genius or pure of heart to work that one out.

    I guess I cannot be suprised since you seem to, in fact, identify yourself with God in some way. But I cannot see God in this behavior of yours at all.
    What a cop out.
    Almost everything you seem to believe about God, is personalised.
    You're probably alarmed because you have not come across this type of discussion before, therefore feeling you have to lash out for comfort.
    Everything I have said about God can be found in any scripture, I am not deviating.
    But guess what........you are.

    Instead I see a very dangerous and false doctrine.
    God created the heaven and the earth. He made Adam out of the dust then breathed life into his nostril. Yeah I can see why you think its a false doctrine.................... because you deny these things.

    A proper relationship with God must include fear (or you could call it humility), which derives directly from the realization that you are not God.
    Stop with this nonsense. I have not said that I, nor anyone is God.

    It is misuse of the Bible to use it for a purpose for which it was not written.
    Please elaborate further.

    It is misuse to act like it is a "creation for dummies" book.
    Nonsense.
    It is what it is, and it says what it says.

    It is misuse to think of it having purpose that has anything to do with the science.
    Everything has something to do with science.
    Remember, science means knowledge.

    It is misuse to accuse other people of denying God or having no faith in God because they do understand it in the same way that you do.
    You openly deny that God did not create Adam in the biblical way. You openly deny that God created man, and put in its place a system which by its very nature, conveniently denys God, regardless of whether it is stated or not. I'm not sitting in judgement of you, I have merely read what you have written. Its my opinion of you.

    I think Adam was a special case too, but not because he was a magically animated golem of dust, but because God spoke to him and taught him directly in the place of his parents.
    Magic?
    And you know this how?

    Yes my knowledge of nature is finite. Nevertheless everything I have learned in science and religion and in my own life tells my that this kind of creation you describe is inconsistent with the nature of living things.
    What have you learned in religion that contradicts genesis?

    God did not create Adam in this way not because He could not do so but because the method of creation is not independent of the result.


    I limit God far less than you might think. For example, how would you answer the question: can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it?
    Easy. He would create such a rock for the requestee, attempt to lift it, fail, the requestee would go away foolishly believing God is not all powerfull. Then God would lift the rock for the other requestee who believes he can.
    So the fool would go away thinking God does not exist.
    Like the table, the rock is an illusion.

    But this is exactly what you are doing. You are supplying both the method and the result and telling me that I limit God because I say no He cannot.
    I'm not supplying you the method, the method is supplied in a book which is the scripture of your religion. But you are dismissing what it says as "creation for dummies" and giving it a personal makeover.

    Look I am not trying to say that I am better than you in any way.
    And I didn't think so, when you wasted no time in telling me how brainy you are. :-D

    No! Science makes no comment, saying neither yes nor no.
    I didn't say science does. Stop putting words into my mouth.

    And if the past is any indication the future you speak of will never happen.
    It's happening right now.

    No God is not the answer to every question.
    Please stop interpreting what I'm saying. I said "God is the answer".
    Not "God is the answer to every question".

    Perhaps science does not agree with your metaphysics but neither do I nor do the majority of the religious people in the world. I do not think that this is because science is wrong but because your metaphysics is too simplistic and incomplete.
    I don't think you understand what you class as my "metaphysics".

    Ah well.

    [quote="jan ardena"]
    But as absurd as this idea is, it is true that some people embrace it to support their adherence to atheism. But that is their foolishness.

    No! Science makes no such postulate.
    I never said it did.

    It should be clear by now that I am not going to study the Bhagavad Gita
    As a person who claims to love God and religion, I consider that a loss on your part. But do as you will.

    .. and you are not going to see any value in the pursuits of science.
    What?
    All your accusations are born out of your head.

    I guess, at least, the only thing we seemed to have learned, is about each other.
    I don't think you've learned anything about me, to be honest.
    In fact i'd go as far as to say, you haven't really listened to much of what I've said.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    mitch,
    I don't think so. Yes. That kind of reality makes no difference to the fact that what you percieve is a table. Why do you believe that? I don't have any such problem, I am interested in God and spirituality, both sets of texts contain this, although the BG is much more detailed. More so than the scriptures it would appear. Like who? No. This is me. I am not interested in this or that ism or shism, which is why I don't give out too much info. That is complete nonsense. You do deny Gods ability, you make up your own religion based on what you think you know, and you discriminate between bona-fide scriptures. You don't have to be a genius or pure of heart to work that one out. What a cop out. Almost everything you seem to believe about God, is personalised. You're probably alarmed because you have not come across this type of discussion before, therefore feeling you have to lash out for comfort. Everything I have said about God can be found in any scripture, I am not deviating. But guess what........you are. God created the heaven and the earth. He made Adam out of the dust then breathed life into his nostril. Yeah I can see why you think its a false doctrine.................... because you deny these things. Stop with this nonsense. I have not said that I, nor anyone is God. Nonsense. It is what it is, and it says what it says. Everything has something to do with science. Remember, science means knowledge. You openly deny that God did not create Adam in the biblical way. You openly deny that God created man, and put in its place a system which by its very nature, conveniently denys God, regardless of whether it is stated or not. I'm not sitting in judgement of you, I have merely read what you have written. Its my opinion of you. Magic? And you know this how? What have you learned in religion that contradicts genesis?
    F

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I limit God far less than you might think. For example, how would you answer the question: can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it?
    Easy. He would create such a rock for the requestee, attempt to lift it, fail, the requestee would go away foolishly believing God is not all powerfull. Then God would lift the rock for the other requestee who believes he can.
    So the fool would go away thinking God does not exist.
    Like the table, the rock is an illusion.
    Well that is consistent. But I simply cannot believe in a God that small. So you are right. I do not believe in your god. I deny your god. I have no faith in your god. A god that can only create illusions is no God of mine. I believe in a God who can strip away illusions rather than construct them. The "god" of illusion is Satan formerly the angel Lucifer, sometimes referred to as the "god of this world", who is nothing but a parasite feeding off the spiritual energies of people lost in his web of lies and delusions. Yes, that "god" is certainly small enough to fit your description. He would even deceive people to "prove" his power just like you describe.


    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I'm not supplying you the method, the method is supplied in a book which is the scripture of your religion. But you are dismissing what it says as "creation for dummies" and giving it a personal makeover. And I didn't think so, when you wasted no time in telling me how brainy you are. :-D I didn't say science does. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's happening right now. Please stop interpreting what I'm saying. I said "God is the answer". Not "God is the answer to every question". I don't think you understand what you class as my "metaphysics". Ah well. I never said it did. As a person who claims to love God and religion, I consider that a loss on your part. But do as you will. What? All your accusations are born out of your head. I don't think you've learned anything about me, to be honest. In fact i'd go as far as to say, you haven't really listened to much of what I've said.
    F

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    In fact i'd go as far as to say, you haven't really listened to much of what I've said.
    Well I know you haven't even bothered to read what I have written. Your short responses show that you have made minimal effort. And the funny thing is that this discussion was largely in response to your personal question to me. I didn't realize that your question was just a rhetorical device to get me to listen to you and was not meant to be taken seriously. Your accusation is so absurd, it is laughable. I responded to everything you said. I just did not agree with you.

    P.S. Is the letter "F" a sufficiently short reply? This discussion is over. Don't you think?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    Easy. He would create such a rock for the requestee, attempt to lift it, fail, the requestee would go away foolishly believing God is not all powerfull. Then God would lift the rock for the other requestee who believes he can.
    So the fool would go away thinking God does not exist.
    Like the table, the rock is an illusion.
    Well that is consistent. But I simply cannot believe in a God that small. I deny your god. I have no faith in your god. A god that can only create illusions is no God of mine.
    You deny God, why don't you admit it?

    The "god" of illusion is Satan formerly the angel Lucifer, sometimes referred to as the "god of this world", who is nothing but a parasite feeding off the spiritual energies of people lost in his web of lies and delusions. Yes, that "god" is certainly small enough to fit your description.
    How sadly predictable you are.

    He would even deceive people to "prove" his power just like you describe.
    That's not a deception. The question is a non-sense, designed to prove that God cannot exist as God is described. Anyone who seriously ponders on such a question, does not truly understand the description of God, or they refuse to accept it.
    It is the same mentality as thinking God could not create a man's body from the earth. The question is asked from a materialistic point of view, and the only acceptable answer would also have to be materialistic. It is a trick.
    The deception comes from the question.

    This discussion is over. Don't you think?
    For you it was over from the moment you realised that your belief in the Father of Jesus Christ is, quite frankly, non-existent.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You deny God, why don't you admit it?
    This is a meaningless statement, except to those people for whom it does not apply. Can't you recognize that?

    That's not a deception. The question is a non-sense, designed to prove that God cannot exist as God is described. Anyone who seriously ponders on such a question, does not truly understand the description of God, or they refuse to accept it.
    I take this as a joke. Ha, ha.

    For you it was over from the moment you realised that your belief in the Father of Jesus Christ is, quite frankly, non-existent.
    Please find for me somewhere in the bible where there is a person named Jesus Christ. I contend that you cannot find it, as Christ is not the last name of Jesus. If you remove this errant attempt to create a last name, then we are left with Jesus. Why would anyone disbelieve that a man named Jesus does not have a father? It seems that your question is a trick question. Was that really your intent, to fool everyone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You deny God, why don't you admit it?
    This is a meaningless statement, except to those people for whom it does not apply. Can't you recognize that?

    That's not a deception. The question is a non-sense, designed to prove that God cannot exist as God is described. Anyone who seriously ponders on such a question, does not truly understand the description of God, or they refuse to accept it.
    I take this as a joke. Ha, ha.

    For you it was over from the moment you realised that your belief in the Father of Jesus Christ is, quite frankly, non-existent.
    Why would anyone disbelieve that a man named Jesus does not have a father? It seems that your question is a trick question.
    Hermes you embarass me by following my lead in making fun of jan. I know it is hard to resist because jan takes him/herself so seriously. I was tired of what I thought were rather thoughtless responses to my posts so I made fun of jan's post by comparing jan's careless description of God to Lucifer. But no matter how annoyed I am at jan, I do regret making fun of jan because I do find jan's efforts to bridge the gap between (at least 3) different religious traditions to be quite admirable and not to be taken lightly. I have my doubts about whether this can truly be done in any objective manner or without an agenda, but since I have not tried to do so myself, it is difficult for me to judge. I certainly think it is quite worthwhile to hear jan's point of view on different issues. We can learn from him, and whether jan can learn from us is jan's concern.

    Since I already know of rather strong opposition to evolution in both Christianity and Islam, jan arden's opposition and reference to Hindu texts did make me curious about the extent of acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution in Hinduism. Although as jan likes to remind people, Hinduism is hardly anything like a single religion. In fact the following description surprised me a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/19490/3019
    Whosoever has generated a religious concept and somehow has aligned it with the Brahman in some way has found place within Hinduism as a true Hindu. This catholicity has engendered a bewildering blend of Monism, Monotheism, Pantheism, Polytheism, Naturalism, Animalism and even some manners of Atheism.
    An internet search reveals a rather widespread acceptance, including claims that Hinduism supported ideas of evolution even before Charles Darwin. But I did find one hint of Hindu opposition at this website http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0204.htm .
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Hermes you embarass me by following my lead in making fun of jan. I know it is hard to resist because jan takes him/herself so seriously. I was tired of what I thought were rather thoughtless responses to my posts so I made fun of jan's post by comparing jan's careless description of God to Lucifer.
    Feel free to think what you want. I think it admirable that he is interested in many branches of religion. However, not so admirable that I am willing to overlook his naive analysis. Sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Hermes,

    Jan;

    You deny God, why don't you admit it?
    This is a meaningless statement, except to those people for whom it does not apply. Can't you recognize that?

    What are you talking about?

    Jan;
    That's not a deception. The question is a non-sense, designed to prove that God cannot exist as God is described. Anyone who seriously ponders on such a question, does not truly understand the description of God, or they refuse to accept it.
    I take this as a joke. Ha, ha.

    That's nice for you.
    Well done.

    Jan;
    For you it was over from the moment you realised that your belief in the Father of Jesus Christ is, quite frankly, non-existent.
    Please find for me somewhere in the bible where there is a person named Jesus Christ. I contend that you cannot find it, as Christ is not the last name of Jesus.

    How perceptive of you, again, well done.
    Seeing as you are so bright, you should know that "Christ" is a title attributed to Jesus, and as such it is common to use the term with his name, as it identifies who and what he is.

    If you remove this errant attempt to create a last name, then we are left with Jesus. Why would anyone disbelieve that a man named Jesus does not have a father?

    Maybe you should go back and read what I actually said, instead of trying to be a smart-arse.

    It seems that your question is a trick question.

    I don't recall asking a question.
    Are you sure you're addressing the right person?

    Was that really your intent, to fool everyone?

    Actually I was talking to mitch. If you feel you have been fooled, it has nothing to do with any effort from me.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    Hermes you embarass me by following my lead in making fun of jan.

    Hermes can't make fun of me, regarding my discussion with you, he will be hoplessely out of context.
    You are embarassed because you have realised that you actually deny God as revealed in the scriptures, while postulating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And there is no way you back out of it, which is why you are indulging in ad-hominem attacks in an effort to discredit me.

    I know it is hard to resist because jan takes him/herself so seriously. I was tired of what I thought were rather thoughtless responses to my posts so I made fun of jan's post by comparing jan's careless description of God to Lucifer.

    You compare my descriptions of God to Lucifer, because that is all you have left. You haven't even studied the Bhagavad Gita but you are prepared to compare Krishna/Vishnu to Lucifer.
    I'm begining to feel sorry for you.

    But no matter how annoyed I am at jan, I do regret making fun of jan because I do find jan's efforts to bridge the gap between (at least 3) different religious traditions to be quite admirable and not to be taken lightly.

    You have no idea of my efforts, or if indeed, I have any. And I am most certainly not trying to bridge gaps.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You deny God, why don't you admit it?
    This is a meaningless statement, except to those people for whom it does not apply. Can't you recognize that?
    What are you talking about?
    The religious notion of denying god is meaningful only to those who believe it it. The ridiculous notion of asking someone who does not believe in god to admit that he is denying god is a joke, as one who does not believe in god cannot deny it.

    Please find for me somewhere in the bible where there is a person named Jesus Christ. I contend that you cannot find it, as Christ is not the last name of Jesus.
    How perceptive of you, again, well done.
    Seeing as you are so bright, you should know that "Christ" is a title attributed to Jesus, and as such it is common to use the term with his name, as it identifies who and what he is.
    Seeing as I am so bright, as you say, I already know this. Christians tend to confuse the title with the last name. Wonderful for you.

    If you remove this errant attempt to create a last name, then we are left with Jesus. Why would anyone disbelieve that a man named Jesus does not have a father?
    Maybe you should go back and read what I actually said, instead of trying to be a smart-arse.
    I did read what you said. I am sorry if I don't appreciate your opinion on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Jan,

    If I was talking to a Christian, we would have a common faith that we could fall back on in order to make peace. If you were a scientist we could we could fall back on a diifferent faith held in common and similarly end the discussion in mutual respect. But you insist on being a complete stranger with nothing in common ("varelse"). But I refuse to fight. I have faith that your angry words only ridicules yourself. I will not try to reason with you any more for I have already offered you my pearls and you did not care for them. I have already offered you my respect. That is all that I will do.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    You are embarassed because you have realised that you actually deny God as revealed in the scriptures, while postulating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And there is no way you back out of it, which is why you are indulging in ad-hominem attacks in an effort to discredit me.
    It is decidedly rude to make such an accusation against an individual who has such clear, committed beliefs in God and in Christ, as does Mitchell. Mitchell has laid his soul out in this thread, making sincere and repeated efforts to explain his position and how he has arrived at it. He is to be applauded for his honesty and his directness.

    On the other hand you have continued your policy of obfuscation and prevarication, hiding behind a wall of arrogance and a deep pit of smugness. Good luck with that approach. You will need it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    But you insist on being a complete stranger with nothing in common ("varelse"). But I refuse to fight.
    Why take the emotional way out?
    If you look back at my posts you will note that I am being honest, and not resorting to any kind of irrational emotion.
    All my points are backed up.

    I have faith that your angry words only ridicules yourself.
    You mistake my bluntness for anger, and I apologise if you feel you have been disrespected, but I urge you to look beyond the bluntness and see the point. I assure you it is valid.
    The common misconseption of "religion" is that it is full of different, individual interpretations that cater for the hope and comfort of the individual. That it is, as far removed from science, logic and rationalism, as is humanly possible. This is nonsense.

    I will not try to reason with you any more for I have already offered you my pearls and you did not care for them. I have already offered you my respect. That is all that I will do.
    With all due respect, I think it is in your interest to reason with me or someone like me, otherwise you will become complacent in your idea of religion and spirituality. If these ideas run contrary to the scripture of your choice, and you disregard other scriptures, then you are effectively, in no mans land. Essentially, only believe in yourself, and those whose personality and character you like. This is a form of atheism (in the real sense of the word).
    As (you are) a christian, I should be able to recognise something of Christ in your reasoning, as the point of being "christian" is to follow in the footsteps of Christ. And to be honest, I didn't.

    Again I apologise if you have been distressed by my blunt attitude, but I urge you to keep this discourse in mind.

    Good day to you sir.
    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Hermes,

    The religious notion of denying god is meaningful only to those who believe it it. The ridiculous notion of asking someone who does not believe in god to admit that he is denying god is a joke, as one who does not believe in god cannot deny it.

    Hermes, the question was put to mitch, who claims to be a 'theist'.

    Seeing as I am so bright, as you say, I already know this. Christians tend to confuse the title with the last name. Wonderful for you.

    I have read what you said. I am sorry if I don't appreciate your opinion on the subject.

    I haven't really stated an opinion on the subject.


    Ophiolite,

    It is decidedly rude to make such an accusation against an individual who has such clear, committed beliefs in God and in Christ, as does Mitchell.

    I am not intending to be rude. And I have given sound reason for my statements.

    Mitchell has laid his soul out in this thread, making sincere and repeated efforts to explain his position and how he has arrived at it.

    We all have different understand of the term "soul", including mitch, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. If you mean he put every aspect of his being into his explanations, then my reaction would be, I hope you are wrong.

    He is to be applauded for his honesty and his directness.

    And so am I.

    On the other hand you have continued your policy of obfuscation and prevarication, hiding behind a wall of arrogance and a deep pit of smugness. Good luck with that approach. You will need it.

    Obfuscation?
    Prevarication?
    Please! 8)

    Luck doesn't come into it.

    Jan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Life began at sometime. But how is still a hard nut to crack. But its still very likly that a planet like earth will develop life. WIth alot of chemicals, a great energy source, both extraterrestial and terrestrial, they can combine into varius substances with differens propeties, Those who is stable will logicly survive longest. But those who posses a way to replicate will logicly multiply. Lets imagen we got somekinda RNA chain, its not like modern RNA but something simular. This rna goes around find peaces it can use to create a copy of it self and keeps on. Of course as all processes this isnt perfect and as in evolution there will be errors, some makes the RNA molecule unstable, others less stable, others more stable, and even some might make the bond ebtween 2 molecules 2 strong to be able to split it. And then it just keeps oin until one of them maybe meets a cell like structure, i mean like a cell when uve removed all proteion, dna and such. THen it gets some advantage to be isolated and evolution of chemicals keeps on until we have a chemical combination that we classefy as life. Evolution doesnt only rule for life. it rules for individual molecules, wich alone isnt living.
    This is just one way it could have happened. and because of the big size and favorble coditions this were more likly to happen on earth. Maybe did on mars and venus aswell. Who knows, thye might still be there lurking around. Of course as bacteria or something simular. The thing is just because something is complicated t doesnt need to be created.
    Hydrogen molecule is simple, but ammonia is more complex than hydrogen. And amino acids are even more complex, even thoe they are alone. But they are both created spontanously with out a creator. Even with out life.
    If u have energy, alot of elements, a fluid, and not to harsh condition life can emerge throu evolution, not life evolution, but simply chemical evolution that worx for individual molecules.

    But if u want something complex to come from a creator ask ur self this. God created something complex as life, then what or who created god? is it then more complex than god? if god doesnt need a creator why does lie and the universe need it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Life began at sometime. But how is still a hard nut to crack. But its still very likly that a planet like earth will develop life. WIth alot of chemicals, a great energy source, both extraterrestial and terrestrial, they can combine into varius substances with differens propeties, Those who is stable will logicly survive longest. But those who posses a way to replicate will logicly multiply. Lets imagen we got somekinda RNA chain, its not like modern RNA but something simular. This rna goes around find peaces it can use to create a copy of it self and keeps on. Of course as all processes this isnt perfect and as in evolution there will be errors, some makes the RNA molecule unstable, others less stable, others more stable, and even some might make the bond ebtween 2 molecules 2 strong to be able to split it. And then it just keeps oin until one of them maybe meets a cell like structure, i mean like a cell when uve removed all proteion, dna and such. THen it gets some advantage to be isolated and evolution of chemicals keeps on until we have a chemical combination that we classefy as life. Evolution doesnt only rule for life. it rules for individual molecules, wich alone isnt living.
    This is just one way it could have happened. and because of the big size and favorble coditions this were more likly to happen on earth. Maybe did on mars and venus aswell. Who knows, thye might still be there lurking around. Of course as bacteria or something simular. The thing is just because something is complicated t doesnt need to be created.
    Hydrogen molecule is simple, but ammonia is more complex than hydrogen. And amino acids are even more complex, even thoe they are alone. But they are both created spontanously with out a creator. Even with out life.
    If u have energy, alot of elements, a fluid, and not to harsh condition life can emerge throu evolution, not life evolution, but simply chemical evolution that worx for individual molecules.

    But if u want something complex to come from a creator ask ur self this. God created something complex as life, then what or who created god? is it then more complex than god? if god doesnt need a creator why does lie and the universe need it?
    I don't think it was quite so accidental as all that. I think there was a longer, more well defined process that preceded the creation of RNA and DNA. People put everything on RNA and DNA as if there could be no life without it, but I think this is silly. Life is first and formost a replication of cyclical process. There are other cyclical chemical processes that maintain themselves (and even spread/replicate/catalyze) with a constant input of energy into the system like sunlight. Such cyclical chemical processes are subject to the phenomena of bifurcation where they can develop other cyclical features for added complexity and involving more quantity and types of materials. I believe that it was a long history of such process development that eventually led up to the development of RNA and then DNA.

    I do not say that the development of RNA was inevitable because the environmental conditions must be the right combination of stable yet changing (over a long period of time) to avoid the twin deaths of wipeout (catastrophic failure due to being overwhelmed by envirionmental change)and stagnation. I also think that there are numerous dead ends in the developmental process that must be avoided. But with nearly infinite patience and determination scientists could conceivably replicate this process given enough time and fustratingly hard work.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i just took it as an exemple, chemical evolution would acure on any chemical substance, but especialy on molecules capable to replicate.
    But it dont have to be RNA or DNA, it can be PNA or TNA or anything else that is capable to pass on information from one generation to the next
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    25
    A number of people have put the presumed "chemicals of the primordial soup" in test reactors meant to recapitulate the early Earth and have not yet be able to create ribonucleotides.

    Clay as an initial template holds some theoretical promise.

    What we can say is that we really don't know enough about the early conditions to know exactly what happened, but certainly, all life on earth today is descended from a common ancestor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by AshleyinSD
    What we can say is that we really don't know enough about the early conditions to know exactly what happened, but certainly, all life on earth today is descended from a common ancestor.
    Do you mean a common ancestral fom of life, or a common ancestor individual?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    49
    I think that Creationist need to spend more time proving the existence of a creator, god, devine being, etc, which they have yet to do. They spend too much time trying to dispel evolution. As far as why I believe in evolution, is simple, proof and evidence. :-D
    "Nature is an infinite sphere whos center is everywhere and whose circumferense is nowhere."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146 Re: How can you believe in Evolution? 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    Evolutionary theory has many problems, but none bigger than how life began. That is such a problem that that subject has been split away from evolutionary topics and the assumption is for the evolutionary theory is that life did somehow accidently start.

    Those who support evolution will offer up sort of simplified ideas for how life began, but those Biologist and Chemist who are studing this very complicated issue have yet to come up with a theory that they can agree to. The very detailed and comprehensive science they know so far has kept them from getting to first base.

    There is an answer, THERE IS A CREATOR.
    I consider myself a rational scientist.
    I was told from a very early age that;
    A) God Made me
    b) God made the universe and all in it.
    c) All people are god's children.

    From this I have defined the word 'God' as being all time, all Space, All matter,energy and all history.

    Because it was space, time, matter, energy and history that made me.
    If these did not exist - I would not exist.

    What I do NOT believe in is Heaven Hell or all the little furry extra things that go with them - it follows that if jesus existed and he was the 'son' of God then so are the rest of us (ever heard a priest say "God is your father") - well that's my interpretation. It also nicely produces the unified theory of the Creationists and the Evolutionists. And if any of you budding scientists out there want to agree with me and subscribe to my church, I haven't built it yet I'm too busy studying science!

    As for the argument of how life began: we were not there - we do not know BUT equally when we see a fallen tree in the forest we do not automatically assume someone pushed it over so why should I believe
    A creationist's God should have started life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    Evolutionary theory has had to change over time because of the fossil record.
    No, evolutionary theory has been that random mutations are chosen through natural selection. It's been that way for a long time, and will stay that way for a long time. What has changed is our tree of life.

    I mean, imagine that you discover who your great, great, great, great grandfather was, would that change who you are, or the fact that you decended from him? No, it wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    When I was young, evolutionary theory taught that simple one cell organizms started and gradually over time, more and more complex life forms developed, eventually winding up with mammals and then man.
    As you seem rather ignorant to other facts, I would assume that you didn't pay much attention in school, and that that is the reason for your misinformation :wink:.

    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    Trilobites with very complicated eyes has been found much farther back in the fossil record time that it should be based of the way the theory was taught when I was young.
    Perhaps, maybe when you were young they didn't know WHEN, but they still knew it happened. They told you what they knew (just like people used to be taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe), but have since revised what they know with new information .

    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    Yet the theory continues, having to add theory on top of theory on top of theory to still try to prove an idea. An the mathamatical odds for evolution to have occured continues to add zero's.
    Err... :? Have a deck of 3,000 different cards, draw out one. The odds of getting that card are small, 1:2999... yet, you got it. That card must be special, huh? You must be special. The whole system must just be special. And again...




    J0N
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    42
    Amazing that people give the air of respectability to such ignoramuses by responding to them in such depth.

    They are clearly emotionally married to the comforting delusion of there being a creator, and when that happens, all reasoning with the person is futile. They must ease the cognitive dissonance by whatever means necessary--traducing the evil people and ideas that contradict the harmony of their delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    And the point of necroing a 6 year old thread is what? A system glitch this past July erased all thread watch lists so even if any of the 2006 participants are still interested, they will not be notified as to you comment here. Please do not comment on threads over three months old.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    42
    What the hell! I didn't know it was 6 years old, it was right there on the forum and I replied as normal. I'm guessing someone else bumped it and then deleted their post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The bacteria didn't evolve into something else, did it?
    .
    Yes it did. It evolved into a different kind of bacteria. That is evolution.
    If a human developed resistant against a pathogen that killed everyone else, would you say that human is a different kind of human now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The bacteria didn't evolve into something else, did it?
    .
    Yes it did. It evolved into a different kind of bacteria. That is evolution.
    If a human developed resistant against a pathogen that killed everyone else, would you say that human is a different kind of human now?
    If the resistance is the result of a genetic difference, then clearly the later human is different. That is not, however, the sense in which I have used different in the earlier post. I regret not being more specific (pun intended). I thought context would have made the meaning clear.

    The thinking that may be behind your question seems to arise from anthropomorphic thinking: one bacteria is pretty much like another. But that is quite wrong. Genetically the difference between one bacteria and another could be greater than the difference between a potato and an armadillo. That was the kind of difference, or at least the difference between a potato and a tomato, that I was speaking of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    If a human developed resistant against a pathogen that killed everyone else, would you say that human is a different kind of human now?
    You know all those jokes that start "there are two types of people..."

    Well there are two types of people in the world, those who are immune to HIV and those who are not. The former are descended from people who survived the Black Death. So evolution has saved their lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by God_of_Biomechanics View Post
    Amazing that people give the air of respectability to such ignoramuses by responding to them in such depth.
    It is always useful to correct Bad Science for the benefit of "lurkers" who might be taken in by it. Even if, as you say, you will never change the mind of those who cling to beliefs despite the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    If a human developed resistant against a pathogen that killed everyone else, would you say that human is a different kind of human now?
    You know all those jokes that start "there are two types of people..."

    Well there are two types of people in the world, those who are immune to HIV and those who are not. The former are descended from people who survived the Black Death. So evolution has saved their lives.

    Wouldn't you also say that people that survived the black death were also immune prior to the event?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Wouldn't you also say that people that survived the black death were also immune prior to the event?
    Of course. What's your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Wouldn't you also say that people that survived the black death were also immune prior to the event?
    Of course. What's your point?

    My point is all of us alive today descending from people that survived the black death since it swept globally at different times in history. People that are immune to AIDS can't possibly be the result the descendents of black death since most of us should be immune. Perhaps only a specific strain of plague but according to science it has been the same strain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    That appears to be a good point, but you are assuming that everyone was exposed to the black death. What I understood Strange to mean is that those who were immune to the Black Death are also immune to HIV, not those who survived the period of the Black Death are also immune to HIV. It is an important distinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    You are right that the two groups of people were present in (some) populations before the plague. However, the black death greatly increased the immune population by killing something over 3/4 of the population in affected areas - obviously killing more people without immunity than with. (This the big 14th century outbreak.)

    The number of people who were immune to the black death was a very small percentage of the population. Those areas of Europe and Central Asia that suffered most from the plague now have immunity rates to HIV as high as 10%.

    This was a selection process and didn't generate the original mutation but did multiply it to a significant proportion of the population. The point is that existence of diversity and its effect on survival of sub-populations is what evolution is all about. Without the selection pressure a neutral variant like this would not stick around in the population.

    ...

    And doing a bit of fact checking - it turns out that the plague connection is not as clear cut as once thought. It may have been repeated outbreaks of smallpox that amplified the proportion of this mutation (in effect prevented it from disappearing).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    That appears to be a good point, but you are assuming that everyone was exposed to the black death. What I understood Strange to mean is that those who were immune to the Black Death are also immune to HIV, not those who survived the period of the Black Death are also immune to HIV. It is an important distinction.
    My understanding of the black plague is it swept the globe and in many parts it wiped out complete villages. I would assume everyone was exposed to the plague since they had no way to prevent exposure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    My understanding of the black plague is it swept the globe and in many parts it wiped out complete villages. I would assume everyone was exposed to the plague since they had no way to prevent exposure.
    They could avoid being bitten by fleas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    My understanding of the black plague is it swept the globe and in many parts it wiped out complete villages. I would assume everyone was exposed to the plague since they had no way to prevent exposure.
    Central Asia and Europe were hit particularly hard. As far as I know it didn't reach the Americas, but I'm not sure about that. A large part of Europe, largely overlapping modern Poland, and a few other areas seem to have been strangely unaffected. And there were great variations within quite small areas as well, with death rates varying from 80% to less than 20%.

    I assume factors like weather, the amount for food available for rats, the number of predators, and all sorts of other incidental things affected the spread and incidence in different places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,848
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    They could avoid being bitten by fleas.
    If they knew that was how it spread. I'm not sure they did. I imagine bad air and miasma were probably assumed to be the cause. I think it can also be caught from direct contact with an infected person, anyway. So I don't suppose doctors and gravediggers lasted long ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I didn't mean they would deliberately avoid being bitten by fleas, but that chance events would allow them to avoid it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    There is an answer, THERE IS A CREATOR.[/QUOTE]
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Look here mush, just because there is not a full scientific explanation YET - it doesn't mean that it's magic or supernatural.

    Besides, you are being a bit limited in your range of alternatives - what about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the bogey man, Elvis from beyond the grave , witches, elves, trolls, ogres, Rumplestiltskin? - why confine yourself to just one ridiculous alternative, theres pallet loads of bunkem to choose from!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •