Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[Atilla]

I believe I said that I was a Creationist, but I was wrong to say that. I'm not, because , obviously the universe was not made in seven days and world is not 6,000 years old. I do believe in evolution but I, also, believe in God.

You'll have to make what you wish out of that and, to be honest, I don't believe that it matters all that much, My interests are more down to earth. Does it, really, matter all that much when the final result is death? I believe and you don't.

Ok.

BTW, I've circled Earth three times. I figure that it is round.

Split

Not necessarily true. The world where I'm standing is flat. I can see it has a few hills and mountains but even on top of these hills the earth looks pretty flat to me. I travel for miles and the earth is always flat.

To see it round you really need to step out of this world and step into space which is a totally different element altogether.

Talking about evolution or God is about the same experience imho. It is outside of our immediate appreciation but within our awareness spectrum. So what is the point - forgive me for being obtuse.

One can prove light travels in straight lines and waves. How is that so?

God to me is the creator of the universe and everything in it including all the science.

Anything I don't understands makes me marvel at the the creation of God.

Problem isn't with God but with the interpretation of humans on how they perceive God. Every Tom Dipak and Ali has modified it in some way to brand it. Call it product deferentiation in our capitalist world. You pick the one you like or is handed down from your family.

A little like the number zero I find God indespensible when trying to add up life. I do believe in evolution too.

In the end we all go back to the creator...

 

[Splitlink]

Yes, Sir, I agree.

The world is round, though. :smart:

 

[dick_dastardly]

I mean, why on earth do most humans, when presented with a phenomena that science cannot explain yet (be it Goldbach's conjecture, or why the cosmological constant is that number etc. . . ) do they feel a need to conclude that some "God" must be behind it? It as if its an addiction to WANT there to be a God. You could take a equally valid assumption that there is no God behind it, but that doesn't deter the millions who are hooked on wanting there to be a God who's responsible for this. It utterly irrational and crazy.

I think Atilla has more or less answered this question for you in the very last paragraph of THIS POST when he said

" I find belief in God simple and comforting. It fills the blanks. On a scale of trees I don't know where we are between 1, 2 or 3 but it still answers a lot of questions for me. Call me simple if one wants but perhaps it's age, faith or blind reason I don't know but sincerely such are my thoughts. "

The key phrase that jumped out at me from Atillas post was " It fills the blanks " which is basically the function of religion.

I think for many people of faith that one big blank which comes right at the very end is the one they want to fill more than any other.

and some are so desperate to fill that blank they will go to great lengths in order to defend their belief, even kill if they feel it necessary *.

dd



* Atilla, I know you know that last remark isn't aimed at you

 

[Atilla]

Yes, Sir, I agree.

The world is round, though. :smart:

So you "believe" in all those adobe photo shop editied pictures of a round world then? :cheesy:

Have you seen it for your own eye?

 

[Atilla]

I think Atilla has more or less answered this question for you in the very last paragraph of THIS POST when he said


The key phrase that jumped out at me from Atillas post was " It fills the blanks " which is basically the function of religion.

I think for many people of faith that one big blank which comes right at the very end is the one they want to fill more than any other.

and some are so desperate to fill that blank they will go to great lengths in order to defend their belief, even kill if they feel it necessary *.

dd



* Atilla, I know you know that last remark isn't aimed at you

Yes you are right DD, I find belief comforting.

I find my self lost in the excellent arguements presented here and can't keep up with the depth of debate. I say that sincerely.

Keeping it simple makes me happier - embracing I am a mere physical being evolving - whilst admittedly plausible and probably true - leaves me empty inside.


As for your last comment that is not true DD. People don't kill for the blanks, they kill for greed and want of what does not belong to them. It's all about resources and power. Killing justified by religion is a means to - ultimately - more power and control.

Nice little weapon in your armoury.

I heard a very interesting talk on Radio 4 one Sunday morning from a British commander in the army. Who said men fight much better with God on their side. I wasn't sure if he had faith or not but he sounded pretty sincere to me.

Using religion to kill people is no different to brain washing German's they were the super race.

People are stupid enough to believe what ever fodder you givem - you can count on that - I say humbly. :cheesy:

 

[Splitlink]

So you "believe" in all those adobe photo shop editied pictures of a round world then? :cheesy:

Have you seen it for your own eye?

One voyage.

Manchester, Antwerp, Marseille, Hong Kong, Saigon, Vancouver, Panama, Manchester.

We didn't fall off!

 

[temptrader]

Not necessarily true. The world where I'm standing is flat. I can see it has a few hills and mountains but even on top of these hills the earth looks pretty flat to me. I travel for miles and the earth is always flat.

To see it round you really need to step out of this world and step into space which is a totally different element altogether.

Talking about evolution or God is about the same experience imho. It is outside of our immediate appreciation but within our awareness spectrum. So what is the point - forgive me for being obtuse.

We are not talking about interpretation. If someone says that the world is flat, he/she should provide irrefutable proof of it. If they cannot then they are talking rubbish. If you wish to say that "locally within the vicinity of my sight the earth is flat" then that is different to saying that the earth IS flat. And if people can't be bothered to understand the question, and prefer to twist the question to something else, well that's their business.

It's got nothing to do with our "awareness spectrum". It's got everything to do with the fact that it is within mankind's ability to resolve such questions. And when they are resolved there is no debate - although a lot of morons/monkeys will always seek ways to.

One can prove light travels in straight lines and waves. How is that so?

See the science literature - it's all there. If you're curious enough you too can set up various experiments yourself.

God to me is the creator of the universe and everything in it including all the science.

You are free to believe in your God. Just as I'm free to believe that your God might be a repressed homosexual - do you see or not see? It gets science nowhere because science can't be bothered with tedious individuals talking the unfalsifiable. See that point about the arms race between religion and science I mentioned a few posts ago? Science expands it frontiers only for the religious individuals to move their goals posts once more. And yet at the same time it never occurred to these individuals to see that science NEVER sets out to disprove a "God's" existence. That's the absurdity of the situation.

Anything I don't understands makes me marvel at the the creation of God.

There are loads of anomalies in Nature, but the apportioning of blame/cause to a God is not only irrational, but probably batsh*t crazy too.:cheesy:

Problem isn't with God but with the interpretation of humans on how they perceive God. Every Tom Dipak and Ali has modified it in some way to brand it. Call it product deferentiation in our capitalist world. You pick the one you like or is handed down from your family.

Again, more psychological observations. Science isn't about emotions but it seems to me that most people THINK with their emotions rather than a clear head.

A little like the number zero I find God indespensible when trying to add up life. I do believe in evolution too.

The difference between zero and God is that zero is very real, and logically consistent within the framework of arithmetic. God, however, is neither here or there, and does not occur in any mathematical proofs/calculations and will be laughed at if he's invoked/appealed to in them.

In the end we all go back to the creator...

Do we? Can you prove that? If not, then why say it? Would you like a shouting match with someone who believes otherwise and is in the same psychological state of mind? How about a whole group of individuals just as "f*cked" up in the head and deluded, because there's an endless supply of them it seems. They all THINK with their feelings and never cold hard logic.

Like in that Dawkins clip, there are an INFINITE possibility for a God or Gods that we can come up with that science cannot say neither here or there about. As a banned poster here once said: If it weren't so serious, it would be funny.

 

[Atilla]

We are not talking about interpretation. If someone says that the world is flat, he/she should provide irrefutable proof of it. If they cannot then they are talking rubbish. If you wish to say that "locally within the vicinity of my sight the earth is flat" then that is different to saying that the earth IS flat. And if people can't be bothered to understand the question, and prefer to twist the question to something else, well that's their business.

It's got nothing to do with our "awareness spectrum". It's got everything to do with the fact that it is within mankind's ability to resolve such questions. And when they are resolved there is no debate - although a lot of morons/monkeys will always seek ways to.



See the science literature - it's all there. If you're curious enough you too can set up various experiments yourself.



You are free to believe in your God. Just as I'm free to believe that your God might be a repressed homosexual - do you see or not see? It gets science nowhere because science can't be bothered with tedious individuals talking the unfalsifiable. See that point about the arms race between religion and science I mentioned a few posts ago? Science expands it frontiers only for the religious individuals to move their goals posts once more. And yet at the same time it never occurred to these individuals to see that science NEVER sets out to disprove a "God's" existence. That's the absurdity of the situation.



There are loads of anomalies in Nature, but the apportioning of blame/cause to a God is not only irrational, but probably batsh*t crazy too.:cheesy:



Again, more psychological observations. Science isn't about emotions but it seems to me that most people THINK with their emotions rather than a clear head.



The difference between zero and God is that zero is very real, and logically consistent within the framework of arithmetic. God, however, is neither here or there, and does not occur in any mathematical proofs/calculations and will be laughed at if he's invoked/appealed to in them.



Do we? Can you prove that? If not, then why say it? Would you like a shouting match with someone who believes otherwise and is in the same psychological state of mind? How about a whole group of individuals just as "f*cked" up in the head and deluded, because there's an endless supply of them it seems. They all THINK with their feelings and never cold hard logic.

Like in that Dawkins clip, there are an INFINITE possibility for a God or Gods that we can come up with that science cannot say neither here or there about. As a banned poster here once said: If it weren't so serious, it would be funny.

Great post TempTrader, don't dispute what you write about but do agree.

I just think it might be good to see a perspect of God from a simpletons point of view thats all.

As I said sometimes it all gets too much and my head hurts from thinking about it all.


Only area of difference is with the concept of zero. If you can see it is real because of logical consistency then surely there is a logical consistency to God too in terms of creation - existence and expiration. Beginning, a middle and an end.

As pointed out anything I can't explain goes into the God pigeon box. Until then life goes on. This helps me in my existence and gives greater meaning and depth to my life.

 

[temptrader]

Only area of difference is with the concept of zero. If you can see it is real because of logical consistency then surely there is a logical consistency to God too in terms of creation - existence and expiration. Beginning, a middle and an end.

As pointed out anything I can't explain goes into the God pigeon box. Until then life goes on. This helps me in my existence and gives greater meaning and depth to my life.

erm, no there isn't regarding God.

zero can be derived to exist axiomatically from the system of arithmetic as a consequence of other accept modified axioms. Generally the existence of zero is given as an axiom along with others so that certain logical subtleties of arithmetic fall into line. This is not something that the average person worries about. It is enough for him that elementary calculations contain no inconsistencies - otherwise our banking system is going to be f*cked. Within our system of arithmetic the idea of zero NEEDS to be there otherwise our system comes crashing down. The concept of a zero is simple, straightforward and there is no dispute amongst theorists about its role/representation in the system of arithmetic.

By contrast, the concept of God is in dispute amongst everyone and is interpreted to mean different things to different people. Also God is not to be seen anywhere in any scheme of things that science has so far sussed out. The processes/phenomena observed can be perfectly explained without appealing to His existence and/or intervention. So the point you make is flawed. . . . Why this all "existence and expiration" and "Beginning, a middle and an end" ever leads to evidence of a God is quite beyond me. It's the same silly logic that I once read in a religious magazine: "a home has an owner, so shouldn't the universe have an owner as well?"

 

[Atilla]

erm, no there isn't regarding God.

zero can be derived to exist axiomatically from the system of arithmetic as a consequence of other accept modified axioms. You've lost me here TT. Generally the existence of zero is given as an axiom along with others so that certain logical subtleties of arithmetic fall into line. Given by whom? This is not something that the average person worries about. It is enough for him that elementary calculations contain no inconsistencies - otherwise our banking system is going to be f*cked. Within our system of arithmetic the idea of zero NEEDS to be there otherwise our system comes crashing down. The concept of a zero is simple, straightforward and there is no dispute amongst theorists about its role/representation in the system of arithmetic. You miss my point in that zero does not exist yet you label it up and find a use for it to the point that you dismiss all analysis as beyond doubt zero exists by these wordy references above. I may be being devils advocate but can you not see parallels between zero and God?

By contrast, the concept of God is in dispute amongst everyone Not in dispute by those who have faith. and is interpreted to mean different things to different people. Also God is not to be seen anywhere in any scheme of things that science has so far sussed out. I haven't seen nothing yet? Have you?The processes/phenomena observed can be perfectly explained without appealing to His existence and/or intervention. So the point you make is flawed. . . . I make my points because I don't have answers for all the questions that conjure up in my mind. Why this all "existence and expiration" and "Beginning, a middle and an end" ever leads to evidence of a God is quite beyond me. Didn't say it's evidence of God. I find it comforting that until science answers the questions God the creator helps me understand the parts I fail to understand. The beginning and the end. It's the same silly logic that I once read in a religious magazine: "a home has an owner, so shouldn't the universe have an owner as well?"

Problem with your question is that it is shaped by your perception of existence as my anology about earth being flat is shaped by my level of daily experience. Forgive me once again but I was simply trying to make a laymans point of view. Perhaps the view of the masses when they embrace God and faith.

I believe land owns us and that we don't own the land (Red Indian proverb I think).

My question to you is who created you and your parents and their parents. The explanation that we have all evolved by some spark of light energy source or light particle, because planet Earth billions of years ago was suitable for the creation of life is about as far away as system of arithmetic as a consequence of other accept modified axioms. It may well be true but it's a million light years away as to be insignificant to my existence and beliefs. It also begs the question why we can't create a single cell from nothing with all our know how and technology?

My head is beginning to hurt again.

 

[AgentZ86]

Complicated yes

How can anyone know, at this stage of our evolution, how the Universe was created? We will , always, be searching for the next link in the puzzle. My own belief is that we should, simply, concentrate on what's around us, be good to our fellow man and leave the deep philisophy of it all to those who like that sort of thing. They don't have any more of a clue than the rest of us, in any case. We'll find out, soon enough, and I don't think that it will matter whether we believe, or not because, frankly, it is all so complicated that we can't be expected to. It's what we have done to, or for, our fellow men that is important and that is the most that God can expect of us.

We are all guilty of bad deeds, but some of us do it in the name of God. Praying and killing do not go together. Science and killing, at least, is not hypocritical.

Split

I agree, and to suggest that someone is ignorant or illogical because they believe or have differences is not only rude, but illogical itself since as you mentioned it's complicated.

I agree, and when proof becomes available or disproof of any particular evidence then it should either be accepted or discontinued as the evidence would either prove or disprove etc. Hence we no longer teach that the earth is flat. And although evolution is ok to teach in general but not evidence that has been disproved. We need to stay with teaching whatever the evidence would provide and not just sweep things under rug when they some parts of the theories become disproved factually and scientifically.
And of course most importantly not to just indicate that someone is illogical or basically stupid for not accepting evidence which is now disproved whatever that evidence may be.
Sure if someone wants to believe the earth is flat thats their choice, but they should not be walking around trashing everyone for not thinking like them and yet ignoring science or explanation.

 

[AgentZ86]

No stooping

Do not intentionally twist the meaning of my remarks. It is often difficult to exactly and clearly get across ones meaning on a BB and misunderstandings do happen. I clarified exactly what I meant and you know it. That you now intentionally quote me out of context and refer to your own interpretation of what I meant without considering or quoting my clarification in a attempt to further your own argument is rather rude and cynical.

I'm done responding to you as someone who stoops to those levels isn't worth conversing with.

Cheers,
PKFFW

You see this is again the things I'm talking about, the lashing out with emotions which is ok since it's obvious this is bothering you. I do know what you said and I'm not twisting this at all.
I probably would not even have discussed this topic if it were not for people pointing the logic finger at those who don't think like them. And the name calling indicating that if you don't believe in evolution then basically your are ignoring logic and are stupid etc. etc. And as you can see I've put a considerable amount of thought into this. And after deep investigation of the evidence, I personally believe that evolution is a bit weak and many other scientists agree.I believe the scientific evidence points/leans toward creation in my opinion.
I'm not saying that it's illogical to believe evolution though, however I did say that in previous posts which was more of a sort of back atya remark to those who started the name calling to begin with. But in anycase the subject is interesting and I feel that there is legitimate rebuts to just about every piece of evidence that is claimed to exist regarding evolution.However I also realize that does not prove that evolution is false. But in the process you can make an equal argument regarding the science which shows that this evolution process could not have been accidental or random. That is all. Just a stupid person here, trying to defend himself against being called ignorant in looking at both sides of the issue. I can't honestly say that anyone has ever provided evidence that does not have a legitimate rebut to proof evolution and I've been studying the subject for 20 years. With no intent to proof either evolution or creation but only to see where the actual evidence really does point toward. And it really seems to point in my opinion towards creation/design. But that does not mean that I think anyone who thinks differently is stupid, however it's possible they are not aware of the things that have been revealed in the last 10-15 years and since DNA testing has become available.But to be called stupid/illogical then when I point or touch on subject matter that expresses that there is evidence that has been disproved is just no reason for that, especially if that person does not even know anything about evolution at all to begin with. Not all evidence that was found and taught is real evidence and as the research continues there is past evidence which becomes disproved or confirmed that just the way things go.And any evidence that is disproved should be taken out.
Anyhow this was not a stoop I read your post and believed it was expressed that way if i'ts not in context then I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

Happy trading to all.

 

[AgentZ86]

Thanks for the encouragement

Let me be clear with you: Darwin NEVER wanted evolution to be true. In fact, those who understand it deepest don't want it to be true. And I can see clearly from your posts that you are not of that category.

The great scientists are great by their work, and not their personalities. Some of them never wanted their findings to come out the way they did. Some even started on a contrary view.



You think so, eh? If so, you may talk to the top scientists argue your point with them. And if your points and evidence are correct I will support your cause. And if you are right you will have a place in history.

But it appears that you are just talking for talking's sake, and nothing more. And I find it arrogant and insulting that you take such an off hand tone over such a subject as if it were some kind of popularity contest we have here.



Sorry, but you are wrong. There is ONE and only ONE theory of evolution, and that is the version that states the mechanism is by Natural Selection. The last two words have profound and subtle implications. It is not something that you can write in one page. Darwinian Natural Selection has been extended and expanded more and more as time went by - see Dawkins. I agree that the general population is not very well versed in it, but those that know, know. And those that don't, argue. But the sad truth is that the literature is available to anyone to peruse over, but few make the effort.

The thing that ANGERS the religious community is the fact that the process of Natural Selection does not require the intervention of a Supernatural Being in order for it to do what it does.

You seem to think that Natural Selection is just a by word, a simple concept. In many ways it is a simple concept, but it leads to many different ramifications and it's influence in the other sciences is still being felt.

Let's just say that the scientist know enough TO KNOW that religious intervention according to the religious texts is not required. We know enough to know that we descend from apes and a whole lot of other debunking that you don't want to accept.



No, it's you who haven't got a clue. You don't want to do your homework and expect other people to do it for you.

Take the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It runs to a tad over 200 pages, plus the extra joint paper required to sort a gap in it out. What you just said is akin to someone saying that the proof is wrong, but he hasn't even bothered to look at the paper. You have to go through a lot of books to even understand the proof, and yet you claim what you claim without doing anything, without going over the requisite groundwork thoroughly enough. Is it any wonder that your post is comical and shows of someone of seriously low intelligence?



There is no controversy about evolution, all the evidence points to it. The scientists would welcome any piece of evidence to come forward to prove otherwise - none have been forthcoming. There is no brainwashing because you can check these things yourself, but you need to put a lot of work into it. Instead you prefer to pontificate what you pontificate.

Challenge you say? There is no challenge.It's you who have interpreted things to what you want them to be, and not what they are.

This forum is not a classroom, if you want proof go out and find it yourself. YOU have to find the proof, and make YOUR own conclusions. IF you are capable of thinking logically and intelligently you will arrive at the same conclusion Darwin did over 170 years ago.

The leading scientists will not do this work for you. That's why they live in ivory towers and belong to societies that don't just let anyone in. They rather engage in research and converse with other intelligent individuals than go over the same old ground again, and again, and again with ignorant upstarts who have nothing better to do with their lives.

WOW thats very encouraging thanks, I've not thought of that before


Just say your scared and that you don't really want to know either way.

 

[AgentZ86]

Continued

How do you know that Darwin denounced his theory ?
As I pointed out earlier the only evidence that points to
this idea is that Lady Hope returned from Darwins death bed and told us so.
Now call me cynical but doesn't it strike you that a Christian such as Lady Hope
would indeed tell us such a thing even if it were not true.
No one else was there to clarify whether or not Darwin did indeed denounce
his theory or not, there was only Lady Hope with Darwin when he passed.
None of Darwin's family confirmed this, in fact his family and friends
suggested the opposite.
In my opinion in the days when Darwin was alive staunch Christians such as Lady Hope would
have 'protected' their religion at all costs and I feel this would include
suggesting that Darwin denounced his theory. This would then let them all go
back to 'normal' and hope that Darwin's theory would go away and hence the
'little leaders' (that I mentioned in an earlier post) can continue to get fat.
Remember, power, control, money... this is what religion is all about as
far as the big cats are concerned.

'I challenge you to provide proof of evolution or any evidence that shows one species that transformed into another'

Maybe it is up to you to disprove evolution as well, this is a two way discussion.

Money is never wasted if it is spent trying to help gain knowledge on something
which could lead to better things.

You always seem to come across as the chairman of this discussion saying
things like 'end of discussion' or 'put up or shut up'. This is a forum pal,
no one is in control here (except for the moderators of course) so please
don't fool yourself that you dictate to other members when a discussion ends.

If someone decides that they feel it is logical to believe this or that then
it is entirely up to them, it's called freedom of speech. We can agree or
disagree and put our case forward but at the end of the day it is up to them.

The 'burden of proof' as you put it lies with whoever wants to get involved
in the discussion. As we are never likely to be able to prove any of this 100%
then it will always remain an interesting debate.

'And after much discussion it appears that as you have also agree that it's not so illogical or absolute after all'

Personally I still believe that the biblical stories are illogical and therefore
not an option, there isn't any proof and for me most are just not feasible/believable.
I am still drawn towards many evolution theories and until something else is
introduced to me that shows something believable and logical to my brain then
I will probably side with evolution.

Adam & Eve, feeding the five thousand, Noah's Ark, the parting of the seas,
yes, all very nice stories but totally illogical and unbelievable.

Fish out of water, monkey, man, fossils, probably a bit more up my street and
far more logical.

I'll stay with the latter for the time being.

Just my opinion of course but my brain can cope with the latter far easier.

And as I said before, please remember there is no right or wrong answer here as
none of us can categorically prove any of our beliefs 100%, this is what
makes it interesting.

Be happy guys

Cofton

I would agree, however Darwin had notes regarding creation and such.
And this is not only a Bible referenced creation anyhow. Creation vs Darwin theory in general

I can agree that the evolution theory at least what most are taught grade school sounds logical at first site. But when it's put under scrutiny it's not so logical as you would think. And many of the things we all take for granite regarding the evidence that has been claimed, you find simply does not exist. This is not something that I just simply looked at and said (Oh makes sense to me) it's something that has to be looked at and not just swept ed under the rug.
I would hope that all would want to know actual evidence or know that the basis of what they might believe has been proven false if that be the case.Of if that evidence has been confirmed they may like to know further reinforcement of any such evidence as new technology becomes available.

I can't say that if creation in general was supported by evidence that I could put limits on what could or could not be created and how or when.It would be certainly beyond anyones understanding of how,or when. I do think it's still amazing that just about everything we use even the computer comes from the dirt.So if there were a creator that created all from the dirt, then no limits could be really expressed since it would have to be concluded beyond understanding at this point in time especially.

 

[AgentZ86]

Wow

This is NOT an issue about having an open mind. The thing is settled because there is really nothing to debate about at all.

AgentZ86,

Let me us get something straight with you, so you can follow our logic clearly. All this was resolved since 1859 but you won't accept that:

1) Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there IS a God. He created the integers, he made all the fundamental forces, all the elementary particles, he made everything and just set the ball rolling and we got to here where we are today because of it. There is nothing to stop anyone believing in this if they want to, since at the moment it's unfalsifiable
2) Now let's suppose that a famous religious text can make a claim on being what this God wants, what this God wants for mankind and as being the last word in everything relating to what is what - and what's not.
3) Further, this religious text claims that man did not descend from apes, but from two individuals. That the earth was made in 7 days and 7 nights, and it ages is only, say, 52,000 years . . . . .
4) in the medieval ages there's nothing that could be done about point 3. But as mankind got more and more advanced we can put these claims to the test. And they are wrong.
5) therefore the upshot of this is that the text is wrong, and if the text is wrong, what is it also wrong about it I wonder? The afterlife? Heaven and Hell? Angels? People having souls?

Let me put it this way: if the religious text says that zeta(3) is rational because God says so, there was nothing anyone could do about it until 1979 when someone proved it to be irrational. The people who believe in the religious text will be trying to pick the proof apart and find gaps, inconsistencies, laps of logic etc. . . to no avail because the proof is sound. We now have one group of people losing face and credibility, what do you think the psychological reaction will be?

And yet, this is exactly what has happened to the Darwinian theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because it hit these religious people where it hurts most. These pointless, pig headed, arrogant, delusional debates about points that have already been resolved have been going on since 1859.

Darwin never wanted his theory to be correct. It made him sick, seriously SICK. I'm very surprised that he didn't try to commit suicide because of it. Part of the reaction was due to the fact that since he knew what he knew, it called into question the validity of the afterlife, people going to heaven, having a soul - all the things promised by a book reportedly communicated from a "God". He realised that none of it can be true, hence the God that this text spoke for cannot possibly exist. It did not prevent the existence of another type of "God", and that's why Darwin was an agnostic towards the end of his life, it's just that he realised that all the claims made by the religious texts as nothing more than pure rubbish.

WOW really, then why is it not considered a fact since so long ago.
Once again your are wrong and it is still just a theory that again has many rebuts proven by science.
Why did people invent a God to begin with, how did they come up with the concept. Did the concept evolve from something or nothing ?

Darwin's notes says what they say, read em, if it's rubbish then so then it's rubbish but I think Darwin's notes are clear and you can read all about this in a book called Darwin's Black Box.

You see, there has been trillions spent on this stuff with no conclusive evidence whats ever. I because clear I think I need to create a document with some links and sources which discuss this better.

Just look at one single atom. How did the atom come into play. Where did the material come from etc.

Then then energy in one atom WOW we've seen the atom bomb. And electrons and protons of a certain number surround each atom. and orbit the neuclius. I find almost impossible for this to have occurred by a random process of evolution without some sort of design. And then take DNA about 500,000 times more complex then a laptop computer. You just can't DNA with a random process of elements floating around in space.
I don't think you could even get dirt by random process and there is not scientific evidence that could prove that you can get order from ciaos of random processes.

It's like saying you can get a dictionary if you put some paper and ink in the universe it would eventually form into a dictionary. It just does not sound very believable and the evidence just does not point that way at all.

I don't know what evidence your referring to, but I've studied this subject for a long time and it just does not add up.

 

[AgentZ86]

Thoughtful

Not necessarily true. The world where I'm standing is flat. I can see it has a few hills and mountains but even on top of these hills the earth looks pretty flat to me. I travel for miles and the earth is always flat.

To see it round you really need to step out of this world and step into space which is a totally different element altogether.

Talking about evolution or God is about the same experience imho. It is outside of our immediate appreciation but within our awareness spectrum. So what is the point - forgive me for being obtuse.

One can prove light travels in straight lines and waves. How is that so?

God to me is the creator of the universe and everything in it including all the science.

Anything I don't understands makes me marvel at the the creation of God.

Problem isn't with God but with the interpretation of humans on how they perceive God. Every Tom Dipak and Ali has modified it in some way to brand it. Call it product deferentiation in our capitalist world. You pick the one you like or is handed down from your family.

A little like the number zero I find God indespensible when trying to add up life. I do believe in evolution too.

In the end we all go back to the creator...

I find your post thoughtful, and respectful of everyone on many levels here.

Catching up on all the responses today.
WOW this post keeps going. LOL

 

[PKFFW]

You see this is again the things I'm talking about, the lashing out with emotions which is ok since it's obvious this is bothering you. I do know what you said and I'm not twisting this at all.
I probably would not even have discussed this topic if it were not for people pointing the logic finger at those who don't think like them. And the name calling indicating that if you don't believe in evolution then basically your are ignoring logic and are stupid etc. etc.

What you believe doesn't bother me at all. I have not once "lashed out with emotions". I have not once called you any rude name. I have not once implied you are stupid or illogical.

I have called into question the conclusions you have drawn from some of the evidence. I have called into question your assertions that there is no evidence for evolution. That is the hallmark of rational debate, to question the others views and rationales for holding those views. If you can't accept someone questioning your views then don't start a debate.

Yes you do know exactly what I said. You also know that when you misunderstood my meaning (whether because I did not explain myself clearly enough or for some other reason) I clarified my meaning. You then chose to completely ignore that clarification and stick with your misconception and quote my original post as you felt it benefitted your argument to do so.

That kind of behaviour shows your true nature and as such I have no further wish to debate the issue with you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

I never said everything in such and such a religious text is wrong. Where have I said that? And who says science is perfect? It's present state is SUFFICIENT to falsify CERTAIN claims made by religious texts. This in turns calls their credibility into question. That's the only point I'm making, the only real point that Darwin makes in regards to the religious issue, etc . . . etc . . .

In post number 87 you wrote.........

2) Now let's suppose that a famous religious text can make a claim on being what this God wants, what this God wants for mankind and as being the last word in everything relating to what is what - and what's not.......
5) therefore the upshot of this is that the text is wrong, and if the text is wrong, what is it also wrong about it I wonder? The afterlife? Heaven and Hell? Angels? People having souls?.......
Part of the reaction was due to the fact that since he knew what he knew, it called into question the validity of the afterlife, people going to heaven, having a soul - all the things promised by a book reportedly communicated from a "God". He realised that none of it can be true, hence the God that this text spoke for cannot possibly exist........
it's just that he realised that all the claims made by the religious texts as nothing more than pure rubbish.

I was merely pointing out that your assertion that because Darwin knew that something written in this famous religious text is wrong then everything in the text was rubbish is simply not correct.

I did specifically mention the bible but the point is valid regardless of the religious text in question.

As for science, I never suggested it was perfect and I never suggested it needed to be. I was merely pointing out that taking your assertion that everything in a famous religious text is proven to be rubbish if anything at all in the text is wrong would be no different to saying everything about science is wrong if anything science has ever claimed ends up being wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

You have heard of Occam's razor I imagine?

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Sure, you can always say that God is responsible for the big bang and evolution. But there are also many unsolved murders around the world, should we hold God responsible for those? Do you think that tiny pink elephants in tutu’s start dancing around in your fridge after you close the door?

Yes I am well aware of Occam's razor. It is a brilliant construct that aids in the logical reasoning of a problem. That is all it is though, and idea. It is not a proof of anything. It is a tool that is useful when it comes to nutting out the solution.

Do you see or do you not see?

I'm not saying that God definitely started everything up. I'm not saying it is scientifically plausible to use God in the reasoning and proof of any problem. I totally agree with you and temptrader that to invoke God in some science problem in order to fill in the blanks would get you laughed out of any reputable scientific forum.

What I am saying is that at present we simply do not know if God exists or not. So from a scientific viewpoint using the principle of Occam's razor is well and good. However, to assert that God is a delusion is just as illogical and unsupported by fact as claiming that God is a proven verifiable entity. The only scientific viewpoint at present would be to claim that the existence of God is currently unsupported by any evidence and as such it is inconsistent with the scientific method to invoke his presence to fill in the blanks.

There was a time when the scientists of the day believed the entire universe was made up of the four elements. Earth, Air, Fire and Water. If anyone had suggested that these little things called atoms were actually the building blocks of matter they would have no doubt been called delusional too. As science progressed and new techniques were found to investigate the world we see that atoms are indeed the building blocks.(not counting those things smaller than atoms for the sake of simplicity).

At present the idea of God is unfalsifiable and as such has no place in a scientific theory or discussion. Who is to say this will remain the case forever?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

Yes, PKFF_God_is_watching_us_W, maybe there is a God behind all this. Maybe he might put into place a sequence of events that will see you and FireWalker99 meeting up, falling in love, start a homosexual relationship, get married, adopting children . . . . and live happily ever after . . . . Yes, maybe such a God exists. Maybe. Here's a hoping.

For someone who keeps harping on about thinking with the emotions you do show a distinct lack of any ability to keep your emotions out of the debate.

Further, your preoccupation with homosexual relationships would clearly suggest you have deep seated questions about yourself. Perhaps if you were to work those issues out you would not feel the need to attack others on a personal level and would be better able to rationally and intelligently debate the issues on the merits alone.

Cheers,
PKFFW