User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 67

  1. #21
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    I am not arguing if life evolves or not .. I am saying we as a speices do not know for a fact, what our origin is.

    That is not open to debate. All we have is speculation
    This should interest you. For a while, men have been trying to synthesize abiogenesis.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE2CnThito"]Just 2 Days Ago[/YOUTUBE]

  2. #22
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    It's theory dude.. and nothing else.
    It might make sense if it wasn't riddled with so many holes.

    The score remains 0-0
    As others have mentioned earlier, you seem to have misunderstood "scientific theory".
    Electricity...its called the theory of electricity , but if you think "bah its but a theory", you can test its validity by putting you fingers into a power outlet and checking to see if you get an electric shock

    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Assuming God spoke the entire universe into existence, man-made science and theory has very little relevance as far as explaining acts of God. That's also in the Bible, by the way...

    Isaiah 55:8-9

    8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,"
    declares the LORD.

    9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foolish heart View Post
    Assuming God spoke the entire universe into existence, man-made science and theory has very little relevance as far as explaining acts of God. That's also in the Bible, by the way...
    So then what is your opinion on the science behind things like gravity? Are you not convinced that if you jump off the roof of your house or apartment building you will fall to the ground? Science deals with the observable events in our world that are repeatable. So regardless of how you feel about the existence of god it is hard to deny the existence of things like gravity, time, electricity, fire (you get the point)... and through science we have made observations about these observable parts of our reality.. from those observations came hypotheses, and from those hypotheses came predictions, and from that came theories, and from theories came a few laws - and thus from all of this we have technologies like flight, computers, plastics, lasers and the list goes on... So I'm not sure what science has to do with the acts of god or what god has to do with science, unless he choses to start f#cking with us by making objects fly upwards towards the sky when dropped rather than crashing to the ground (and the like)... when that happens what you've said will carry a little bit more weight.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    So then what is your opinion on the science behind things like gravity? Are you not convinced that if you jump off the roof of your house or apartment building you will fall to the ground? Science deals with the observable events in our world that are repeatable. So regardless of how you feel about the existence of god it is hard to deny the existence of things like gravity, time, electricity, fire (you get the point)... and through science we have made observations about these observable parts of our reality.. from those observations came hypotheses, and from those hypotheses came predictions, and from that came theories, and from theories came a few laws - and thus from all of this we have technologies like flight, computers, plastics, lasers and the list goes on... So I'm not sure what science has to do with the acts of god or what god has to do with science, unless he choses to start f#cking with us by making objects fly upwards towards the sky when dropped rather than crashing to the ground (and the like)... when that happens what you've said will carry a little bit more weight.
    As you say, science measures observable patterns, so if God created blueprint upon which every principle of reality functions He can certainly change them... or more realistically, the true pattern of reality is far deeper than what we can observe or measure so it may not have needed to be altered to allow what we see as miracles.

    Another thing this brings up, and I grantee this will sound crazy... that which we observe appeals to the human mind as a pattern implicates that the idea of "random" chaos is more likely a larger pattern that we cannot observe or fathom. Whatever we consider natural (natural numbers, natural selection, etc) can no longer be considered an absolutely accurate basis of measuring reality because "nature" is a result of chaotic inflation of the universe in the context of the earth... if that makes any sense. It's merely a section of reality that fits a pattern respective of itself, it is not the absolute foundation.

    ...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foolish heart View Post
    ...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.
    I don't really think that science pretends to know everything, of course I can't speak for all scientists though - just myself. However it's really not accurate to say that we don't know anything given our level of technological advancement today.

    Personally I view science as a tool to string together repeatable observations into something greater than the sum of all it's parts. What you're saying doesn't sound crazy as much as it sounds philosophical... That method of thinking is simply incompatible with science, because it takes into consideration many things that science simply doesn't care about. You can't conceptualize god scientifically anymore than you can philosophically analyze science. There is no room for subjective interpretation in science, just as objectivity tends to fail when dealing with religion or at least this is how I tend to view things.

  7. #27
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foolish heart View Post
    As you say, science measures observable patterns, so if God created blueprint upon which every principle of reality functions He can certainly change them... or more realistically, the true pattern of reality is far deeper than what we can observe or measure so it may not have needed to be altered to allow what we see as miracles.

    Another thing this brings up, and I grantee this will sound crazy... that which we observe appeals to the human mind as a pattern implicates that the idea of "random" chaos is more likely a larger pattern that we cannot observe or fathom. Whatever we consider natural (natural numbers, natural selection, etc) can no longer be considered an absolutely accurate basis of measuring reality because "nature" is a result of chaotic inflation of the universe in the context of the earth... if that makes any sense. It's merely a section of reality that fits a pattern respective of itself, it is not the absolute foundation.

    ...which means we still pretty much don't know anything.
    Science is a field that is constantly expanding and evolving. Once we make one break through, there are more break throughs to be made afterward. The systems we measure shift every time we discover something new. Yes, the known universe is quite chaotic, but scientific progression has increased our life-spans twofold since the 1700's - mostly because of the expanse of medical faculties ever since the Bubonic Plague. Science has made an impact on the quality of our lives, in some ways positively, in other ways negatively.

  8. #28

    Default

    This thread will get mired I bet.

    Anyway, evolution is not the same as Darwinism, which I dont think properly spoke or understood exists, scientific ideas, unlike philosophy or ideology dont operate like that or at least they shouldnt, there wasnt any Newtonism for instance, by contrast there was Marxism.

    The Christians denying death thing is interesting, although they dont, not really, there is a finality to it, even in the bible. However creationism is based upon what I would consider heretical ideas about biblical/scriptural literalism and solo scripture which arose with the in reformation, and more specifically with Luther's idea of a priesthood of all people, ie that everyone can read and understand, and the printing press.

    I'm a practicing RC and I dont deny evolution, I'm not talking about any back doors here like intelligent design or anything (which I do believe is seriously nonsensical, at least in some of the seriously badly reasoned evangelical material I've seen) like that, I mean straight evolution, ie we share a common ancestory with the animal kingdom, our most close relatives being apes. I tend to think that this is what seperates even the greatest human scientists from God mankind cant put in train independently developing evolutionary species.

    The disquiet that solitary walker expressed about encountering his "young earth creationists", which to be honest I know is a by word in anti-creationist circles of a pretty prejorative kind, I think is a little like the preachers zeal on the other side of the argument. I dont really believe either are that helpful.

    I've got to be honest that I've dealt with a lot of existential angst about death, since a couple of neurological ideas about the origins of religious beliefs in auditory hallucinations in the pre-rational (to be honest pre-"mind") brain rocked my certainty, I dont deny it, I never did but the prospect of no after life bothers me. I cant exactly say why. Its not status anxiety, disappointment about either unfulfiled potential or any mid life junk like that.

    There's a lot in the bible which is unbelieveable, particularly to the post-empiricist, post-deductive rationalist brain and world, I suspect that this is not simply a matter of metaphor versus literalism or interpretation, although in all seriousness there are very good community bibles made available by the RC church available from the CTS (Catholic Truth Society) which are an entirely different kettle of fish to "just believe, alright" literalism expounded by many evangelical congregations, especially in the US. That's if you're seriously interested in an alternative view in this debate.

  9. #29

    Default

    To be honest I'm always more interested in why these debates take place, I've read Dawkins for instance and I think that he's gone from someone who expounded an athiestic evolutionary theory in Blind Watchmaker to someone who really has a dog in the fight with creationists and has gone away beyond his original premises with things like memetics.

    The idea that cultural or ideological premises operate like self-perpetuating and self-preserving viruses is a little bit beyond his original, safer, premises about evolutionary theory since Darwin. I dont know that I buy it, I can see how he makes the inferences and draws the conclusions that he does but I dont know, vogue, fashion and trend are not the same as the rise and fall of meta-narratives, although it could account for why he is trying to spread his own theories so, so rapidly and so widely, hoping that it'll eclipse those of his rivals. I'm reminded of the schism and sectarianism of trotskyists though when I think about this sort of thing or, in a different way, different from the creationism vs. Darwin debate, of the christian right's culture kampf.

    Its clear that Dawkins et al have an agenda, it could just be preventing the wrongs done in the name of religion. Although I'll be honest that the balance sheet of religion is not as bad considered objectively (which it seldom, seldom is) and definitely in comparatie terms with ideology and modernism. I think its about contending about truth and a lot of psychological needs which I'm sure one side will attribute to the other but over look in themselves.

  10. #30
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    There is the 150000 or so years of no humaniod fossils.
    There is the question of why multi celled organisims are not radically evolving still.. Do you really think we have hit the evolutionary apex?

    and mostly .. simply because I don't trust a species that can't figure itself out to tell me what the secrets of life are.
    I dont want speculation or theory.. I want proof.. Darwinisim has not been proven any more that the existence of God.
    Just because it kind of makes sense and we have nothing better to explain things.. does not make it true.
    Just so you know I dont believe in God either.

    I trust my instincs and intution.. they tell me humanity is about 1 and half years old in terms of reaching it's potential..
    So when A toddler tells you the meaning of life.. you tend to disregard it
    I think your view of evolution is muddled. No offense.

    There is no "evolutionary apex". Evolution is defined by gradual change over time; so to say that anything has reached an apex would be to thwart time and space. While one organism may be more complex than another, the former organism is not more evolved, because we all have a common ancestor and have been evolving since that ancestor came to be. There is a misconception that humans are more evolved than single celled organisms, fauna and flora, but this is not the case. We have no static potential because that potential is perpetually changing. Imagine walking along the earth's surface, and you see the horizon. You set this as your goal, your "potential" destination. However, once you arrive, you have an entirely new horizon ahead of you. The horizon need not be marked by us being stronger, faster, or more intelligent, because evolution dictates that we change by whatever means possible, whether we become slower, dumber, airborne, burrowing, whatever. The only potential one has is the potential to change, and you could not survive without change. Hence, you evolve for the sole purpose of survival.

    Evolution has been proven on a genetic scale. You are a transitional fossil.

Similar Threads

  1. Type and the Use of Emoticons
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  2. Death and the Forfeit of Reason
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 01:24 PM
  3. The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 12:26 PM
  4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 03:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO