Science and Theology, the sequel

04/06/2008 02:27:54 AM · #126

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. ... I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Ah yes - just a century of consistent and overwhelmingly and crushingly positive evidence coming out of objective and demonstrable experiments by millions of people. Why believe your eyes and ears when you can induce an endorphin rush of religious ecstacy through ignorance...?

The evolution of the eye is just about the worst possible example used by the "watchmaker" critics because it is one of the best evidenced and well understood examples of evolutionary theory. It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.

If you really think that the eye stands up as a problem for evolutionary theory to explain, then you have been sold a line by someone with a vested interest in maintaining your ignorance and you have fallen for it. Conclusions may be drawn appropriately.

I'm not going back into why evolutionary theory about the eye is a joke... read my previous post about the video I was suggested to watch. I will address this endorphin rush theory of religious payoff to believers. Do you know that Christians across the globe are persecuted and even murdered for their beliefs? Do you know that Christianity requires of it's members that they often endure great hardship? No my friend their is no endorphin rush based on ignorance here. Would you be willing to die for evolution theory? True Christians do not put themselves first in life. It is often that I would do one thing because it benefited myself but the Holy Spirit guides me to do what is best for others forsaking my own wants. Doesn't sound like a great way to live if your looking for endorphin rushes. Try denying yourself and your wants and see if the endorphins start to flow. I have been where you are at I was an atheist at one time so I know I will never convince you of the existence of God. You will have to come to that on your own but first you have to cast off all of your personal biases. I know for me it was the Catholic Church that convinced me that there could not possibly be a God merely for the way in which they conduct their church. Add to that the fact it can't be proven that their is a God scientifically and voila: Atheist. What I failed to realize at the time was that just because I saw much evidence of organized religion being filled with a bunch of crap it didn't change the fact of God, His existence, His Character, His purposes, His Love. I rejected the whole idea. It seemed to me to be just a way to control people and have power over them. Well I was right and I was wrong. I was right that the imperfect people making up the church had screwed everything up royally but I was wrong in assuming that that meant there was no God. God is no matter what we do or how we conduct ourselves.

04/06/2008 03:30:42 AM · #127

Originally posted by Matthew:

[quote=dponlyme] What changed things around for me was proof.

Originally posted by Matthew:

aha - at last, something that demonstrates the theory of god in a way that can be shown to others, tested, replicated, objectively assessed, qualitively reviewed etc.

Can you demonstrate the evolution of an eye from beginning to end starting from light sensitive cells to a complex organ? Can you replicate that so that I can objectively asess and qualitatively review your experiments? I think not or we wouldn't be relying on pure conjecture as to how this took place. Can't anyone get it that evolution is a theory. There is no absolute proof.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

It's not proof that can be shared with others in a scientific way.

Originally posted by Matthew:

so, not "actual" proof, but rather "empty" proof that cannot be repeated, or assessed, or used to demonstrate anything except that you have a personal belief for which there is zero external evidence.

Do I have to repeat for the third time the example of loving your mother? Do you dispute that people can Love one another? If you do not then prove it to me scientifically. Why does no one address and refute my arguments? They simply throw out platitudes about 'actual' proof. Just because something can't be proven scientifically does not mean that it does not exist.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Compared to "actual" proof of things like evolution, your "empty" proof rather pales into insignificance.

Proof?!? Your joking right? You have evidence that shows that biological organisms can mutate. You have absolutely no proof that this is cause for an eye being developed. It's a theory and not a good one really. Too many presuppositions and holes in your evidence. It most certainly does not rise to the level of beyond reasonable doubt. No my friend you have no actual proof. If you did you would profer that and I would have to agree. THEORY. You have a THEORY.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

False prophets (teachers) abound everywhere you look. It's not surprising.

Originally posted by Matthew:

A point where we can agree.

At least we can agree on that. The organizations that house and purport to represent God by and large do a very poor job. It does not however preclude the existence of God. I made that same logical mistake in the past.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/06/2008 03:49:02 AM · #128

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Matthew:
It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.

Ahem "On the Origin of Species"..

I am such a stickler when it comes to Darwin. ;-)

Although I believe it is hard to find copy with the original title these days and most are, incorrectly named, The Origin of Species..

Still, great discussion!! I love all this theological chat talking about a great, powerful & loving god who lets men rape babies, kill kids etc So glad he loves us and is on our side! Imagine how f****d we would be if he didn't love us!

I think the difference between you and God, your point of view on what happens on this planet and his are the fact that he knows that your life on this earth is like a mist that appears and vanishes in the blink of an eye compared to eternity in his presence in Heaven. To you this life is all that there is. You see when you look at it from God's point of view a little suffering now that eventually leads to your salvation for eternity is not a bad trade-off. That is why Christians often endure hardship. It forces us to rely on him instead of our own understanding. I can't say I fully understand why bad things are allowed to happen except that he gives us free will to do evil if we choose. The wonderful thing about God is that he can take anything terrible that has happened to you and turn it to your benefit if you submit your will to His Holy Spirit.

chalice

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/06/2008 05:48:58 AM · #129

Originally posted by chalice:

And as for the theologians? The same thing is going on. What do you think all of the religious scholars are doing digging in the sands of the middle east, translating every scrap of new papyrus they can find and debating among themselves the meaning of every significant word in the ancient texts, with an open mind and willingness to test new ideas, ...and a willingness to dialogue with scientists in matters of common concern. THAT is the stuff of true religion.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

My initial guess would be that they are trying to validate their own beliefs.

Some would expect to validate their own beliefs. Kind of like scientists who undertake research with the expectation that they would validate their own beliefs (hypotheses). I'm not sure many people undertake research of any kind by trying to invalidate their own beliefs (although a few may). Imagine going to your funding source for a project and saying the reason I am doing this work is so I can invalidate my belief that such and such is true.

But either way it seems to me to be a disservice to researchers of all kinds to take a negative position vis-a-vis them simply because they may want to do research to support some matter they currently believe to be true.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If one is already convinced of the correctness of his or her belief, all evidence found is seen in light of that belief.

That's a startling admission coming from an atheist. So THAT'S how Atheists look at their "evidence". That explains a lot about the Atheist argument.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Ask yourself, what evidence would it take to convince you that your belief in God was false? If there is nothing that would be able to convince you of that, then you're not really open minded. If the potential for a change of mind doesn't even exist, then there really is not true inquiry.

I'm not sure what evidence would be needed to convince me that my belief in God was false. But that does not imply that "there is nothing that would be able to convince [me] of that." However, since it is common knowledge that Christians from time to time become Atheists, and Atheists from time to time become Christians, it's pretty evident to me that for some people there can be enough evidence to have someone go either way. So, I'd say there is more than a "potential for a change of mind". There's actual proof of it. Exhibit A: Louis (going from Christian to Atheist). Exhibit B: dponlyme (going from Atheist to Christian). Looks like "true inquiry" to me.

Originally posted by chalice:

What's so wrong with a scientist exploring whether a Creator is behind the universe? What is so wrong with a theologian exploring the validity of Evolution as a process that explains the development and extent of species? I say nothing is wrong with either. And the individual who can not do it while still holding on firmly to what he or she has tested and learned and believes to be true (up to this point in time) is, in his or her own way, a form of radical fundamentalist, whether a scientist or a theologian.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

I say there is nothing wrong with it either. Were that it was as common as you would like it to be. What a great place this world would be if were all so fully open minded and actively testing and learning all the time. I would share that vision of a world with you.

Gladly shared.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

But - if this is what is so desirable, and if truth is what we're all really after, open mindedly and all that -- why is religion so often so very hostile to science? As your post already indicates, by talking about all the supposed Christian scientists that exits, the opposite is not nearly so true -- science is not nearly so hostile to religion as the opposite.

Religion isn't hostile to science ... or vice versa. People sometimes are hostile in the name of religion and in the name of science. Sometimes because the topic raises much passion. Sometimes because people feel threatened. Sometimes because people can make a bigger buck for their book sales if they kick up a ruckess. There are plenty of Christians and Scientists who are not hostile by nature and who are not hostile to the ideas of those who do not share their particular view on the subject. I attend a church with more than a 1000 participants. I've never heard anyone gripe about science. Some of them make their living in scientific fields. That may not be a statistically significant sample and I haven't tried to take a poll. But I am more inclined to think that the distinct minority who raise a ruckess just get noticed more because the press loves a good story and people who are spoiling for a fight love to get publicity. The vast majority of people pretty much mind their own business, believe what they believe, and aren't hostile about anything (with the possible exception of European soccer).

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/06/2008 06:36:01 AM · #130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an example, if step A required UV light and a strongly acidic environment without oxygen and step B is destroyed by UV light, wants a basic environment and is halted by oxygen radicals then we aren't getting very far with regards to a plausible story. That's what I mean.

Ya never know... if the environment of an organic soup is suddenly changed by a meteor or volcanic eruption that blocks out UV rays, shifts the pH balance and changes the oxygen content, you might get exactly the right conditions. With trillions of stars in the universe, anything is possible... and only the places where the right conditions are possible would give rise to life intelligent enough to wonder about it. ;-)

Well, to me that sounds like we're back to winning the lottery. But I guess that's just my opinion. Let's pick this argument back up after they've actually done it, eh?

Off to bed. Got a half marathon in the AM.

But like most lotteries there's usually a winner. You're living on one...

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 06:40:09.

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

04/06/2008 07:16:22 AM · #131

Evolution of the eye:
Part 1
Part 2
and again with excellent 80's graphics

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/06/2008 07:33:12 AM · #132

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I'm not going back into why evolutionary theory about the eye is a joke...

I don't think that you had any reasons beyond "without doing any research, it stretches my credulity". The fact that it can be tracked through the genetic and fossil record, and observed at different stages of evolution in the world around us are not convincing enough. Whereas the existence of an invisible and undetectable superbeing is, to you, all too believable.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Do you know that Christians across the globe are persecuted and even murdered for their beliefs? [etc]

As are hindus, muslims, and buddhists for their beliefs, and atheists for their lack of belief. Please don't get a superiority complex - our common humanity makes us exactly like everyone else in all these respects.

Out of interest, did you become a "good person" only after you saw the light?

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/06/2008 08:54:29 AM · #133

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Can't anyone get it that evolution is a theory. There is no absolute proof.

Well - in the same way can people not realise that there is no proof for the force of gravity - it is just a theory. You cannot see the force, just its effects. Okay - there have been no examples of it ever having operated differently (save for a few unbelievable stories of men walking on water), and millions of experiments have failed to show anything different, but that is not proof that it exists.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Do I have to repeat for the third time the example of loving your mother? Do you dispute that people can Love one another? If you do not then prove it to me scientifically.

Maybe come up with a better example if you have to keep on repeating one that does not work.

It is perfectly possible to prove the existence of emotions - since they are a concept, a label attached to a physiological response: you can measure the physiological response and ask people what concept/label they attach to it. Repeat, theorise, study, come up with an overwhelming consensus through investigation that people can experience a sensation they call love and that when they express love for their mothers they are not lying.

If you were trying to argue that god is nothing more than a feeling, then we could talk. If you thought that god was nothing more than a philosophy, a way of thought, then we could talk. But you are trying to argue that there is an interventionist god - one that has a tangible consequence for the physical world. The thing that you are being asked to explain is the total absence of evidence for intervention.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Why does no one address and refute my arguments?

They aren't really arguments. You are approaching hard and factual science with emotive vaguaries - like appealing to "mother's love".

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Compared to "actual" proof of things like evolution, your "empty" proof rather pales into insignificance.

Proof?!? Your joking right? You have evidence that shows that biological organisms can mutate. You have absolutely no proof that this is cause for an eye being developed.

I said that evolution is proven as a theory - repeatedly and overwhelmingly so. The development of the eye within that framework can be evidenced in the fossil and genetic record. If you require a higher standard then we might as well all give up. You could never prove anything to a higher standard

For example, you could never prove to me what you had for breakfast unless I had been there to watch you eat it, because your "evidence" (the broken egg shells and the bacon wrapper) won't tell me whether you had an omelette or fried aggs. The fact that there are crumbs of fried egg on your plate won't tell me how runny was your yolk. I can always ask for more and more details until you run out of "proof" and I can then point out that we cannot be sure, and until then we should carry on believing that you had cereal (and ignore the fact that I am sponsored by Kelloggs).

Originally posted by dponlyme:

It most certainly does not rise to the level of beyond reasonable doubt. No my friend you have no actual proof. If you did you would profer that and I would have to agree. THEORY. You have a THEORY.

Yes. A theory that resoundingly proves true. You can disbelieve, cover your ears and not look at the reality of millions of experiments and discoveries all in accordance with it, but none of that will change the theory. If you want to change the theory you have to try and find something that cannot be explained by it.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Yes - we are not so different. Of all the thousands of religions and billions of variations, I disbelieve just one form of religion more than you.

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 08:55:45.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/06/2008 12:27:35 PM · #134

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Matthew:
It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.

Ahem "On the Origin of Species"..

I am such a stickler when it comes to Darwin. ;-)

Although I believe it is hard to find copy with the original title these days and most are, incorrectly named, The Origin of Species..

Still, great discussion!! I love all this theological chat talking about a great, powerful & loving god who lets men rape babies, kill kids etc So glad he loves us and is on our side! Imagine how f****d we would be if he didn't love us!

I think the difference between you and God, your point of view on what happens on this planet and his are the fact that he knows that your life on this earth is like a mist that appears and vanishes in the blink of an eye compared to eternity in his presence in Heaven. To you this life is all that there is. You see when you look at it from God's point of view a little suffering now that eventually leads to your salvation for eternity is not a bad trade-off. That is why Christians often endure hardship. It forces us to rely on him instead of our own understanding. I can't say I fully understand why bad things are allowed to happen except that he gives us free will to do evil if we choose. The wonderful thing about God is that he can take anything terrible that has happened to you and turn it to your benefit if you submit your will to His Holy Spirit.

What to make of this latest spewage? God loves raping babies and killing children but it's all OK because he loves us?

Thanks but no thanks.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/06/2008 12:29:30 PM · #135

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. ... I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are.

Ah yes - just a century of consistent and overwhelmingly and crushingly positive evidence coming out of objective and demonstrable experiments by millions of people. Why believe your eyes and ears when you can induce an endorphin rush of religious ecstacy through ignorance...?

The evolution of the eye is just about the worst possible example used by the "watchmaker" critics because it is one of the best evidenced and well understood examples of evolutionary theory. It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.

If you really think that the eye stands up as a problem for evolutionary theory to explain, then you have been sold a line by someone with a vested interest in maintaining your ignorance and you have fallen for it. Conclusions may be drawn appropriately.

I'm not going back into why evolutionary theory about the eye is a joke... read my previous post about the video I was suggested to watch. I will address this endorphin rush theory of religious payoff to believers. Do you know that Christians across the globe are persecuted and even murdered for their beliefs? Do you know that Christianity requires of it's members that they often endure great hardship? No my friend their is no endorphin rush based on ignorance here. Would you be willing to die for evolution theory? True Christians do not put themselves first in life. It is often that I would do one thing because it benefited myself but the Holy Spirit guides me to do what is best for others forsaking my own wants. Doesn't sound like a great way to live if your looking for endorphin rushes. Try denying yourself and your wants and see if the endorphins start to flow. I have been where you are at I was an atheist at one time so I know I will never convince you of the existence of God. You will have to come to that on your own but first you have to cast off all of your personal biases. I know for me it was the Catholic Church that convinced me that there could not possibly be a God merely for the way in which they conduct their church. Add to that the fact it can't be proven that their is a God scientifically and voila: Atheist. What I failed to realize at the time was that just because I saw much evidence of organized religion being filled with a bunch of crap it didn't change the fact of God, His existence, His Character, His purposes, His Love. I rejected the whole idea. It seemed to me to be just a way to control people and have power over them. Well I was right and I was wrong. I was right that the imperfect people making up the church had screwed everything up royally but I was wrong in assuming that that meant there was no God. God is no matter what we do or how we conduct ourselves.

Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary.

04/06/2008 02:41:18 PM · #136

Originally posted by Matthew:

[quote=dponlyme] I'm not going back into why evolutionary theory about the eye is a joke...

Originally posted by Matthew:

Show me your proof through the fossil record of an eye developing as a result of random mutations and natural selection. You can't because you only have a THEORY as to why it happened if indeed you have a fossil record that shows the development of an eye within a particular species. Judging by the video I was beckoned to watch the 'expert' presupposes quite a lot and seems to be stating that 'this is how it could have happened' If you had what you say you have why would he not show how this evolution happened to a particular species showing fossils from each step along the way?
As far as the believability of God I can understand your statement coming from your perspective because you are scared to open your mind up to the possibility that our 5 senses are not all encompassing. Think of this: what if you were deaf and blind and had no sense of smell or taste. All you had was the sense of touch. Further presuppose that all humans were just the same. Would then nothing exist except that which you could touch or feel? The answer of course is no. The universe in all it's complexities would still exist but you wouldn't have any knowledge of it or sense it whatsoever and indeed never would. I submit to you that God is beyond our limited 5 senses. That is why God has sent the Holy Spirit to live inside of the true Christian. I experience a relationship with God. It really isn't a belief anymore but through faith I have an actual knowledge of God. Again this is not scientific knowledge. Not all knowledge comes through the scientific method. Believe it or not people had knowledge even before the scientific method was developed.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Do you know that Christians across the globe are persecuted and even murdered for their beliefs? [etc]

Originally posted by Matthew:

I don't think that I am superior in any way to you or anyone else. It seems to me to be quite the opposite. I can understand your way of thinking because I once thought the way you do. You however cannot even conceive that anyone with intelligence would have mine. You seem to be saying that I think because Christians and others are persecuted and murdered for their beliefs that that somehow shows that I think we are better. It does not make us better. It does however show that being a Christian is not necessarily the cakewalk endorphin rush life of ignorant bliss that was stated by the person I was replying to in writing that statement. I do however sincerely doubt that an atheist would rather give up his life in favor of dying for their belief in nothing. That wouldn't make much logical sense to die for nothing. Why not just pretend to believe to preserve ones life. After all there will be no reward for sticking to your beliefs in your grave because there is nothing after death right? I would submit that an atheist willing to die for his beliefs is a moron or just exceptionally stubborn and self destructive.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest, did you become a "good person" only after you saw the light?

I'm glad you asked. No I was a pretty good guy overall (from a human standpoint) even before I think because I had loving and caring parents who nurtured me and taught me to be nice. I was however a lost sinner and didn't even know the sins that I was committing. I saw nothing wrong with a lot of the things I was doing but God did. They fell outside of his will for me. You see when you have a relationship with Jesus Christ he will convict you of the sins you commit so that you can be aware of them. Sin then becomes utterly sinful. There is no more rationalizing away my actions. No justification for my sins whatsoever. They become just plain out and out wrong. I give my heartfelt thanks to Jesus Christ because by coming into relationship to him I have forgiveness for the sins I have committed, am committing, or will commit in the future. Why? Because Jesus Christ lay down his life for me and died for my sins and yours also for that matter. I struggled for years with some pretty grievous sins even after being saved and coming to a knowledge of God. God's Holy Spirit is the 'light' you speak of and He can, if I submit to his will, work in me to change me by giving me wisdom and knowledge so that I will become more and more like Jesus Christ. I still struggle with sin in many forms because I being human cannot achieve perfection. I have never met a perfect Christian. I have never met a Christian who was without sin. I never will because they don't exist. We are always in the process of learning. We are always in the process of gaining wisdom and knowledge. Oftentimes I am stubborn and refuse to submit myself to God's will and because He loves me and knows my heart He will make sure that I suffer consequences for my active rebellion against him. Like any loving Father He is correcting me so that I may learn. You don't have to be a nice guy before or after being saved but if you have a knowledge of God and WANT to do God's will but just can't find it in yourself to do it there is no condemnation of you but simply your acts. God knows it will take sometimes a great deal of time and patience and correction to bring about the character he wants you to have. We true Christians are always a work in progress. This is oftentimes why myself (in the past) and persons such as yourself look at Christians and think to themselves that Christianity is a bunch of bull.

04/06/2008 03:27:33 PM · #137

Originally posted by yanko:

But like most lotteries there's usually a winner. You're living on one...

An agreed possibility. I'd like to know the odds of the lottery I won though. There are neither an infinite amount of planets nor an infinite amount of time. Currently the odds are long. The process is obviously not simple or we would likely have come up with it by now, and time is against us because we see evidence of life virtually as soon as possible on our earth.

If we won a lottery where the odds were one in a thousand we shouldn't be too amazed. If we won a lottery where the odds were one in a trillion trillion (or sufficiently large number to make our universe unlikely to produce it), then I would think a rational being might question whether the lottery was rigged.

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/06/2008 03:47:25 PM · #138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
But like most lotteries there's usually a winner. You're living on one...

An agreed possibility. I'd like to know the odds of the lottery I won though. There are neither an infinite amount of planets nor an infinite amount of time. Currently the odds are long. The process is obviously not simple or we would likely have come up with it by now, and time is against us because we see evidence of life virtually as soon as possible on our earth.

If we won a lottery where the odds were one in a thousand we shouldn't be too amazed. If we won a lottery where the odds were one in a trillion trillion (or sufficiently large number to make our universe unlikely to produce it), then I would think a rational being might question whether the lottery was rigged.

Is that why when someone has a baby they call it a miracle because out of the thousands of sperm only one is successful? Maybe we are all just living on eggs and that big bang was ummm something else... :P

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/06/2008 03:47:55 PM · #139

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There has been quite a bit of thought put into the very question of how long the odds actually are in the lottery. The Drake Equation, popularized by science fiction authors such as Isaac Asimov, provide long, but given the sample set, highly optimistic odds of winning the lottery and thereby posit a galaxy where life is relatively abundant. On the other end of the sphere you have the Rare Earth Hypothesis, which provides a much more pessimistic view and posits that while bacterial level life may be relatively common, complex multicellular life would be extremely rare. Both are just thought experiments since, until we actually get out there (or if we ever get out there) we won't actually know. But they are both highly informed thought experiments, and very interesting.

04/06/2008 03:57:24 PM · #140

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Yes, I'm aware of both. While I think they are interesting, they qualify, to me, as "back-of-the-envelope" equations. As an example, the number in the Drake equation "Ne" (average number of planets that can support life per star that has planets) is wildly optimistic. Since the equation it has generally been accepted that there is a "goldilocks" zone in a galaxy. Too close to the center and you run into problems with stellar crowding and massive black holes, too far from the center and, IIRC, you have too few heavy elements for planets (I'm not positive on that last bit).

Anyway, interesting equations, but they don't mean a lot.

04/06/2008 04:08:10 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Anyway, interesting equations, but they don't mean a lot.

Like stories of Adam and Eve, man walking on water and the like, right?

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 16:08:28.

04/06/2008 04:11:43 PM · #142

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, interesting equations, but they don't mean a lot.

Like stories of Adam and Eve, man walking on water and the like, right?

Well, I don't remember those stories having a lot to do with numbers...

04/06/2008 04:15:10 PM · #143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, interesting equations, but they don't mean a lot.

Like stories of Adam and Eve, man walking on water and the like, right?

Well, I don't remember those stories having a lot to do with numbers...

So if the scientist just came out and said life exists in Alpha Centuri, and a million other places and gave you no numbers or proof to back it up you'd find more meaning in that?

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 16:18:01.

04/06/2008 04:34:29 PM · #144

Originally posted by dponlyme:

You say that with absolute surety yet you can't accept how an eye might have evolved??? What if God (if he exists) uses evolution as one of his tools, you would be questioning his handicraft.

04/06/2008 04:40:38 PM · #145

Originally posted by Matthew:

[quote=dponlyme]Can't anyone get it that evolution is a theory. There is no absolute proof.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state. The same does not apply to evolution. You certainly can't be telling me that evolution THEORY has the same degree of certainty as the LAW of gravity. That would make you seem unintelligent which I know you are not. Please explain further. Maybe this is just a bad example.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Do I have to repeat for the third time the example of loving your mother? Do you dispute that people can Love one another? If you do not then prove it to me scientifically.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Ever consider what causes the physiological response to take place at all? I would suggest that the physiological response was the direct result of actual Love. Love not being a label but a real thing that causes the physiological response. Thanks for at least trying to refute my argument. What you can prove then is that people have a physiological response to Love. I would agree. You cannot however prove that the emotion of love arises from physiology. Point in fact I can love someone fiercely and yet be angry with them and experience no physiological sensation of that Love because at the time I am experiencing the physiological response to the very real (not just a label) emotion of anger.

Originally posted by Matthew:

If you were trying to argue that god is nothing more than a feeling, then we could talk. If you thought that god was nothing more than a philosophy, a way of thought, then we could talk. But you are trying to argue that there is an interventionist god - one that has a tangible consequence for the physical world. The thing that you are being asked to explain is the total absence of evidence for intervention.

It is often said that God is Love. So in a way it makes sense that you would say that God is a feeling. He is however much more than that. It is just his main characteristic.
He is also a judge of men's hearts. He is also Creator of the Universe and he displays many other characteristics. God is real and if we open our minds (hearts, soul, whatever you want to call it) to him we will have a physiological response to his presence. Just as we have a physiological response to the realization of anyones presence (speaking here in physical form ie if someone you dislike walks into the room you are in you will have a physiological reaction to that knowledge that they are there). The physiology doesn't give rise to God but God's presence gives rise to the physiological response. As far as arguing for the fact of an interventionist God I have already stated that God cannot be proved using science. I do not argue that he can be. I know that he does exist. How? Because he does intervene in MY life. I have had so many prayers answered (and other Christians have also and will attest to) that to me it is an absolute certainty. If I prayed and prayed and prayed and made a conscious decision to submit my will to his and nothing resulted from it then I would agree with you that God was just a concept and non-interventionist. That is not however the case. Will I ever convince you of God's existence and ability to intervene in your life. NO. I know I will not and it is not my goal to do as such. No my goal is to give you pause for thought. To plant a seed if you will. I've had many many of these types of discussions and most of them I have argued from your point of view. This is all really old hat to me.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Why does no one address and refute my arguments?

Originally posted by Matthew:

They aren't really arguments. You are approaching hard and factual science with emotive vaguaries - like appealing to "mother's love".

You did try to refute my argument and I was not appealing to your emotions or being vague about what I stated.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Compared to "actual" proof of things like evolution, your "empty" proof rather pales into insignificance.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Proof?!? Your joking right? You have evidence that shows that biological organisms can mutate. You have absolutely no proof that this is cause for an eye being developed.

Originally posted by Matthew:

By definition a scientific theory is not proven but is simply the analysis of the facts that can be ascertained. Your statement is like saying 'My thought is proven as an assumption' it does not connote certainty in the thought but simply certainty that it is an assumptive thought.

Originally posted by Matthew:

For example, you could never prove to me what you had for breakfast unless I had been there to watch you eat it, because your "evidence" (the broken egg shells and the bacon wrapper) won't tell me whether you had an omelette or fried aggs. The fact that there are crumbs of fried egg on your plate won't tell me how runny was your yolk. I can always ask for more and more details until you run out of "proof" and I can then point out that we cannot be sure, and until then we should carry on believing that you had cereal (and ignore the fact that I am sponsored by Kelloggs).

I'll agree that from all of the available evidence that evolution is the best theory one can come up with from a scientific point of view. It does not mean that it is correct. In science theories are bandied about ad-nauseam and very few ever actually are proven to be true. It is simply the best they can come up with based on what they know through scientific investigation. As I've stated before and wether or not you agree with me (how you couldn't I really can't fathom) science has limitations.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:

The statement you have made presupposes that the THEORY could change pending further evidence. Just because that new evidence has not or cannot be ascertained using science does not give rise to any certainty in evolution THEORY. No it only means that we do not have enough knowledge to make a determination of certainty thus proving my argument.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Yes - we are not so different. Of all the thousands of religions and billions of variations, I disbelieve just one form of religion more than you.

You were close there. I am not a member of a religion. Nor do I believe in the Christian 'religion'. That would be the people who believe that standing sitting kneeling in a special building somehow gives them preference with God over others. I believe in Christ and him crucified for the remission of my sins. The realm of what we have come to know as the Christian religion for the most part has very little to do with God and more to do with politics and money as I'm sure you well agree. I belong to God and His Holy Spirit and keep the company of others who are also led by the spirit so that we can encourage each other and have fellowship the way God intended. Apostasy is a bitch. It is foretold in the Bible and it is why many like you (and myself at one time) do not open your hearts and minds to God. Matthew 5:13 You are the salt of the earth: but If the salt has lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men. So goes the Christian 'Religion'.

04/06/2008 04:56:43 PM · #146

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary.

I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit.

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/06/2008 05:14:38 PM · #147

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by yanko:

You say that with absolute surety yet you can't accept how an eye might have evolved??? What if God (if he exists) uses evolution as one of his tools, you would be questioning his handicraft.

I do say with absolute surety everything you have placed in bold letters. As far as God using evolution as one of his tools I have always contended that the development of organs such as eyes could most definitely have been a gradual process that you might think of as evolution. The problem I have with evolution Theory is that all of this just happened by chance mutations and natural selection. That is the main and basic flaw of evolution. It assumes that complex things just happen to grow out of nothing but chance mutations and natural selection. From a scientific point of view and throwing what I know to be true about God out the window that this does not even come close to explaining how an eye or brain could have come into being. When looking at the complexity of a DNA strand it is impossibly ridiculous and statistically practically impossible for this to be in existence by mere chance. Something else must be going on here. Scientifically I don't know what that could be. Unscientifically I know it to be God.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/06/2008 05:44:44 PM · #148

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:
[quote=dponlyme]Can't anyone get it that evolution is a theory. There is no absolute proof.

Originally posted by Matthew:
Well - in the same way can people not realise that there is no proof for the force of gravity - it is just a theory. You cannot see the force, just its effects. Okay - there have been no examples of it ever having operated differently (save for a few unbelievable stories of men walking on water), and millions of experiments have failed to show anything different, but that is not proof that it exists.

Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state. The same does not apply to evolution. You certainly can't be telling me that evolution THEORY has the same degree of certainty as the LAW of gravity. That would make you seem unintelligent which I know you are not. Please explain further. Maybe this is just a bad example.

From wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

----------

When one talks about the "theory" of evolution, one is necessarily referring to the scientific meaning of the word. Evolution is a well proven theory. No credible biologist doubts or questions the overarching theory. Science's understanding of the specific mechanics are continually being enhanced, and refined as we develop better tools and methods and further increase the amount of direct evidence available (aka, fossil record, genetics, etc.).

So tell me, my little monkey brother, do you really not understand, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 17:56:25.

04/06/2008 06:26:20 PM · #149

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Matthew:
[quote=dponlyme]Can't anyone get it that evolution is a theory. There is no absolute proof.

Originally posted by Matthew:
Well - in the same way can people not realise that there is no proof for the force of gravity - it is just a theory. You cannot see the force, just its effects. Okay - there have been no examples of it ever having operated differently (save for a few unbelievable stories of men walking on water), and millions of experiments have failed to show anything different, but that is not proof that it exists.

Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state. The same does not apply to evolution. You certainly can't be telling me that evolution THEORY has the same degree of certainty as the LAW of gravity. That would make you seem unintelligent which I know you are not. Please explain further. Maybe this is just a bad example.

From wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

----------

When one talks about the "theory" of evolution, one is necessarily referring to the scientific meaning of the word. Evolution is a well proven theory. No credible biologist doubts or questions the overarching theory. Science's understanding of the specific mechanics are continually being enhanced, and refined as we develop better tools and methods and further increase the amount of direct evidence available (aka, fossil record, genetics, etc.).

So tell me, my little monkey brother, do you really not understand, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

It does not surprise me that you resort to insults. You are so scared that you may not be right about everything you hold so dear that you feel you must make yourself feel superior by doing this.

I have this definition of scientific theory from About.com

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

I would suggest your user generated wikipedia definition does not accurately describe what a scientific theory really is or do you worship wikipedia the way you worship evolutionary THEORY(as defined by about.com). I would also suggest that to be certain there is no God when most of the people living on the earth would disagree with you simply because you cannot detect him with your 5 senses is not only being deliberately obtuse but foolish as well.

edit: correction- your definition while being accurate does not give enough weight to the 'do not necessarily stand in opposition' phrase which means that indeed they could stand in opposition. Just not necessarily.

Message edited by author 2008-04-06 18:48:32.