Creation and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Again, I say that my point about God is based on the structure and rules of human grammer, not anyone's opinion. The structure and logic of our grammer is above anyone's opinion.

I have not removed evolution from the realm of science. I also have not relied on faith in any way in any one of my arguments. Yet, this is your continuing problem with my position.

By the same logic, 'it's ridiculous to open up evolutionism to criticism which it doesn't deserve - and to remove it from the realm of church.' Empirical versus Circumstantial evidence. It all boils down to there being a time and place for everything. A church sermon isn't the time or place for a scientist to be teaching. A science lesson isn't the time or place for a minister to be teaching.

And on the other side of the same coin, theology ought to keep it's nose out of science.

Based on the contention that the universe is infinite, evolution could be thought of as systemic variations over time or through space. Creation of any form requires a precursor. This denotes transition. If creation requires a before, wouldn't this imply infinite regression? In an infinite universe, can true creation pro'cess? Evolution seems to be a change from a less complex system to a more complex system, the allusion of creation appears to be more general in nature. If "god" exists, god must exist within the universe. The composition of the universe is of that which is in it. God is of the universe just as we are of the universe. The universe is god as much as we are a part of the universe.

Probably true, the difficulty is that historically the church was the prime repository of thinking men, and many fundamental issues were decided. It is difficult to go back on these. Just weakens the arguments for these outmoded religions though - the same way that science would sully itself if it were defined in the way that jonathan seems to try and do so.

You keep attacking me, but have provided no argument to augment your position. Read through the posts again, I have rebutted all of your attacks.

Well, 'Thou shalt not kill' is a pretty sound moral principle, regardless of whether a 'God' is there than enforces it or not. Historically...something isn't necessarily good, true or just solely because it's tradition. Saying that would be an example of 'appeal to tradition'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I've done what I can. It seems that we're simply speaking different languages, if you don't see the logic in what I've said, and I don't see yours. I'm assuming that at the least, our logical systems are completely different - which at best, proves my point. I'm only really speaking to those who MIGHT understand what I'm saying now.




No doubt. I'm not appealing to tradition here. All that I'm saying is that it becomes impossible for the Church to reverse their position that they held in the past, without serious disturbance to their theology. This is something that religion has a more difficult time with than does scientific thought.

Sorry, I thought you were. And it does seem to me that the church is more prone to being stuck on 'argumentum ad antiquem' than the science establishments.

*WARNING* this post is childish and lacks relevance.

I always think of evolution/creation as being like the whole 'Optimus Prime - Truck not Monkey' thing. People are split into those who believe Optimus Prime has gone through many different forms and stages, and those who think he is, was, and always will be a truck.

You know what's sad?

That's actually better then half the metaphors I see.

The human brain isn't nearly as complex and amazing as you think it is.

As far as I'm concerned, religion is the result of evolution's most complex life form yet, reaching just the right point where it can realize what point it's gotten to, but still be primitive and egocentric enough to be flabbergasted by its supposed amazingness, and blame it on God so as to relinquish itself from responsibility.

Don't blame it on God. Keep evolving. Life is a work in progress. Just because it's starting to turn out better than you might have expected doesn't mean somebody else did it.

Regardless of whether or not there is a God, religion slows down our progress as a species and a society. It insists that the old is good and the new is bad. It's a horrible thing. If you'd rather stay in a childish 'i still believe in santa claus'-like state and feel good instead of accomplish something, then please at least don't do it in a way that keeps the rest of the world from moving on.

That's what I say to proponents of primitive creation myths.

Why do humans always see their own 'group' as better in some way? I don't know what definition of complex you are using, but humans are neither the most adaptable nor the most naturally in harmony with their surroundings.

Well, there's different types of intelligence. I personally think dogs are more intelligent than us.

Allow me to clarify. By complex, I'm really just referring to the language system we have with which to construct the concept of religion. If dogs had as expansive a language as us, they'd be saying some pretty dumb things too.

And..

>> Why do humans always see their own 'group' as better in some way?

I don't see 'my group' (if you can even call it that) to be better in some way. I'm thoroughly ashamed of my species. I think it's healthy. Helps give me aspirations to be better than your everyday hunter gatherer.

And I've no idea why you chose to read 'complex' as 'better.' What I meant was complex. A species that tends to adapt its environment to it instead of the other way around like most animals, and has a language system that goes a little bit farther than just circumstantial expressions of emotion, is certainly more complex. Whether it's better is a different question.

And I'm thinking more on the lines of brain activity than physical interaction with the environment. Just because an olympic athelete plays basketball better than Steven Hawking doesn't mean he's more complex than Steven Hawking.

Last edited by miku on 05 Apr 2007, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So complexity only refers to language? Seems to lack expressiveness required of the word. For example, one might speak of a complex molecule, but by your definition, that would be a categorical error.