Page 11 of 12 [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

04 Aug 2014, 5:50 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Just because evolution doesn't mesh with biblical stories doesn't mean that there is not God. The bible is a human record and mythology. It has nothing to do with God. Natural laws and evolution are God's work. Expressing them in scientific terminology to gain greater understanding of our environment brings us closer to God, not farther from.

It does mean that the Biblical God doesn't exist. If you have some other concept of it, I would ask why you thought so.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,069
Location: Victoria, Australia

04 Aug 2014, 6:17 pm

AspE wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Just because evolution doesn't mesh with biblical stories doesn't mean that there is not God. The bible is a human record and mythology. It has nothing to do with God. Natural laws and evolution are God's work. Expressing them in scientific terminology to gain greater understanding of our environment brings us closer to God, not farther from.

It does mean that the Biblical God doesn't exist. If you have some other concept of it, I would ask why you thought so.


She is a Deist, what I find interesting is that some deists also claim to be Christians, which to my understanding should be mutually exclusive, yet some of them see Jesus as the Son Of God, and believe in the scriptures.

To my mind Deism is the only sensible course for the religious to take, so much of the bible has been shown to be errant, the only real gap for God to fill is the creation of the universe. And this gap is in serious danger of being filled by new understandings regarding the natural laws.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

04 Aug 2014, 6:59 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
...the only real gap for God to fill is the creation of the universe.

Georges Lemaître told Hannes Alfven that the Big Bang theory "was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo." Unless something can come from nothing, which I am totally convinced is impossible, we're pretty much left with an eternal universe in which the alleged Big Bang could have been a local event, if it ever happened.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,514
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Aug 2014, 7:28 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
AspE wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Just because evolution doesn't mesh with biblical stories doesn't mean that there is not God. The bible is a human record and mythology. It has nothing to do with God. Natural laws and evolution are God's work. Expressing them in scientific terminology to gain greater understanding of our environment brings us closer to God, not farther from.

It does mean that the Biblical God doesn't exist. If you have some other concept of it, I would ask why you thought so.


She is a Deist, what I find interesting is that some deists also claim to be Christians, which to my understanding should be mutually exclusive, yet some of them see Jesus as the Son Of God, and believe in the scriptures.

To my mind Deism is the only sensible course for the religious to take, so much of the bible has been shown to be errant, the only real gap for God to fill is the creation of the universe. And this gap is in serious danger of being filled by new understandings regarding the natural laws.


Quote:
Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.[3][4][5][6][7] Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment?especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States?among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.[8]


Thank you DentArthurDent, I did not know there was a term for it.

With regard to Christianity, I certainly don't believe in Jesus being the son of God. Although I think there probably was a historical figure about whom the writings were inspired. Kind of like Homer didn't necessarily write the Iliad and Odyssey, but the stories are collected under that name. I think that many of the traits ascribed to Jesus are desirable for a functioning society, though.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,741
Location: Queens, NYC

04 Aug 2014, 7:46 pm

I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

06 Aug 2014, 11:41 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.

Appealing why? The conditions are simply the existence of elements.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

06 Aug 2014, 1:31 pm

AspE wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.

Appealing why? The conditions are simply the existence of elements.


Elements comprised of particles that seek a particular biased outcome by way of forces:

gravitational force
electromagnetic force
strong nuclear force
weak nuclear force

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

Evolution tells us that the amalgamation of molecules to start life is based on this bias, however, why this bias? Why a life-permitting bias ? Matter has preference, but who gave it preference ?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

06 Aug 2014, 2:34 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.

Appealing why? The conditions are simply the existence of elements.


Elements comprised of particles that seek a particular biased outcome by way of forces:

gravitational force
electromagnetic force
strong nuclear force
weak nuclear force

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

Evolution tells us that the amalgamation of molecules to start life is based on this bias, however, why this bias? Why a life-permitting bias ? Matter has preference, but who gave it preference ?


Or rather "what" gave it preference. There does not need to be "who".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/ ... FN20100902

Quote:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


Of course he wasn't there. But neither were any of the people who created the concept of God.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

06 Aug 2014, 4:18 pm

Janissy wrote:
..."what" gave it preference.

Who gave what its ability to give it preference. Who's mother next. Turtles all the way down.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

06 Aug 2014, 5:40 pm

Janissy wrote:
"It is nOr rather "what" gave it preference. There does not need to be "who".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/ ... FN20100902


In your citation, Hawkings does not address the reasons why matter has preference to form in particular ways though. A super-genius "GOD" would realize that matter would ultimately (re)assemble itself into a preferential form, due to bias preferences of the particles in matter. We can see this with basic chemistry, we can throw some chemicals together, leave it alone, and see the expected outcome.

However ....

Quoted: ... as Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Every step of the way, science is like "we got lucky! we got lucky! ". Like in Dungeons and Dragons, you roll a trillion sided dice and have to get a '1', and we got it. :)

Also, Hawking does not commit random origins of life. He just says that chances of non-random origin is small.

"The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small".
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

06 Aug 2014, 6:19 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.

Appealing why? The conditions are simply the existence of elements.


Elements comprised of particles that seek a particular biased outcome by way of forces:

gravitational force
electromagnetic force
strong nuclear force
weak nuclear force

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

Evolution tells us that the amalgamation of molecules to start life is based on this bias, however, why this bias? Why a life-permitting bias ? Matter has preference, but who gave it preference ?

Chemistry allows for all sorts of complex interactions between atoms, some of it is life, most is not life. I wouldn't say there's any bias to it.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

06 Aug 2014, 7:00 pm

"A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms. This attraction may be seen as the result of different behaviors of the outermost electrons of atoms".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

Thus, elements are biased to combine particularly based on their electromagnetic force, determined based on the position/spin/charge of their electrons.



DoodleDoo
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 348
Location: SoCal/Los Angeles

07 Aug 2014, 1:20 pm

Religion clearly exploits the Dunning?Kruger effect, ignorance begets confidence.

Remember the past it was a big deal to the Church that the earth was the center of the universe. It was a big deal because the church felt it undermined its authority. Unfortunately the Catholic Church no longer publishes its "List of Prohibited Books" a great way to find out what is good in science. Today the church is denigrating evolution is similar way. The church strongly benefits from the Dunning?Kruger effect here. This resistance to evolution is a clear sign of how important of and idea this is.

Today if one does not have an accurate understanding of celestial mechanics it will have little impact on there employability unless your launching satellites. Evolution is much more important to have a correct understanding. In so many fields of science evolution is a necessary requirement for success.



AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,773
Location: North Idaho. USA

07 Aug 2014, 1:53 pm

No, your right, when we bump our crap in our forests, or even cut down our forests, its not evolution when the animals try and adapt, not to mention the ecology.


_________________
Master Thread Killer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,541
Location: Reading, England

07 Aug 2014, 8:23 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
"A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms. This attraction may be seen as the result of different behaviors of the outermost electrons of atoms".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

Thus, elements are biased to combine particularly based on their electromagnetic force, determined based on the position/spin/charge of their electrons.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove. You are not using the conventional definition of "biased" here, which implies agency. You also, and again I don't mean to be rude, quite plainly do not know what you are talking about. This is reasonably advanced chemistry that, although it cannot be adequately explained here, is accessed by A Level students in the UK and probably first-year university students in the USA every year. You don't seem to understand the nature of bonding, which is ultimately about stability (though that is quite a glib answer). Elements are no more "biased" to bond in certain ways than you are "biased" to move towards the Earth because of gravity.

I suggest you look up the anthropic principle. Essentially, by definition, any conscious life that exists will realise that its environment is very finely tuned to support it. That's because life evolves to suit its conditions. If it cannot, it dies. There are trillions of planets that cannot support life, but we see one that does and we use that as proof that the Earth has been designed as a home for living things. There are probably many billions of lifeless universes out there, but we point to the one where life evolved as "proof" that the laws of nature are so finely tuned as to be perfect for supporting life.