The big problem I see with Creation theory is that no Creationist has ever come up with any credible proof or explanation of why their spiritually is correct.
Where is the proof that your faith is the absolute truth and that every other faith is wrong?
I'm not a spiritual person much, but my 'chats' with Osiris and Mithra give me the same well being and sense of higher presence that praying to Jesus did when I was a child bought up in Christianity. And this is even knowing Osiris and Mithra are completely made up human myths. Now I know that Churchian Xianity is completely false, what was I experiencing as a kid?
Its exactly the same feeling as as a Muslim gets praying to Allah, the same feeling as worshipping Buddha, yet according to Christians, all these exact feelings are nothing but false, or deceptions of Satan?
I'd bet my life an Xian fundie, if birthed in a different region would feel exactly the same spirituality and convictions as being a fundie Muslim, or a fundie Sikh, or a fundie Jew.
This either means all religions are a path to God, or all religions are psychological self deceit.
Considering the OT Bible is a bunch of political texts whose authors didn't exist as the persons they claim to be, with blatant contradictions, errors and scientific nonsense, how the entire New Testament is a blatant rip of Astrotheology tales, packaged with a few new thoughts that may have originated from Philosophy, or a real 'human' teacher that 'might' have been known as Jesus, but whose teachings were diametrically opposed to what is wrote in the Bible, what exactly would I gain from having faith that this story is the absolute truth, when virtually every area I could research would tell me its a bunch of crap.
Creationism requires that everything created is false, every Scientific theory is Wrong, that love, sadness, spirituality, happiness, is just another deception - just in order to have a reason for salvation from a guy who has less credibility than donald duck?
I'd rather admit I knew nothing, didn't understand why I am here, and believe that death is final, than fill my head with nonsense and believe a complete bundle of lies.
The big problem I see with Creation theory is that no Creationist has ever come up with any credible proof or explanation of why their spiritually is correct.
Where is the proof that your faith is the absolute truth and that every other faith is wrong?
Fair enough...but this still doesn't mean it isn't true. See you cannot prove that it isn't true either. So we have a dilemma there I guess.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Its exactly the same feeling as as a Muslim gets praying to Allah, the same feeling as worshipping Buddha, yet according to Christians, all these exact feelings are nothing but false, or deceptions of Satan?
Well I can say this with great certainty...they all can't be true at the same time. They could all be false of course. But they cannot all be true...for the simple reason that they all contradict one another.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
This either means all religions are a path to God, or all religions are psychological self deceit.
You've eliminated the possibility that one of them could be the true path.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Considering the OT Bible is a bunch of political texts whose authors didn't exist as the persons they claim to be, with blatant contradictions, errors and scientific nonsense, how the entire New Testament is a blatant rip of Astrotheology tales, packaged with a few new thoughts that may have originated from Philosophy, or a real 'human' teacher that 'might' have been known as Jesus, but whose teachings were diametrically opposed to what is wrote in the Bible
Thanks for sharing your opinion about the Bible. I'm afraid it is mostly wrong...or based on incorrect presumptions...but of course you are entitled to it.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Creationism requires that everything created is false, every Scientific theory is Wrong
Well, this is certainly wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
that love, sadness, spirituality, happiness, is just another deception - just in order to have a reason for salvation from a guy who has less credibility than donald duck?
Of whome are you speaking? Jesus? A little bitterness perhaps? Donald Duck? You can be more creative than that I'd hope. Would speak with such disrespect for Allah? Moses? Abraham? Buddah?
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
tI'd rather admit I knew nothing, didn't understand why I am here, and believe that death is final, than fill my head with nonsense and believe a complete bundle of lies.
Admitting ignorance is probably a good first step. I know that there are many things that I am ignorant about...including things related to this debate of creation vs. evolution. I know I don't have all of the answers...probably never will. I willing to have an open mind about it.
My point is that you cannot make any serious decisions based on faith alone. Faith should be used ONLY as a last resort, when there's nothing else to turn to. And there's plenty to turn to in this debate that very clearly trumps faith.
You do realize that belief in the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision don't you?
You do realize that belief in the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision don't you?
Umm. No. The evidence is out there for the eyes to see and the hands to touch. Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations. It doesn't require faith to believe them, just a sense of logic.
On the other hand, if Creationism has no evidence. No hypotheses other than the vague assertions said in the Bible, and to believe it requires faith, then it has no place in science classrooms where students should be taught sound scientific methods.
I don't really care what you believe, but in the arena of education and government, that money should be spent on teaching student sound practices in science, at least.
Umm. No. The evidence is out there for the eyes to see and the hands to touch. Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations. It doesn't require faith to believe them, just a sense of logic.
Umm. No. The evidence suggests that those explanations are possible. But it comes no where near proving that these theories are in fact what happened.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations.
Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all biological and geological evidence. Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all astronomical or cosmological observations.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
in science classrooms where students should be taught sound scientific methods...in the arena of education and government, that money should be spent on teaching student sound practices in science, at least.
Umm. No. The evidence suggests that those explanations are possible. But it comes no where near proving that these theories are in fact what happened.
Not just possible, but the best possible explanation we can devise based on the evidence. We're not just talking about some hypothesis from a single individual.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all biological and geological evidence. Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all astronomical or cosmological observations.
To be honest, I'm not always sure what is meant by "creation science". There are some that take the Bible very literally, e.g. we've been here 10,000 years. That is very easy to disprove. OTOH, I guess you can say you beleive in evlolution, big bang etc and say God had a helping hand. Is that what you mean?
I am not talking (only) about spirituality. Keep in mind there was a time when scientists never even conceived of things that could not be seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed (atomic particles? bacteria? viruses?)
I'll agree with you on this point. Science is limited to what it can measure. microscopes were needed to see cells and telescopes to see the stars.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Our perspective is limited. Those that espouse the scientific worldview tend to have an arrogance of their own that assumes their view is the only one.
Why are my views more arrogant than those of others. Most adults have develeoped their beliefs to the point that they argue one side or another.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have tried to suggest that someone can accept, believe, trust the things that scientific community offers...and also have a spiritual belief that dovetails.
In other words...it can be both and rather than either or.
Sure this works for many scientists I know, but the spiritual side is gneerally very much limited to the ether. The stuff we just can't touch with science.
However, the creations of a divine intelligence must operate within set perameters. Hypothetically, if we were to take this and the existence of God as a given then the processes of the universe have a set number of outcomes that are predictible to him (her, it). So, with the parameters set and the input of materials through what we call natural processes it can be predicted that humans would rise through these processes (physics, chemistry, biology). If our world weren't given parameters, then all would be chance, or chaos and unobservable by science.
My argument which I believe is supported by your's: God needs no parameters to exist, however he must give us parameters so that the outcomes of the process is his desired outcome. Sure, he could've just made whatever his desire was come to immediate fruition. However, I believe it is the process and growth that was really important.
I don't think that god want to predict everything in the universe. Most religions agree that god gave the freewill to humans. I think that freewill is given to any intelligent beings conscious enough of the implications of their choices#. But it's not because there is freewill that there is no goal or desired outcome.
One of this desired outcome, is to create beings at the image of him (god), in a spiritual point of vue. But if god was not interested by freewill, he could just do a duplication of himself. Obviously it's not what he did. That's why I think he give freewill to life : to create an original being, at his image (read intelligent and conscious).
And for me in a spiritual point of vue (no sciences here) the best way, to conciliate free will and creating beings at his own image, was the law of evolution.
Like Einstein I think that god created laws* that rules universe, and that everything are within them.
At the end of times, it's possible, that only one being or a group of being mentally linked exist, and who reached such an incredible level of intelligence that they are directly in communication with god. At this time, god will have achieved his goal, and evolution will not be still necessary : time will stop.
(sorry for this metaphysical digression )
* Note that we do not understand fully this laws. For example Newtons laws of physics where correct upon our standart conditions of observations, but where incorrect to discribe all the situations. Thus Came Einstein theory who rewrite this laws in a more accurate laws, that discribes more situations. It's possible that in the future we will observe facts that could not be explained by Einstein laws. At this point the law will have to be written again in a more accurate way.
# The freewill also exists for the physical world. I mean god do not decided by purpose to create a tsunami who killed 100 000 people. He create a set of laws, and one of the consequences of this laws, is that in a random way, giant tsunamis happen every 40 or 50 years, but nothing more or nothing less.
Exactly. As you've probably already figured out it is more a statement of intent than a name.
Ok, I'll be completely honest here. The statements I made before are statements of my opinion. I never prefaced it as being fact. I just intended it to be bold.
I do believe in evolution. I also believe in creation. Neither, evolutionary theory nor creation theory hold the other in contempt. I assert that only the adherents of one but not the other hold them and the believers of the other in contempt. Creation is a metaphorical and metaphysical explanation of how God created. Evolution is the scientific explanation of the processes that are possible in God's creation. I also believe that there are certain biblical passages that support scientific theories on how life generated on this mudball.
Evolution is a theory not based on faith, but based on countless scientific observations. Just like gravity. Which is also a theory.
You have it wrong, I'm afraid.
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important. The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
Finally, gravity is a poor proof for you in this case. I can observe that gravity is working today...right here...right now. Still this observation does not prove that it happened in the past, nor guarantee that it will in the future. A good likliness? Perhaps. Yes. Proof? Nope. Oh...and I can see it here...now...I do not see the same things for the basic concepts of evolution (complexity emerging from simplicity...order emerging from chaos...and speciation).
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important. The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
Wrong. When you observe the sky you observe the past, when you are looking distant galaxies, millions light years away, you look at them millions years in the past. When Hubble is watching distants galaxies, sometimes it watch galaxies billioins years ago. Not all physicians agree with the big band theory, but all of them will agree with this point.
So contrary to what you said the observations of the sky tell us what was the sky in the past. Luckily the sky is huge, so we can observe differents age of the universe.
Quote:
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
The micro biology is a countless scientific observation, that it exist for at least the simpliest form of lifes.
Quote:
Finally, gravity is a poor proof for you in this case. I can observe that gravity is working today...right here...right now. Still this observation does not prove that it happened in the past, nor guarantee that it will in the future. A good likliness? Perhaps. Yes. Proof? Nope. Oh...and I can see it here...now...I do not see the same things for the basic concepts of evolution (complexity emerging from simplicity...order emerging from chaos...and speciation).
A big principle in science is the permancy of the law. If a law is not permanent, it's a bad law, and it's false. What worked today, should work yesterday and will work tomorrow. This is the golden rule of science. In case of gravity you will have problems to find examples demonstrating the contrary : remember that you can observe the past, when you are looking in the sky.
A big principle in science is the permancy of the law. If a law is not permanent, it's a bad law, and it's false. What worked today, should work yesterday and will work tomorrow. This is the golden rule of science. In case of gravity you will have problems to find examples demonstrating the contrary : remember that you can observe the past, when you are looking in the sky.
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important.
You mean abiogenesis (how cellular life came about) and what came before the big bang (Plank time)?
Quote:
The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
For the big bang, we know that the universe is expanding because we observe that astronomical objects are moving away from each other as if they were on the surface of an expanding balloon. We know that it was expanding in the past because observations of astronomical objects millions and billions of years lights away, equivalent to millions and billions of years into the past, are moving away from each other as if they were on the surface of an expanding balloon. Virtually all observations support this model.
We know the state of the universe all the way back into Planck time, 10e-43 seconds, and that it inflated faster than the speed of light for 10e-35 seconds. This is supported through observations of cosmological background radiation and through the observations of the flatness of the universe. The observations support a model that needs to be accurate to 15+ decimal places.
We also know that the state of the "laws" of phsyics also has not changed in the past through the same observations. The character of astronomical objects have not changed for far away nor nearby objects; hence, gravity, the speed of light, particle physics, the cosmological constant, etc., have stayed the same.
The big bang theory is quite sound and alternative model will need to support it, the alternative model will have to predict exactly what the Big Bang says. If you are wondering what happened before Planck time, this is the time where instructors ask the students to visit the philosophy department or the local string theorist.
Quote:
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
I don't think "complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos" characterizes evolution correctly. The "and" in your statement is generic. It's more like species will change or die under a certain environment over a certain amount of time. Complexity, simplicity, order and chaos are understood in anthropomorphic terms too much.
The time scales for species change is at least hundreds of thousands of years for larger, observable-to-the-naked-eye lifeforms, and therefore, there cannot be direct human observation of said lifeforms. Speciation of bacteria has already been observed countless times and can be noted every few years when new antibiotics have to be developed. The are other cases of plants, fish (cichlids), and insects.
The countless scientific observations are the fossils, the morphological similarities of current lifeforms, and the molecular studies of current lifeforms. They all are consistant with each other. If you want to know how life came from non-life, abiogenesis, than science can't tell you that yet. Odds are pretty good that it eventually will.
Both theories follow sound scientific methods: 1) observation and data, 2) hypotheses, 3) more observation, data, and testing of hypothesis, 4) sound supporting evidence makes it a theory, and 5) refinement with more observation, data and testing.
For creationism, what we have is number 2. That's it. We should not be teaching in science class.
Not at all. The law of gravity is not a proof for the theory of evolution.
Of course not, I was just replying to you, to deny your statement about that the laws could change. If you deny the principle of permanency of a law, you deny all the science.
You also made a false statement about that we can only observe what is happening now. You are very silent here.
You said that evolution imply that he go from simplicity to complexity : not necessary. If the man nuke everything on earth, only insects will survive. Because insects are one hundred times more resistant to radiations than mammals or birds. It will be a selection by radiations.
Chris, you are missing or avoiding Powerdocs point.
Our genes and the genes of every living thing on the planet are both observable in the here and now as well as artifacts of our past.
We can observe that these genes are responsible for the inhereitance of physical traits and we can observe mutation and their effects. If you accept this can you accept that this occured yesterday, 100 years ago, 1 billion years ago?
Evidence that this did occur also lies in our genomes. The artifacts are in the sequences of our genes and larges sections of genome that represent both the garbage bin and cooking pot of evolution.
Comments
Where is the proof that your faith is the absolute truth and that every other faith is wrong?
I'm not a spiritual person much, but my 'chats' with Osiris and Mithra give me the same well being and sense of higher presence that praying to Jesus did when I was a child bought up in Christianity. And this is even knowing Osiris and Mithra are completely made up human myths. Now I know that Churchian Xianity is completely false, what was I experiencing as a kid?
Its exactly the same feeling as as a Muslim gets praying to Allah, the same feeling as worshipping Buddha, yet according to Christians, all these exact feelings are nothing but false, or deceptions of Satan?
I'd bet my life an Xian fundie, if birthed in a different region would feel exactly the same spirituality and convictions as being a fundie Muslim, or a fundie Sikh, or a fundie Jew.
This either means all religions are a path to God, or all religions are psychological self deceit.
Considering the OT Bible is a bunch of political texts whose authors didn't exist as the persons they claim to be, with blatant contradictions, errors and scientific nonsense, how the entire New Testament is a blatant rip of Astrotheology tales, packaged with a few new thoughts that may have originated from Philosophy, or a real 'human' teacher that 'might' have been known as Jesus, but whose teachings were diametrically opposed to what is wrote in the Bible, what exactly would I gain from having faith that this story is the absolute truth, when virtually every area I could research would tell me its a bunch of crap.
Creationism requires that everything created is false, every Scientific theory is Wrong, that love, sadness, spirituality, happiness, is just another deception - just in order to have a reason for salvation from a guy who has less credibility than donald duck?
I'd rather admit I knew nothing, didn't understand why I am here, and believe that death is final, than fill my head with nonsense and believe a complete bundle of lies.
Originally posted by MarcUK
The big problem I see with Creation theory is that no Creationist has ever come up with any credible proof or explanation of why their spiritually is correct.
Where is the proof that your faith is the absolute truth and that every other faith is wrong?
Fair enough...but this still doesn't mean it isn't true. See you cannot prove that it isn't true either. So we have a dilemma there I guess.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Its exactly the same feeling as as a Muslim gets praying to Allah, the same feeling as worshipping Buddha, yet according to Christians, all these exact feelings are nothing but false, or deceptions of Satan?
Well I can say this with great certainty...they all can't be true at the same time. They could all be false of course. But they cannot all be true...for the simple reason that they all contradict one another.
Originally posted by MarcUK
This either means all religions are a path to God, or all religions are psychological self deceit.
You've eliminated the possibility that one of them could be the true path.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Considering the OT Bible is a bunch of political texts whose authors didn't exist as the persons they claim to be, with blatant contradictions, errors and scientific nonsense, how the entire New Testament is a blatant rip of Astrotheology tales, packaged with a few new thoughts that may have originated from Philosophy, or a real 'human' teacher that 'might' have been known as Jesus, but whose teachings were diametrically opposed to what is wrote in the Bible
Thanks for sharing your opinion about the Bible. I'm afraid it is mostly wrong...or based on incorrect presumptions...but of course you are entitled to it.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Creationism requires that everything created is false, every Scientific theory is Wrong
Well, this is certainly wrong.
Originally posted by MarcUK
that love, sadness, spirituality, happiness, is just another deception - just in order to have a reason for salvation from a guy who has less credibility than donald duck?
Of whome are you speaking? Jesus? A little bitterness perhaps? Donald Duck? You can be more creative than that I'd hope. Would speak with such disrespect for Allah? Moses? Abraham? Buddah?
Originally posted by MarcUK
tI'd rather admit I knew nothing, didn't understand why I am here, and believe that death is final, than fill my head with nonsense and believe a complete bundle of lies.
Admitting ignorance is probably a good first step. I know that there are many things that I am ignorant about...including things related to this debate of creation vs. evolution. I know I don't have all of the answers...probably never will. I willing to have an open mind about it.
Originally posted by tonton
My point is that you cannot make any serious decisions based on faith alone. Faith should be used ONLY as a last resort, when there's nothing else to turn to. And there's plenty to turn to in this debate that very clearly trumps faith.
You do realize that belief in the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision don't you?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You do realize that belief in the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision don't you?
Umm. No. The evidence is out there for the eyes to see and the hands to touch. Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations. It doesn't require faith to believe them, just a sense of logic.
On the other hand, if Creationism has no evidence. No hypotheses other than the vague assertions said in the Bible, and to believe it requires faith, then it has no place in science classrooms where students should be taught sound scientific methods.
I don't really care what you believe, but in the arena of education and government, that money should be spent on teaching student sound practices in science, at least.
Originally posted by THT
Umm. No. The evidence is out there for the eyes to see and the hands to touch. Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations. It doesn't require faith to believe them, just a sense of logic.
Umm. No. The evidence suggests that those explanations are possible. But it comes no where near proving that these theories are in fact what happened.
Originally posted by THT
Evolution is consistent with virtually all biological and geological evidence. Big Bang is consistent with virtually all astronomical or cosmological observations.
Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all biological and geological evidence. Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all astronomical or cosmological observations.
Originally posted by THT
in science classrooms where students should be taught sound scientific methods...in the arena of education and government, that money should be spent on teaching student sound practices in science, at least.
They should be, yes.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Umm. No. The evidence suggests that those explanations are possible. But it comes no where near proving that these theories are in fact what happened.
Not just possible, but the best possible explanation we can devise based on the evidence. We're not just talking about some hypothesis from a single individual.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all biological and geological evidence. Intelligent design/creation is consistent with all astronomical or cosmological observations.
To be honest, I'm not always sure what is meant by "creation science". There are some that take the Bible very literally, e.g. we've been here 10,000 years. That is very easy to disprove. OTOH, I guess you can say you beleive in evlolution, big bang etc and say God had a helping hand. Is that what you mean?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am not talking (only) about spirituality. Keep in mind there was a time when scientists never even conceived of things that could not be seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed (atomic particles? bacteria? viruses?)
I'll agree with you on this point. Science is limited to what it can measure. microscopes were needed to see cells and telescopes to see the stars.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Our perspective is limited. Those that espouse the scientific worldview tend to have an arrogance of their own that assumes their view is the only one.
Why are my views more arrogant than those of others. Most adults have develeoped their beliefs to the point that they argue one side or another.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have tried to suggest that someone can accept, believe, trust the things that scientific community offers...and also have a spiritual belief that dovetails.
In other words...it can be both and rather than either or.
Sure this works for many scientists I know, but the spiritual side is gneerally very much limited to the ether. The stuff we just can't touch with science.
Originally posted by pig
originally posted by Powerdoc
True.
However, the creations of a divine intelligence must operate within set perameters. Hypothetically, if we were to take this and the existence of God as a given then the processes of the universe have a set number of outcomes that are predictible to him (her, it). So, with the parameters set and the input of materials through what we call natural processes it can be predicted that humans would rise through these processes (physics, chemistry, biology). If our world weren't given parameters, then all would be chance, or chaos and unobservable by science.
My argument which I believe is supported by your's: God needs no parameters to exist, however he must give us parameters so that the outcomes of the process is his desired outcome. Sure, he could've just made whatever his desire was come to immediate fruition. However, I believe it is the process and growth that was really important.
I don't think that god want to predict everything in the universe. Most religions agree that god gave the freewill to humans. I think that freewill is given to any intelligent beings conscious enough of the implications of their choices#. But it's not because there is freewill that there is no goal or desired outcome.
One of this desired outcome, is to create beings at the image of him (god), in a spiritual point of vue. But if god was not interested by freewill, he could just do a duplication of himself. Obviously it's not what he did. That's why I think he give freewill to life : to create an original being, at his image (read intelligent and conscious).
And for me in a spiritual point of vue (no sciences here) the best way, to conciliate free will and creating beings at his own image, was the law of evolution.
Like Einstein I think that god created laws* that rules universe, and that everything are within them.
At the end of times, it's possible, that only one being or a group of being mentally linked exist, and who reached such an incredible level of intelligence that they are directly in communication with god. At this time, god will have achieved his goal, and evolution will not be still necessary : time will stop.
(sorry for this metaphysical digression
* Note that we do not understand fully this laws. For example Newtons laws of physics where correct upon our standart conditions of observations, but where incorrect to discribe all the situations. Thus Came Einstein theory who rewrite this laws in a more accurate laws, that discribes more situations. It's possible that in the future we will observe facts that could not be explained by Einstein laws. At this point the law will have to be written again in a more accurate way.
# The freewill also exists for the physical world. I mean god do not decided by purpose to create a tsunami who killed 100 000 people. He create a set of laws, and one of the consequences of this laws, is that in a random way, giant tsunamis happen every 40 or 50 years, but nothing more or nothing less.
originally posted by MarcUK
Pig, Interesting name....
Exactly. As you've probably already figured out it is more a statement of intent than a name.
Ok, I'll be completely honest here. The statements I made before are statements of my opinion. I never prefaced it as being fact. I just intended it to be bold.
I do believe in evolution. I also believe in creation. Neither, evolutionary theory nor creation theory hold the other in contempt. I assert that only the adherents of one but not the other hold them and the believers of the other in contempt. Creation is a metaphorical and metaphysical explanation of how God created. Evolution is the scientific explanation of the processes that are possible in God's creation. I also believe that there are certain biblical passages that support scientific theories on how life generated on this mudball.
Excuse me now, I have photos to process.
Originally posted by tonton
Evolution is a theory not based on faith, but based on countless scientific observations. Just like gravity. Which is also a theory.
You have it wrong, I'm afraid.
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important. The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
Finally, gravity is a poor proof for you in this case. I can observe that gravity is working today...right here...right now. Still this observation does not prove that it happened in the past, nor guarantee that it will in the future. A good likliness? Perhaps. Yes. Proof? Nope. Oh...and I can see it here...now...I do not see the same things for the basic concepts of evolution (complexity emerging from simplicity...order emerging from chaos...and speciation).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You have it wrong, I'm afraid.
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
Some examples of speciation are listed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You have it wrong, I'm afraid.
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important. The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
Wrong. When you observe the sky you observe the past, when you are looking distant galaxies, millions light years away, you look at them millions years in the past. When Hubble is watching distants galaxies, sometimes it watch galaxies billioins years ago. Not all physicians agree with the big band theory, but all of them will agree with this point.
So contrary to what you said the observations of the sky tell us what was the sky in the past. Luckily the sky is huge, so we can observe differents age of the universe.
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
The micro biology is a countless scientific observation, that it exist for at least the simpliest form of lifes.
Finally, gravity is a poor proof for you in this case. I can observe that gravity is working today...right here...right now. Still this observation does not prove that it happened in the past, nor guarantee that it will in the future. A good likliness? Perhaps. Yes. Proof? Nope. Oh...and I can see it here...now...I do not see the same things for the basic concepts of evolution (complexity emerging from simplicity...order emerging from chaos...and speciation).
A big principle in science is the permancy of the law. If a law is not permanent, it's a bad law, and it's false. What worked today, should work yesterday and will work tomorrow. This is the golden rule of science. In case of gravity you will have problems to find examples demonstrating the contrary : remember that you can observe the past, when you are looking in the sky.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
A big principle in science is the permancy of the law. If a law is not permanent, it's a bad law, and it's false. What worked today, should work yesterday and will work tomorrow. This is the golden rule of science. In case of gravity you will have problems to find examples demonstrating the contrary : remember that you can observe the past, when you are looking in the sky.
Fine gravity is a law. Evolution is not.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Fine gravity is a law. Evolution is not.
Yes gravity is a law and evolution or the big bang is a theory.
We agree.
If I read you well, you ask me to forgot what you said about gravity ?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First, I said that "the theory of evolution (or big bang) as the origins of the universe is a faith decision." The wording here is important.
You mean abiogenesis (how cellular life came about) and what came before the big bang (Plank time)?
The current observations cannot prove (or disprove) that the universe came about through "big bang" and/or "evolution". All of the observations we have only tell us what is happening now.
For the big bang, we know that the universe is expanding because we observe that astronomical objects are moving away from each other as if they were on the surface of an expanding balloon. We know that it was expanding in the past because observations of astronomical objects millions and billions of years lights away, equivalent to millions and billions of years into the past, are moving away from each other as if they were on the surface of an expanding balloon. Virtually all observations support this model.
We know the state of the universe all the way back into Planck time, 10e-43 seconds, and that it inflated faster than the speed of light for 10e-35 seconds. This is supported through observations of cosmological background radiation and through the observations of the flatness of the universe. The observations support a model that needs to be accurate to 15+ decimal places.
We also know that the state of the "laws" of phsyics also has not changed in the past through the same observations. The character of astronomical objects have not changed for far away nor nearby objects; hence, gravity, the speed of light, particle physics, the cosmological constant, etc., have stayed the same.
The big bang theory is quite sound and alternative model will need to support it, the alternative model will have to predict exactly what the Big Bang says. If you are wondering what happened before Planck time, this is the time where instructors ask the students to visit the philosophy department or the local string theorist.
Second, there are not "countless scientific observations" that validate the basic premise of evolution. The most basic concepts that evolution espouses would be complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos, and most importantly evolution of species...speciation. There are no solid observations of this. There are a handful of very basic examples...all of which appear to actually have involved human (scientist) initiation to create.
I don't think "complexity emerging from simplicity, order from chaos" characterizes evolution correctly. The "and" in your statement is generic. It's more like species will change or die under a certain environment over a certain amount of time. Complexity, simplicity, order and chaos are understood in anthropomorphic terms too much.
The time scales for species change is at least hundreds of thousands of years for larger, observable-to-the-naked-eye lifeforms, and therefore, there cannot be direct human observation of said lifeforms. Speciation of bacteria has already been observed countless times and can be noted every few years when new antibiotics have to be developed. The are other cases of plants, fish (cichlids), and insects.
The countless scientific observations are the fossils, the morphological similarities of current lifeforms, and the molecular studies of current lifeforms. They all are consistant with each other. If you want to know how life came from non-life, abiogenesis, than science can't tell you that yet. Odds are pretty good that it eventually will.
Both theories follow sound scientific methods: 1) observation and data, 2) hypotheses, 3) more observation, data, and testing of hypothesis, 4) sound supporting evidence makes it a theory, and 5) refinement with more observation, data and testing.
For creationism, what we have is number 2. That's it. We should not be teaching in science class.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If I read you well, you ask me to forgot what you said about gravity ?
Not at all. The law of gravity is not a proof for the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not at all. The law of gravity is not a proof for the theory of evolution.
Of course not, I was just replying to you, to deny your statement about that the laws could change. If you deny the principle of permanency of a law, you deny all the science.
You also made a false statement about that we can only observe what is happening now. You are very silent here.
You said that evolution imply that he go from simplicity to complexity : not necessary. If the man nuke everything on earth, only insects will survive. Because insects are one hundred times more resistant to radiations than mammals or birds. It will be a selection by radiations.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
You also made a false statement about that we can only observe what is happening now. You are very silent here.
Nothing more to say. We can only observe what is here and now...and artifacts from the past. Then theorize about those artifacts from the past.
Our genes and the genes of every living thing on the planet are both observable in the here and now as well as artifacts of our past.
We can observe that these genes are responsible for the inhereitance of physical traits and we can observe mutation and their effects. If you accept this can you accept that this occured yesterday, 100 years ago, 1 billion years ago?
Evidence that this did occur also lies in our genomes. The artifacts are in the sequences of our genes and larges sections of genome that represent both the garbage bin and cooking pot of evolution.
Man, you guys suck some serious ass.