Religion anyone?

RickW

Molecular natural selection fully incorporates Polyphyletic evolution as it can create independent chances of organic molecules from inorganics ones. It doesn't prove anything Rick. Gene-centric natural selection can also incorporate Polyphyletic evolution. I still don't understand why that would mean God. Care to elaborate?

I didn't say it proved or disproved a creator. I was saying that the same evidence that would suggest polyphyletic evolution to an evolutionist would suggest creation to a creationist. And it makes sense that that would happen, since each view believes that the major groups of organisms have unique origins rather than a universal common ancestor.

Here's a quick rundown of what happened:
Original assertion: the evidence is accommodated by both creation theory as well as [polyphyletic] evolution theory.
first con argument: the evidence is not accommodated by creation theory, citing monophyletic evolution theory as evidence.
first response: not all evolutionists believe in monophyletic origins; evidence that is accommodated by polyphyletic evolution theory (multiple biogenesis events) would also be accommodated by creation theory.

So, did you come to a decision on whether having only 4 DNA nucleotides constitutes a static system? (In the music analogy, I see these as the notes, as they are the building blocks for life, as notes are the building blocks for music).

Oh, and no chains here. But you're entitled to your opinion...

RickW

It occured to me that the way I am saying things may be confusing to some. So here's a story that I hope illustrates things:

A man went outside after a rainstorm and saw that the streets were wet. A few days later, as he was walking, he saw a wet street and decided, "it must have rained here," and he walked on home. Because he was out walking, he missed the news report that a water main had broken near where he was walking, causing streets to be wet.

He saw the evidence (the street was wet), and the evidence was accommodated by his theory (it had rained). However, the evidence was also accommodated by alternate causes (badly adjusted irrigation system, leaky water truck, a broken water main, melting ice or snow, someone washing their car, etc.), one of which happened to be the actual situation.

The point is, the available evidence is accommodated by more than one theory. That being the case, the evidence (as it is) cannot be said to prove one or the other.

solo

Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:

A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.

Conclusion?

nomeradona

@rickw said:

It occured to me that the way I am saying things may be confusing to some. So here's a story that I hope illustrates things:

A man went outside after a rainstorm and saw that the streets were wet. A few days later, as he was walking, he saw a wet street and decided, "it must have rained here," and he walked on home. Because he was out walking, he missed the news report that a water main had broken near where he was walking, causing streets to be wet.

He saw the evidence (the street was wet), and the evidence was accommodated by his theory (it had rained). However, the evidence was also accommodated by alternate causes (badly adjusted irrigation system, leaky water truck, a broken water main, melting ice or snow, someone washing their car, etc.), one of which happened to be the actual situation.

The point is, the available evidence is accommodated by more than one theory. That being the case, the evidence (as it is) cannot be said to prove one or the other.

Love this explanation. thanks rick w. is rick W means rick warren?

nomeradona

@solo said:

Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:

A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.

Conclusion?

hey pete im lost with this one. maybe the person is nt sick. mm i did not get it.

RickW

@solo said:

Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:

A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.

Conclusion?

Primary Conclusion: There are three scenarios: either I don't understand why you posed this particular scenario, you didn't get the point of my story, or you're trying to ridicule me. The situation itself proves none of these possibilites, but accommodates all of them.

Secondary Conclusion: Your story does not contain any logical conclusion, so you can't legitimately claim "with the same logic." Or perhaps you meant you want me to show how your scenario would be analyzed using the same explanation as I gave for the wet road. In that case, two explanations would fit the scenario: fake healing or real healing. The situation in the story does not prove either explanation, but is accommodated by each.

Alan Fraser

Any true scientist knows that there is more than one explanation and that all theories are just that...supposition based on observable fact...even if they are often initiated by unsupported moments of inspiration.

I do believe in a creator...just not one that is continually meddling in our affairs, as many traditionally religious folk seem to imagine.
I also believe in the survivability of the human soul, but I find the traditional view of heaven to be insufferably boring and firmly belive that the traditional hell is no more than people's natural reaction to impotence in the face of evil...the sense of a posthumous "You'll get yours." with respect to evildoers they are either powerless or too late to restrain. It's certainly true that we create our own hell on earth. It may be true that in death we are faced with the true implications of our actions and get to create our own hell then also.

Although I fully support the advances in knowledge of the scientific Greats, there is a frightening amount we still know virtually nothing about; even very basic stuff like light and gravity. The Wave/Particle duality of light is well known, but I'd bet good money that it is, in fact, neither a wave or a particle.
Gravity is even more mysterious. It is everywhere; its range is apparently limitless; its effects are instantaneous, or at least it travels far faster than light. Some believe it to be particle-based, others more like a wave or universal matrix. Basically we don't have a clue other than it appears to be intimately related to both space and time.
Sure, we can model it mathematically in precise detail...we can send spacecraft to slingshot their way from planet to planet and end at a destination with near pinpoint accuracy...but we don't know what it actually IS.

The way it is traditionally modelled is that every atom of matter in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull (by whatever means) on every other atom. This is an inferencing system that puts SU to shame. Furthermore...whether you attribute this to attractor particles or some kind of wave...energy is involved. The performance hit in SU would be nothing compared to this. To keep this up forever and over infinite distances would require more energy than exists in the entire universe.

It's not impossible that gravity, space and time are merely constructs....that the vast distances across which they operate are irrelevant, because they (the distances) don't really exist It's also perfectly possible that the Big Bang is just a construct too...and that we just imagine that everything is separated by such distances. Entanglement appears to be an observable fact...and Entanglement seems to suggest that everything is still touching, not racing away from everything else at vast speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq454iFp2c&feature=related

I do think that much of the Bible is little more than myth, fable and analogy; and that it has absolutely nothing to tell us about creation. However, when it comes to the question of whether there is or isn't a creator, the universe is simply way too weird to write-off anything. "Reality" might be much closer to the basic premise of The Matrix than we care to admit. It...and us...may just all be an illusion.

plot-paris

RickW, I like your way in explaining things in images - helps a lot to understand a point (by the way, I think this is exactly how the bible is meant - therefore quoting only one sentence out of a story that is supposed to transport an image may be misleading).

the story with the man and the wet street is a great example for how the system of science works. the man found a clue with the wet street and unfortunately went to the wrong conclusion. if he had done a deeper research however and had increased his knowledge of the matter, he may have come to the right conclusion in the end. most important is, that he found evidence to support his theory (even if it was the wrong one).

with solo's story we have the two possibilities that either the disability of the man in the wheelchair was psychosomatic and his "healing" was simply the breach of a psychological barrier, or it was indeed a miracle healing, done by a divine entity.
scientists would instantly jump to the first conclusion (therefore stating that religion does work - i helped the man in the wheelchair break his mind blockade after all).
religious people however go for the second conclusion, without a wet street at all (reference to he first story ). that means that their theory may be right or may be true - but they don't have any evidence. they have to believe that their idea is right - their only support is "faith"

this is, in my opinion, the one huge difference between religion/philosophy and science.

@modelhead. thanks for the links. didn't have time to read the pdf yet. but it sounds very interesting.

PS: isn't religion/phylosophy something fantastic? this thread has been going on for 11 pages now and everyone is still attending it with so much energy and passion. everyone tries to konvince the other one that his onw point of view is right and worth believing in. that is a proper discussion!

plot-paris

@alan fraser said:

The way it is traditionally modelled is that every atom of matter in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull (by whatever means) on every other atom. This is an inferencing system that puts SU to shame.

I LOVE this analogy!!!

cornel

Certainly not less important is the Holy Spirit...!

I believe in the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit(John 14:16-17; Romans 8:26-27; Ephesians 4:30). He is one person of the Trinity (Mattew 28:18). He had a role in the creation(Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4), and has a role in people’s lives (John 16:8-17). He convicts the world of its sin; He regenerates and sanctifies (Titus 3:5); He dwells in all true believers (Romans 8:9). He never abandons the Church or even the weakest of all believers; He is permanently present to testify about Jesus Christ(John 14:17).

(Without quotations! ),
Cornel

cornel

Jakob,
Re. your P.S.: “ isn't religion/phylosophy something fantastic? this thread has been going on for 11 pages now and everyone is still attending it with so much energy and passion. everyone tries to konvince the other one that his own point of view is right and worth believing in…”

I know many ‘interesting’ philosophies, but I have no such ‘courage’ to invent a god. It’s too dangerous and very hazardous …! Because of that, I adopt Biblical description of the “true God”. Behold my succint conclusion:

I believe in the only true God (John 17:3) revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mattew 28:19). I believe in the oneness (Deut. 6:4), the trinity (Mattew 3:16-17) and the trinity unified as one God (Mattew 28:19). God is a spirit (John 4:24), infinite and perfect in all His attributes (Psalms 139:1-12), the One that created all things(Rev. 4:11), and keeps all things through the power of His Word (Hebrews 1:3). In Him we live, we move and have our being (Acts 17:28). He is the source, the sustainment and the finality of all things(Romans 11:36).

Cornel

plot-paris

you see? that's why I am so happy with my personal religion - I can find aspects of christian religion in it and can (at least try) to explain it for myself:

the Holy Spirit is exactly what I describe the collective spirit, the sum of all energy fields that surround every being. therefore he is in all of us (because we are a part of him, obviously). or you could put it this way: the Holy Spirit consists of us!

if there is an entity like God, I would describe it as a collective intelligence. I am not sure yet how it works precisely. but it has something to do with ideas that are shared by many beings that rise to a collective tune within the collective spirit (and I am not thinking of abstract ideas, but rather of general ideas of what the world needs). I know, still a bit vague, but it could go into the direction being an influence to evolution, which would somehow make it easier to understand some of the wonders that live on our planet.
so I would not define God as a intelligence like us humans that comes up with rules, but as a collective idea of what is good and what is not.
so if you look at how we treat our planet and exploit resources at the moment, one could say, that too many people do not listen to God anymore (listen to the need of our world)

well, and the third guy of the trinity - Jesus: I am absolutely sure, that he was a real person some two thousand years ago. surely he was an extraordinary man, who had a very deep connection to the spirits around him. George Lucas would say - he had a great knowledge of the living force -.
and to communicate what he believed to other people, he used analogies, images (like the bible does). he was so convincing, that he even encouraged people to heal themselves, to believe in themselves (if we look at loads of medical research studies with placebos, we see that our self healing powers are enormous; we only need someone to give us confidence).
and if you believe mel gibsons "passion of the christ" and the few flashbacks to his earlier life, we see, that he was a really cool guy.

sorry, went on a bit longer than inteded. should probably start a new thread to convert you to my believe

remus

...or he was just a bloke a couple of thousand years ago who had some pretty good ideas.

cheffey

Here is an interesting story i heard on NPR.

Katharine Jefferts Schori is the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and the first woman to hold the post. She also is a trained scientist with a degree in marine biology from Stanford and a doctorate degree in oceanography at Oregon State University.

Very interesting combination, she describes that science gives you the how and faith gives you the why.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95429960

cornel

Jacob,

I disagree w/ you re. Holy Spirit. He isn't in all of us, He isn't "a collective spirit", etc.
Seeing your ‘sentence’: “… the third guy of the trinity - Jesus: I am absolutely sure, that he was a real person some two thousand years ago. surely he was an extraordinary man, who had a very deep connection to the spirits around him.”

…I decided to show you my ‘position’:

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God the Son, both true God and man (John 5:20; 1 Timothy 2:5). I believe that Christ exists from eternity. He is not a creation, but the Creator, existing before anything was created (John 1:1-3). There was no time at which He did not exist (John 8:58, 24, 28). He is the eternal Son of God.

I believe that He is the promised One through the prophecies of the Old Testament, the One symbolized through the sacrifices, the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Testament.

I believe in His birth from the virgin Mary, through the power of the Holy Spirit. He had a body in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but was without sin (1 Peter 2:22). He was perfect in all ways, holy, without blame, without blemish, separated from sinners (Hebrews 7:26).

I believe that He offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 9:14; Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The effectiveness and sufficiency of His blood is the essence of the Gospel of grace. He came to erase sin through His sacrifice (Hebrews 7:25-27; 9:26).

I believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4; Acts 2:24-32). His resurrection is the assurance and guarantee of our own resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:16-23). I believe that Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in the full glory He possessed before His embodiment. His ascension was made in a transformed, glorified body in which He is now standing at the right hand of God, mediating for us (Acts 1:9; 7:56; Hebrews 8:6).

I believe that Jesus Christ will rapture His church to heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:21-52; John 14:1-3).
I believe that His second coming on earth is literal, visible and personal, in the same way He ascended (Acts 1:12; Revelation 1:7; Mattew 24:30). He will come as King of kings and Lord of lords, and will establish a kingdom on earth for 1000 years, time during which Satan will be bound (Revelations 19:11, 20:6; Zachariah 14:1-9).

I believe that at the end of those 1000 years Jesus Christ will destroy any evil resistance, He will destroy the current creation and will create a new heaven and a new earth where He will reign together with His chosen ones (Revelations 21:5, 22:3-5; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26).

Cornel
P.S.:..."Sorry, went on a bit longer than inteded"..."

cornel

Modelhead,

I presented 3 Person God (as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), w/ warious Bible links, to prove that there aren’t any inadvertencies regarding Them!
... Plus you can see Their cumulate roles on Creation!

Cornel

solo

RickW,

Regarding my example of the faith healing:

I was not trying to redicule you at all, I wanted to show that a situation like I explained would be a no-brainer for a 'believer' they would emediately say it's God's healing power and the faith of the recipient. However a fact based non believer would make other conclusions, like it being a scam (like so many), mind over matter as explained by Plot-paris, hypnosis, etc, and would need some serious convincing before accepting it being a supernatural result.

Nomeradona touched on something, what does Rick W stand for?, Rick warren? (joke)

RickW

@solo said:

RickW,

Regarding my example of the faith healing:

I was not trying to redicule you at all, I wanted to show that a situation like I explained would be a no-brainer for a 'believer' they would emediately say it's God's healing power and the faith of the recipient. However a fact based non believer would make other conclusions, like it being a scam (like so many), mind over matter as explained by Plot-paris, hypnosis, etc, and would need some serious convincing before accepting it being a supernatural result.

Nomeradona touched on something, what does Rick W stand for?, Rick warren? (joke)

I didn't really think you were - but just exploring the possibilities (however remote) for the sake of illustration. As it turns out, I suspected (but didn't know for sure) that the actual case was what you just explained; thus, I didn't (fully) understand your point - which was one of the possibilities.

Though I share a first name and last initial with the well-known pastor, we are definitely two different people -
he writes "inspirational" books , I write ruby plugins for SketchUp

Sometimes, I think the "W" stands for "Windowizer". I wonder how that would look on a driver's license..."Rick Windowizer". Hmmm...

Nah.

Cheers,

JuanV.Soler

could we talk now about the desire of eternity ?
in this thread ? .just for a little bit.
.when where kids we had it. no doubt about it.
how could it dwell with that collective
@plot-paris said:

if there is an entity like God, I would describe it as a collective intelligence.

any answers appreciated
but just for a little bit

cornel

J.V.S.,
Re that: "...how could it dwell with that collective"?!!

The Church (not buildings...) is composed of all those who are born again, and those which are united in the one body of Jesus Christ through the baptizing of the Holy Spirit, thus being limbs to one another (1 Corintians 12:13; Ephesians 1:22-23).
We are responsible for keeping the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace, rising above denominational prejudices and cult bigotry (Ephesians 4:3-6).

Cornel