Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 11 of 13)

Fig + Bugimus: Thanks for the infos about the "ichthys". I've seen that fish several times. Actually, during his 1 or 2 last years my father had one on the windshield of his car. At his death we learnt he went to a protestant church. Approximatively at the same time the government took some ecological measures and a green label was put on the "environment friendly cars". I had seen ichtys on other cars so I thought the fish was the counter part of the green label and meant the car wearing it smelled like fish

quote:

---

I just don't see the debate. Creation/Evolution is a false argument to me.

---

That's just it. The debate is about the fact that some people want to force the teaching of religion (creation) in public schools, to be paid for with public funds. Many of us do not believe that this should happen.

quote:

---

Ehtheist, are you under the impression that any or all who practice a religion, believe in invisible gods, believe in ghosts, etc. are not reasoned individuals? Why?

---

Although I do not believe in all of Ehtheist's views, he does have one point, as follows:

quote:

---

From the writings of Martin Luther:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it struggles against the divine word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. The virgin birth was unresaonable; so was the Resurrection; so were the Gospels, the sacraments, the pontifical prerogatives, and the promise of life everlasting."

---

If you believe, you cannot apply the use of reason and logic to your faith.

quote:

---

I just don't see the debate. Creation/Evolution is a false argument to me.

---

In addition to Brigl's comment, you'll note that throughout this thread I and others have made that exact point.

It is *not* a debate because one is not the antithesis of the other.

Creationism cannot be used to counter evolution, because creationism is the beleif in a story, and evolution is a proven scientific principle.

The idea that public schools would teach a mythological story in place of, or as a counter to, a scientific principle is absolutely insane.

That is most certainly cause for debate.

quote:

---

Creationism cannot be used to counter evolution, because creationism is the beleif in a story, and evolution is a proven scientific principle.

The idea that public schools would teach a mythological story in place of, or as a counter to, a scientific principle is absolutely insane.

That is most certainly cause for debate.

---

Exactly!

DL, I gues you didn't read my link. it says essentially what you did with the hair-splitter that before the aescetics you mention got involved, sex was 'OK".

Rama, I find it telling and amusing that if I say something like "Some xians are ok" I get no criticism. If I say "some xians are not ok" I am accused of making broad general accusations.

You may take is as a given I ignore such criticisms.

Since I do not accept the bible or any of the releated mythology and heavily doubt the existance of that xist fella,
I am unaffected by your further argument.

We do agree religion is a horrid thing. The trappings of religion have always been used for control and power purposes and are entirely invented by man for man's purposes and so it is the root and cause of all the grief caused by man.

The arabs have a word "Inshallah"= "Gods will", xians use it as well. Merely an excuse.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Briggl, in reference to the first quote your Martin Luther quote indeed says it all.

DL as you point out, that point has been made time and again here, but the people who accuse us of attacking them simply refuse to admit there are any points of view but theirs.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I did read the link. His jumbeld ramble is a bit short of conclusions.

My only point is that it wasn't a matter of it at first being ok, and then becoming bad.

It's a matter of the religion growing in two rather different directions. There were certainly those who went all out for bodily pleasure because, hey - the world's gonna end soon anyway!

But there were also very big movements the other direction right from the start.

There were many aescetic movements throughout the centuries. Most were far different from the large groups that developed a negative view of sex - they most often outright shunned society in general and all forms of comfort or luxury.
Such movements are what eventually lead to the monastic communities so prevelant in medeival europe.

Hair splitting, perhaps. I just hate to see things protrayed so black and white when they aren't...

I also hate to see a link to someone's rambling opinion presented asthe end-all truth....

We are basically in agreement DL. Especialy the last sentence and since the writer was portrayed as a xian of some sort, I thought the thing carried several cogent messages.

As noted earlier, we aetheists are without sin.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Where did Paul say sex was a sin?

From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language.

quote:

---

Reason n. 1. as explaination of an act, idea, etc. 2. a cause or motive 3. the ability to think, draw conclusions, etc. 4. good sense 5. sanity - vi. vt. 1. to think logically (about); analyze 2. to argue or infer

---

It is far from me to go against a man as distinguished and respected as Martin Luther, but where is the disruption?
1. In this sense, reason is spelled out in the beginning for all the acts he mentioned
2. not pertinent
3. Most people I have met can do this one.
4. Still debateable, but if you look at Bugs as an example, you might get it. I think as I stand now, I am a poor example of this. Getting better, though.
5. Still questionable for some on both theistic and atheistic sides.

1. Logic is used to come to a conclustion given a set amount of facts or arguments. Given the miracles, signs, fulfilled prophecies, etc. that Jesus did, plus being resurrected, that gave the disciples enough to reasonably assume that He was God(after being reasured from Jesus that He was alive). Then the miraculous transformation of the disciples afterward shows that whatever happend those few days after Jesus' death was severely life changing. Then they too were able to heal, escape death on many occasions (see Paul's life), avoid snake venom, etc. Those events allowed others to come to a logical conclusion, and thus the cycle started again and again.
2. Happening here.

Also, if looking at the first few chapters of the Bible, and taking them for fact, then it is logical that the events that happened, had happened. Jesus was prophecied to have a virgin birth. Logical that it happened. Gospels are logical, because if God had power to make this world in a whim, He had power to change it on a whim (refering to miracles). Logical. Jesus said that He was going to rise from the grave. Logical that He did. If you take those first statements as fact, that those things had been fortold, and they are promised facts, then it is logical that they have happened.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

we aetheists are without sin.

---

What is sin?

Good thoughts Ramasax. I think that it is very true that this kind of discussion can go on ad nauseam, especially when both sides have to very different platforms of faith. It doesn't work too well.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon: The most common sense of "sin" is religious. Therefore, in lack of precision that the word "sin" is meant in the ethical sense, atheists are without sin. But we're all in the same boat if you take the word "sin" in the ethic sense.

sin1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn)
n.
A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

I will argue the concept of sin arose with the xian religion and has certainly been spread far and wide by it if it did not actually concieve it (imaculately or in sin).

Regardless, there are other words to define moral transgressions. Sin is uniquely religious in my view.

Even the etymology sees it stemming from religious roots;
O.E. synn "moral wrongdoing, offense against God, misdeed," from P.Gmc. *sundjo (cf. O.S. sundia, O.Fris. sende, M.Du. sonde, Ger. Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense"), probably ult. "true" (cf. Goth. sonjis, O.N. sannr "true"), from PIE *es-ont-, prp. of base *es- "to be" (see is). The semantic development is via notion of "to be truly the one (who is guilty)," as in O.N. phrase verð sannr at "be found guilty of," and the use of the phrase "it is being" in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the L. word sons (gen. sontis) "guilty, criminal" from prp. of sum, esse "to be, that which is." Some etymologists believe the Gmc. word was an early borrowing directly from the L. genitive. Sin-eater is attested from 1686. To live in sin "cohabit without marriage" is from 1838. Ice hockey slang sin bin "penalty box" is attested from 1950.

What is sin Gid: things one does for which one feels guilty due to one's religious upbringing. I do nothing which makes me feel guilty.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

"Guilty" is a legal term and has nothing to do with emotions such as remorse etc.

Which has always made me wonder (well at least a bit=) ) about the origins of "He's as guilty as sin."

(Edited by NoJive on 03-18-2005 06:36)

quote:

---

Given the miracles, signs, fulfilled prophecies, etc. that Jesus did, plus being resurrected, that gave the disciples enough to reasonably assume that He was God(after being reasured from Jesus that He was alive).

---

There is no proof any of this ever happened.

Given that the Hobbits of the Shire brought the One Ring to Mount Doom and destroyed it, and that they have discovered actual hobbit skeletal remains, the Lord of the Rings is not a fantasy series, but a true telling of things that happened before.

Yup.

Sounds good to me

Horse Evolution Followed Twisty Trail, Study Says

quote:

---

Less well known is the important role played by horses in shaping our understanding of a much deeper history?long-term evolution in animals.

---

Otherwise known as Macro-Evolution. Probably one of the best examples that we have at this time of Macro-Evolution.

This is also a very good example of how different models of Evolution can be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

These findings contradict what is known as Cope's Law, an idea based on the work of 19th-century paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope. The law states that within any group of animals there is a tendency for descendants to grow progressively larger.

"There are so many exceptions where you go from small to large and back to small again that you have to ask how many exceptions to the rule you can accept before the central concept is no longer correct," MacFadden said.

---

See! I knew that those hobbits were real! I knew it! All this time I knew that some one would finally come up with the truth. And they didn't believe me...

If you want to make those assumptions then go at it. Assumptions are a mathematical and rhetorical means to get a point across from common ground. You are quite free to change assumptions around for your own arguments if you like.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

I do nothing which makes me feel guilty

---

Nothing? If you do nothing now that makes you feel guilty, then could you feel guilty about any act in the future? Would you feel guilt from a muder or rape? Something less bad like a lie or a small theft?

quote:

---

poi said:

The most common sense of "sin" is religious. Therefore, in lack of precision
that the word "sin" is meant in the ethical sense, atheists are without sin. But
we're all in the same boat if you take the word "sin" in the ethic sense.

---

Could you elaborate on that a tad for me? To me you seem to say that if sin is meant in religious connotations then it means that atheists do not sin, since they do not believe those ideas are true, but in the ethical sense of bad and good, then sin would be a socially unacceptable thing, which atheists have done. Is that right?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

---

Don't forget to answer my other question. So you haven't done this Ehtheist? You have not transgressed any moral or religious laws?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

You have not transgressed any moral or religious laws?

---

Gideon: Do really not know or are you just having us on? =)

"Sin" is the proprietry domain of those with 'faith.'

"Morals" can reside in both 'faithful' and 'heathen' and my experience suggests that neither can claim superiority, tho' some do try.

A moral transgression might be a 'sin' for youfor the 'heathen' tho'... it is simply that..'a moral transgression.' (And if he's at all lucky he'll see her at the bar again tomorrow nite.)

Gideon: Yes, that's it.

The word "sin" describes a conscious transgression of religious standards most of the time, but also of ethical or cultural standards. Though for these two last contexts we rather say to : break the law.

I don't know if in English the word sin is used also in the ethical or cultural sense, but in French I've never heard it used that way.

Since atheists do not believe in fairy tales they are without sin in the religious sense of the term ( they don't give a *insert a strong word* about religious standards ). But they can "sin" ( or rahter transgress a standard ) in the ethical or cultural sense of the term. I don't know a single modern culture accepting rapes, pedophily or murder. On the other hand some cultures accepts euthanasia, aborption, cloning, death sentence, ....

i would describe sin as not the 'act' itself but the knowledge that one has carried out an act which has a negative affect on the external stimuli of ones enviroment.

so therefor we are all sinners, but with diferent levels of sin.

Hence the church's need for forgiveness from 'god' to cleanse ones soul.

i dont believe in it but if i did, that is how i would describe it.

i think the reason people are supposed to ask forgiveness is because sins 'hurt
or 'offend' god,whose plan was to achive a perfect world where all actions hav a neutral or positive effect on all thingS.

i think you'll find that nearly all creationists also believe in everlasting life, and if they believe in that( something that science has no real way of proving or disproving) theres no reason why they will listen to scientists no matter how much reason and statistics they can come up with, because, if they stop beliving in creation they must also stop believing in their enternal life.

so in conclusion the afterlife ( true or false theres no way to know until you die), holds creationists to their beliefs unreasonable as they are because they cant comprehend there being no afterlife.

thats just my oppion though.

as to wether i belive in creation and evolution, my heart (emotional side )
belives in creation while my brain says to' wake up and smell the ape shit'

ps, this is my first philishopical discussion and i quite enjoy it.

picti:

quote:

---

as to wether i belive in creation and evolution, my heart (emotional side )
belives in creation while my brain says to' wake up and smell the ape shit'

---

(Edited by poi on 03-19-2005 14:20)

quote:

---

something that science has no real way of proving or disproving)

---

Not yet. Never underestimate the will of Man to explore the unknown. Look how far Science has brought us, in the relatively small amount of time that it has been around.

Several:

Of course Gid your question is again silly if not downright nonsensical. I would never commit either murder or rape and refuse to speculate about such a ridiculous concept.

As for minor thefts I never feel guilty about them at all, when did you last take a pen or pencil home from your employer? Or more likely, eat a little something at the hamburger stand you work at without paying for it?

Small social lies are the glue which help hold societies together. "Yes, of course I liked your new hat dear and no that outfit does not make you look fat".

(Do I need a teaching certificate for this course in "Life 101"?)

Of course I have transgressed minor moral strictures I just don't feel guilty about it.

Once again I must ask you: do you ever think before you write: You ask me if I have transgressed any religious laws...I AM AN AETHEIST! I CANNOT TRANSGRESS THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

I am calmer now.

Nojive has the rights of it.

Good defintintion Poi, but since 'sin' is strictly religious in context it cannot be applied in any sense to unbelievers.

Love the fish-eater

Welcome Picti, good first post. I am not a sinner in any context, see above.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Ehtheist: Check www.evolvefish.com for more Darwin Fishes. I particularily like the T-Rex Emblem

The definitions of the term "sin" I saw let me think it could be used in a non-religious context in English. But it seemed odd.

Creationists please check : Affirmations of Humanism ...

Poi, love the Affirmations of Humanism link!!! Thanks for sharing it!!

Guffaw! Loved the "Procreate" emblem.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

poi: The definitions of the term "sin" I saw let me think it could be used in a non-religious context in English. But it seemed odd.

---

Odd but correct. While it is usually used in the religious sense, it can be used otherwise. See #2 below.

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionary
sin1

/sin/

? noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

? verb (sinned, sinning) commit a sin.

? PHRASES live in sin informal, dated (of an unmarried couple) live together.

? DERIVATIVES sinless adjective.

? ORIGIN Old English, probably related to Latin sons ?guilty?.

---

So you atheist and humanist types are capable of sin, but rather than getting it from a, for the most part, unchanging book, it is dictated to you by other humans and constantly subject to change at their mighty whim.

Then again, to be honest here, most who follow Christianity have their sins dictated to them in much the same way (see: priest, televangelist, misinterpretation with motive).

Oh well. Power is power regardless.

With regard to the affirmations of humanism link. The last image says "Everything that exists follows natural laws and is not magical." Where do natural laws come from? This is where I take the theological approach, a leap of faith. We can understand said laws as much as we want, but do we know where they come from? Saying "they just are" doesn't do it for me. Not trying to argue or be a smart ass, I am genuinely curious.

Also, can we say for certain that without any type of religious belief, that the "morality" those images portray would exist?

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-19-2005 22:01)

*sigh*

quote:

---

Where do natural laws come from? This is where I take the theological approach, a leap of faith. We can understand said laws as much as we want, but do we know where they come from? Saying "they just are" doesn't do it for me. Not trying to argue or be a smart ass, I am genuinely curious.

---

One possible way - Guth's Grand Guess

quote:

---

Where do natural laws come from? This is where I take the theological approach, a leap of faith. We can understand said laws as much as we want, but do we know where they come from? Saying "they just are" doesn't do it for me. Not trying to argue or be a smart ass, I am genuinely curious.

---

I strongly encourage you to check the links I gave earlier about the Elegant Universe, talking about the super-string theories and especially the theory M. Though it's not been proved/disproved yet, it can explains the physical laws at macroscopic and microscopic scale ( where the Quantum theory and the Standard Model are in opposition ). It's truely awesome, elegant and simple.

Check also the before-last and before-before-last illustrations of the Humanist Affirmations


ps: I just ordered the book he Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
by Brian Greene.



(Edited by poi on 03-19-2005 23:05)

However, the word 'sin". I posted it's etymology earlier, originally had religious connotations. It has slid into secular use as well, but without the same connotations because it carries not the same penalties as the the poor benighted religious folks must suffer.

There-for if one of us realists 'sins' in your acceptance of the term, it is not the same sort of transgression as it would be for the mythicists.

For instance: the use of certain popular four letter words of anglo-saxon ancestry is by some religious types considered a 'sin'.

Not I.

Not even in other societies. For instance in Quebec when I was living there, anything related to the church and used other than in regards to the church was considered swearing and sinful. (Mau'dit tabernacle)

The above mentioned anglo-saxon words and their Quebecois equivalents, were not.

Natural laws come, naturally, from man.

Man discovers them and names them, before that they just were. Why should one have to imagine some being creating them. Life happens. Nature happens. It just is, no other explanation is necessary.

If insect life had acquired intelligence, the 'laws' might be entirely different and would certainly have different names.

No strings attached.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

If insect life had acquired intelligence

---

I've worked with people who decidedly were (and remain, most likely,) the link betweem 'them and we' which, rather regretably , seems to debunk 'The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution.' =) Another good read btw even tho' it was written in 1955.

quote:

---

WebShaman: One possible way - Guth's Grand Guess

---

After reading this, I am still at a loss of the origin at these laws. As the Guth says near the end of the article: "Where do the laws of physics come from?'" He pauses. "We are a long way from being able to answer that one." Currently, I choose to make a leap of faith and say to myself that a higher power was involved in setting these laws in motion, a designer of nature. Might seem small minded, might be jumping to a conclusion, who knows, but that's that. That is where my faith comes in, and although I have recently altered my thinking in many ways and am trying to be more open minded on many things, I still believe, and barring concrete scientific proof, I probably always will. Leap of faith.

quote:

---

From "Guth's Grand Guess": Alan Guth's inflation theory explains the creation of the universe in a way that's compatible with the laws of physics. But where did the laws of physics come from? "One theory is that there are no laws of physics, that there are only properties of matter," Guth says. "According to this view, if there is no matter, then there are no properties."

---

Still trying to get my brain around this one. There is no spoon?

Thanks for the link, it was a good read. I bookmarked it to go back and reread later to make sure I digest it properly.

quote:

---

poi: I strongly encourage you to check the links I gave earlier about the Elegant Universe...

---

Thanks poi, I'll check that out. Actually, I think I have that doc, or at least a segment of it. A brief look this whole concept seems to tie in slightly with another documentary I saw years ago in which they showed a bunch of inventors who had allegedly created machines which had a higher energy output than input, and the speculation that they had tied into zero point energy. I think it was called "Running on Water" or something. Basically it was about how there is energy all around us and we need only find a way to tap it. Might have nothing to do with it, guess I'll have to watch and see.

quote:

---

poi: Check also the before-last and before-before-last illustrations of the Humanist Affirmations

---

I did, the second to last, "Science is the best way to find out about stuff and it makes our world better," I partially disagree, specifically the part about making the world better. It has also made out world a very dangerous place. Fifty-five thousand nuclear weapons and counting, the majority of those in Russia, which is having big problems with upkeep. Scientists also selling secrets. The nuclear threat, a scientific creation, is one of the scariest dangers facing the world today. Also, I find the splicing of differenct species also very scary, as well as those secret labs which dabble in disease. We are opening a pandora's box from which there is no return, IMO.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: However, the word 'sin". I posted it's etymology earlier, originally had religious connotations. It has slid into secular use as well, but without the same connotations because it carries not the same penalties as the the poor benighted religious folks must suffer.

---

I was under the understanding that sin came from the Middle English term "sinne", which itself derived of the old english "synne", which itself is thought to have derived from the Latin "sons" meaning criminal, guilty. There seems to be a lack of clarity between the 3 sources I have found. In any case, in the modern sense of the word, sin, can apply to both religion and secular, and this is modern times.

You may believe you are not able to sin against God, but you are quite capable of sinning against the state, other people, etc...

No sense beating a dead horse and getting caught up in semantics. I do not suffer penalties by the way, Jesus died for my sins, remember.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: There-for if one of us realists 'sins' in your acceptance of the term, it is not the same sort of transgression as it would be for the mythicists.

---

You presume to know my acceptance of the term sin. To me sin, by itself without the boundaries of context, is simply a wrongdoing by ones own moral code and is not specific to any particualr sect of religion.

Really doesn't matter to me whether you sin or not. If you are wrong in your beliefs you will only answer to God. Any judgement on my part would be hypocrisy. I sin with the best of you heathens, and I don't pretend otherwise.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: For instance: the use of certain popular four letter words of anglo-saxon ancestry is by some religious types considered a 'sin'.

Not I.

---

I do not consider the utterence of a word a sin. This came later in my knowledge with the organization of religion, perhaps Bugs and Gideon would rebuke me here, not positive, but I reject organized religion and take it upon myself to draw my own conclusions about the Bible.

I swear like a trucker, in the appropriate places and around the appropriate people of course. The only type of swearing I see as a sin against God is in taking the Lord's name in vain. Otherwise, words are words.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Man discovers them and names them, before that they just were. Why should one have to imagine some being creating them. Life happens. Nature happens. It just is, no other explanation is necessary.

---

We may have discovered them and named them, but they still come from something, somewhere. Again, who or what created the laws of physics? Saying of these laws, complex as they are, that "Nature happens. It just is, no other explanation is nesessary" seems very much like a leap of faith to me.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-20-2005 08:00)

Ram,

If the creation of the Universe is a natural event (one possible way - explained in Guth's Grand Guess), then the formation of the physical laws are also natural (and the link that Poi posted is a possible explaination of that).

As such, I see no reason for a Creator here. It is all a natural process, we just don't quite understand it all yet.

Lack of understanding often results in a "leap of Faith" - an attempt to explain what is not known.

We see this sort of "leap of faith" type stuff all through Mankind's history - most of this type of belief has been pushed aside by Science - exploring the unknown. We see in all the things that we have discovered to date, that there is no magic, no sign of a creator - that everything occurs naturally that we know of, and follow natural laws. To me, that is a huge indication, that everything else that we don't know, follows along the same lines.

It is a natural existence, no magic, no sign of a creator.

Ramasax: Without science we'd still be wandering with our cousins the primates or our specie may have already disappeared, we wouldn't be able to cure some cancers, do pre-birth diagnostic of heart malformations, go to the moon, explore hazardous areas, turn on your computer powered thanks to a nuclear plant, talk with your mates at the other tip of the planet, survive to flu, enjoy a cold beer, ... post on the Asylum



(Edited by poi on 03-20-2005 11:23)

guths grand guess is a answer to the non-living creation of the universe, but im more interested in the beginning of actual life. How did something non-living become alive, are there any web pages you guys could direct me to that atempt to explain that?

Well of course you are wrong in your contention Ramasax that I shall suffer at the hands of your god.

I don't accept the existance of such anymore than I accept your need to believe I sin as much as you do. I re-iterate, no matter how you wish to try to spin it, it is a religious concept and so cannot and does not apply to unbelievers or even to believers of other faiths which may not have the concept.

We had morals before we had religion. A moral transgression is something quite different from the religous dictum. It's etymology has no bearing on current use.

You will be unable to understand this because you are 'reasoning' from a religious base, which does not look kindly upon reason.

The point I was making and which may have eluded some is; it ain't swearing unless you believe it is. They are just words and it is foolish to allow oneself to be upset by mere words.

Poi: point of interest and not criticism. In English "Specie" refers to money. Ad an 's' for groups of the living.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

"We are a long way from being able to answer that one."

---

Then it *must* be "god"!

We don't know - so to hell with figuring it out, it's a big ghost in the sky twiddling his thumbs that makes the atoms spin!


It is not a leap of faith to say "we do not know the actual origins of the universe".
It is not a leap of any kind to say that science can tell us "this much", and the rest must wait to be known..."

It must be reiterated as well, that throwing god into the picture as a magic fix-all still doesn't explain the origins - for god had to come from somewhere. Saying "he just always existed" as the answer to this is purely childish.

God is a convenient way to avoid thinking about the possibilities.

But it still doesn't answer anything!

DL...amen

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman: If the creation of the Universe is a natural event (one possible way - explained in Guth's Grand Guess), then the formation of the physical laws are also natural (and the link that Poi posted is a possible explaination of that).

As such, I see no reason for a Creator here. It is all a natural process, we just don't quite understand it all yet.

---

I see no reason whatsoever to rule it out either, since we don't know for certain. I ask you, is it possible? Dismissing that possibility and answering no, while not knowing, seems, IMO, to be jumping to a conclusion. It is the complexity of the universe, down to the design of the simplest of things, the symmetry and majestic beauty, which I just cannot fathom without an outside intelligence of much greater magnitude. If this was all the creation of non-intelligence then we, as intelligent beings, should not have a hard time grasping it, yet we do. How can non-intelligence beget and boggle intelligence? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Yadda yadda yadda...

In all honesty, I may lack understanding, I have hardly studied these topics as much as you or others here have, but I hardly believe my lack of understanding plays that large a part in my belief or disbelief. Countless scientists of great intellect, much greater than that which I possess, in all fields of study have held this or similar beliefs as well, so I am not alone.

quote:

---

WebShaman: Lack of understanding often results in a "leap of Faith" - an attempt to explain what is not known.

---

Exactly, and a leap of faith also applies to the science community. They may postulate through a different process, but it is still the same when dealing with the unknown. This will always be, barring further knowledge, a circular discussion based on "leaps of faith" into the unknown.

You will not agree, may even see my words as gibberish of the small minded, but just realize that our different perceptions are not something to be discarded, but are actually what make us as a species so different from the rest. It is a positive quality, and I believe we must learn to come to terms with that which differentiates us, accept it, and use it to our advantage.

Stray thought: Not referncing anyone here, but what I fear is the recently inclining trend of claiming intellecual superiority over others because they believe in "fairy tales"; it is a very dangerous thing which could easily spiral out of control in the future. Look what the reverse dogma has caused throughout history. Thought should be free either way, and respect/tolerance should be taught on both sides, that is all I care about anymore. Rather than people bantering back and forth about that which cannot be concluded we should be rising up against the certain elements in our world which politicize these things, causing the problems in the first. Everywhere you go you see people in arguments not realizing that it is all a scheme of manipulation and control, an illusion of hatred perpetrated on us so that we do not see the truth below the surface.

quote:

---

Poi: Without science we'd still be wandering with our cousins the primates or our specie may have already disappeared, we wouldn't be able to cure some cancers, do pre-birth diagnostic of heart malformations, go to the moon, explore hazardous areas, turn on your computer powered thanks to a nuclear plant, talk with your mates at the other tip of the planet, survive to flu, enjoy a cold beer, ... post on the Asylum

---

I'll go with that poi, no contention that science has helped humanity in many ways, but the opposite danger which has been created could destroy it all in the blink of an eye. We are tossing around a double edged blade with no handle and hoping nobody gets cut. I believe we need to slow down in some corners until we have recitified these negative aspects of our communities or there is a good chance of destroying ourselves. Science has freed us, but it has also enslaved us and placed us under it's control.

BTW, we went to the moon? You sure about that? Do you fully trust the organization(s) which told us that? Have you fully researched the evidence that says we did? Do you trust the purveyors of such evidence? If not, isn't that jumping to a conclusion based on what you have been told? Perception is easy to manipulate when emitted through a glass tube, liquid crystal, the printing press, or heresay.

quote:

---

Ehthiest: Well of course you are wrong in your contention Ramasax that I shall suffer at the hands of your god.

---

I never contended anything about you suffering. I said "if" you are wrong, and I don't pretend to know the truth or believe that I hold any keys. Please don't try to spin my words to demonize me so I fit into you preconceived notions.

quote:

---

Ehthiest: You will be unable to understand this because you are 'reasoning' from a religious base, which does not look kindly upon reason.

---

Blah blah blah... You presume to know that which you do not.

quote:

---

DL: Then it *must* be "god"!

We don't know - so to hell with figuring it out, it's a big ghost in the sky twiddling his thumbs that makes the atoms spin!

---

Did I say anything about not figuring it out? Go ahead and figure it out, I'll even support you and look forward to those findings with an open mind. Until then, I'll continue believing my "myth."

quote:

---

DL: It must be reiterated as well, that throwing god into the picture as a magic fix-all still doesn't explain the origins - for god had to come from somewhere. Saying "he just always existed" as the answer to this is purely childish.

---

So are sarcastic statements which serve no purpose but to entertain cronies.

What is so wrong with believing in an overseeing and omnipotent intelligent force that just is? You all contend something very similar, that something just is. I know and freely admit that I could be wrong, are you able to say the same? I hope so.

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-21-2005 05:34)

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-21-2005 05:37)

Ram, your 'inability to fathom' is no reason for anyone else to follow suit. For whatever reason, you seem to need that myth and welcome to it.

The difference between a scientific 'leap and faith' and a religious one is; there is some hope of proving the former.

Well "if" I am wrong, what happend to your god of love? Is it so shallow a being as to punish someone who held an honestly arrived at counter point of view?

The answer is yes, the xian god, according to its follower is a total hypocrite and a dictator to boot.

Peace and love thy neighbour, bow your head and tremble before your god.

Crap! if I were to invent an imaginary friend it would be a lot nicer and more understanding and less petty than that.

AS for presuming to know what you do not...you and every religious individual on the face of the earth are the current master practitioners of that special art.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)