those evolution DVDs are absolutely awesome. everyone should buy it. totally blows the bible away. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/shop/index.html
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
I'll try not to be inflammatory, but do you really expect someone to buy these CD's? If they're so fantastic, why not bring post some of the points? I haven't asked you read 2,000 pages of Intelligent Design material and then said, "It'll stomp your idiotic ideas into dust."
I already know plenty about evolution: trust me. And I believe that I can tell from your postings that I know way more about evolutionary theory than you know about Intelligent Design.
Here's an open question for you: on these DVD's is there any macroevolution, and I emphasize macro, that is well documented besides the therapsids and the hominids? Now that I would truly be interested in, but I need concrete examples of what you're talking about not just attacking statements like "it. totally blows the bible away".
Yes, an oxygen-starved brain would do strange things. But this is not an oxygen-starved brain. This is a flatlined brain. That means ZERO activity. That's what has them stumped!
I've read numerous articles on it. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but it's all over the place. And, contrary to what you think, Christians generally don't like to discuss it. I don't really either. I actually brought it up only because it is a generally well-respected example among a growing percentage of secular researchers (not chruch doctors) that life may be beyond our current four-dimensional understanding.
The last article I read was in the doctor's office a few week's ago and it was Time or Newsweek or some very similar major national magazine. They documented, in a very nonsensational way I might add, how many of these people hover above the bed or go to different locations and see things that could not possibly have known about unless they had left their body somehow.
Again, I'm not saying they've proven anything yet. I'm just saying there's more to it than "it's a BIG load of crap." It's not going away that easily...
Can you cite something? Hearsay doesn't cut it.
Newsweek also wrote an article not too long ago called "Science Finds God", which claimed that theologians and scientists were now converging.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
"A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members indicated only 7% believe in a personal creator, down from 15% in 1933 and 29% in 1914. If anything, most scientists seem to be moving away from spirituality rather than toward it. "
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_19_1.html
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek aren't always the best source for such information.
The articles must be critically reviewed before being accepted as true. In the Newsweek example, they were entirely off base.
peace
axeman
Newsweek also wrote an article not too long ago called "Science Finds God", which claimed that theologians and scientists were now converging.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
"A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members indicated only 7% believe in a personal creator, down from 15% in 1933 and 29% in 1914. If anything, most scientists seem to be moving away from spirituality rather than toward it. "
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stenger_19_1.html
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek aren't always the best source for such information.
The articles must be critically reviewed before being accepted as true. In the Newsweek example, they were entirely off base.
peace
axeman
Why are you blatantly ignoring what Alfonso said? He already debunked this.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that evolution is the ONLY way that life came about. No one makes this claim.
No one is capable of deducing every possible way that life can spawn, and then prove, that evolution is the ONLY way.
I might as well put up a million dollars for anyone to take that can prove I am not god. It's simply impossible.
The contest is obviously rigged, and there is no way anyone can take the money. It is perfectly safe.
Do you have a cite for this contest???
I would like to hear what their definition of "evolution" is, and what the exact terms are.
If the contest merely required someone to prove that any form of evolution occurred, they could kiss their money goodbye.
How do you think resistent strains of bacteria come into being? God snapped his fingers and decided to create a new one which our antibiotics dont work against??
peace
axeman
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that evolution is the ONLY way that life came about. No one makes this claim.
No one is capable of deducing every possible way that life can spawn, and then prove, that evolution is the ONLY way.
I might as well put up a million dollars for anyone to take that can prove I am not god. It's simply impossible.
The contest is obviously rigged, and there is no way anyone can take the money. It is perfectly safe.
Do you have a cite for this contest???
I would like to hear what their definition of "evolution" is, and what the exact terms are.
If the contest merely required someone to prove that any form of evolution occurred, they could kiss their money goodbye.
How do you think resistent strains of bacteria come into being? God snapped his fingers and decided to create a new one which our antibiotics dont work against??
peace
axeman
Thanks for your explanations alfonso.
Ok, let's look at that.
I'm not sure that's the best way to begin. Sure, this was a car or a golf ball or a piece of pre-cambrian rock we might want to define what we are discussing, but God is so much more an abstract concept that, imo, by his very nature seems to defy definition.
Ok. But I can conjure up an abstract concept of God here and now which by its nature, wouldn't fit into any religion I know of. For a God, or an abstract notion of one God to occur to many people, it has to have description if not some idea of a meaning. It has to be described in some way does it not, for the abstract concept to come about.?
However, I submit that we do all understand what God is -- even atheists (who may well claim otherwise) -- even though we don't have a crystal clear definition.
Respectfully no. We only know at this stage God is abstract. People living in deep isolated jungles may well NOT know of an abstract God. They make their God "concrete" - a tree the sun etc. They may have no god abstract or otherwise. I know of a golf ball because I addressed one once
and because it makes sense. An abstract golf ball, without its associated purposes, descriptions and definitions makes very little sense to me or to someone in a jungle I think.
Much in the same way that as children growing up we understood concepts like love and beauty before we were ever handed a dictionary definition of them.
This has been covered many times before. Children know love for reasons that have and are becoming even more understandable as emotions and reaction to events. A sophisticated chemical reaction put simplistically, but perfectly understandable without prior specific instruction. Easy to comprehend on a very basic level and without trivialising, a tiny baby 'loves' its mother because it knows where warmth, safety and food comes from. We call it love, the baby doesn't seem to display anything but an inherent desire for survival. Not an inherent desire for the abstract notion of a God. Mother and child is a beautiful scene to another human onlooker. The care and survival of the human race is naturally appealing.
Rather than starting with a definition, I think a definition ought to be the end point of an investigation into God.
Well....Ok but I am reluctant, for definition still seems key to the discussion
Now, although I don't have such a definition, I think we can still make some kind of comments on the nature of God. However, before doing that I should address the question below:
So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion
Stu, if it's going to be a matter of "BZZT, your religion is wrong. next please", then okay, it's all very simple. If all you want to do is leave it at that, then I don't think I can accomodate you.
No alfonso, I am all ears for more than just a "BZZT"....I am listening....
However, if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity, the meaning humans derive from it, evaluating notions of "religious truth", understanding, or attempting to understand, the mysteries of life, of the universe and of humanity's relationship to them, and the nature and validity of the kinds of ideas that emerge from such a reflection, then religion becomes quite complex indeed.
Well only if you want to lump all that together in one great unexplained homogeneous blob, can you conceivably make it unnecessarily complex. But you are in any event only making abstractness itself complex, not God, so where would that get us anyway?
Why not start with "if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity" .
We can look at the pros and cons (I would say mostly cons - as even today it causes awful conflicts in it's place in humanity) but that will still not establish a religious truth other than it is a "truth" (not a truth). That is to say it is by any means at this stage of our discussion, an idea based on no substantial evidence which in turn has no other supporting information which stands primary scrutiny, which all revolves around an abstract idea of a God.
If I have an abstract idea, in science I must support it many ways with substantial and observable repeatable evidence as to why my abstract idea is true. That is immeasurably more meaningful, practical and useful to humanity.
"Attempting to understand, the mysteries of life"
...but science and scientific endeavor patently and clearly appears to do exactly that in a much more effective and real way than an abstract idea of a God.
I could continue but do you get my drift?
Lastly, if you have an abstract God you need to clearly show why your abstract God is all the things you say it is, because my abstract God is always more "true" than yours (I simply +1 more to its attributes over yours) and it will make just as much abstract sense.
Ok, let's look at that.
I'm not sure that's the best way to begin. Sure, this was a car or a golf ball or a piece of pre-cambrian rock we might want to define what we are discussing, but God is so much more an abstract concept that, imo, by his very nature seems to defy definition.
Ok. But I can conjure up an abstract concept of God here and now which by its nature, wouldn't fit into any religion I know of. For a God, or an abstract notion of one God to occur to many people, it has to have description if not some idea of a meaning. It has to be described in some way does it not, for the abstract concept to come about.?
However, I submit that we do all understand what God is -- even atheists (who may well claim otherwise) -- even though we don't have a crystal clear definition.
Respectfully no. We only know at this stage God is abstract. People living in deep isolated jungles may well NOT know of an abstract God. They make their God "concrete" - a tree the sun etc. They may have no god abstract or otherwise. I know of a golf ball because I addressed one once
and because it makes sense. An abstract golf ball, without its associated purposes, descriptions and definitions makes very little sense to me or to someone in a jungle I think.Much in the same way that as children growing up we understood concepts like love and beauty before we were ever handed a dictionary definition of them.
This has been covered many times before. Children know love for reasons that have and are becoming even more understandable as emotions and reaction to events. A sophisticated chemical reaction put simplistically, but perfectly understandable without prior specific instruction. Easy to comprehend on a very basic level and without trivialising, a tiny baby 'loves' its mother because it knows where warmth, safety and food comes from. We call it love, the baby doesn't seem to display anything but an inherent desire for survival. Not an inherent desire for the abstract notion of a God. Mother and child is a beautiful scene to another human onlooker. The care and survival of the human race is naturally appealing.
Rather than starting with a definition, I think a definition ought to be the end point of an investigation into God.
Well....Ok but I am reluctant, for definition still seems key to the discussion
Now, although I don't have such a definition, I think we can still make some kind of comments on the nature of God. However, before doing that I should address the question below:
So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion
Stu, if it's going to be a matter of "BZZT, your religion is wrong. next please", then okay, it's all very simple. If all you want to do is leave it at that, then I don't think I can accomodate you.
No alfonso, I am all ears for more than just a "BZZT"....I am listening....
However, if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity, the meaning humans derive from it, evaluating notions of "religious truth", understanding, or attempting to understand, the mysteries of life, of the universe and of humanity's relationship to them, and the nature and validity of the kinds of ideas that emerge from such a reflection, then religion becomes quite complex indeed.
Well only if you want to lump all that together in one great unexplained homogeneous blob, can you conceivably make it unnecessarily complex. But you are in any event only making abstractness itself complex, not God, so where would that get us anyway?
Why not start with "if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity" .
We can look at the pros and cons (I would say mostly cons - as even today it causes awful conflicts in it's place in humanity) but that will still not establish a religious truth other than it is a "truth" (not a truth). That is to say it is by any means at this stage of our discussion, an idea based on no substantial evidence which in turn has no other supporting information which stands primary scrutiny, which all revolves around an abstract idea of a God.
If I have an abstract idea, in science I must support it many ways with substantial and observable repeatable evidence as to why my abstract idea is true. That is immeasurably more meaningful, practical and useful to humanity.
"Attempting to understand, the mysteries of life"
...but science and scientific endeavor patently and clearly appears to do exactly that in a much more effective and real way than an abstract idea of a God.
I could continue but do you get my drift?
Lastly, if you have an abstract God you need to clearly show why your abstract God is all the things you say it is, because my abstract God is always more "true" than yours (I simply +1 more to its attributes over yours) and it will make just as much abstract sense.
You wrote previously..."Genesis "coincidentally" provides the exact sequence of the astronomical and archaeological record"
Note the words you use shoeshineboy .....[Genesis]... provides the exact sequence of the astronomical and archaeological record"
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That is clear enough is it not. God created what we now know to be space (The Firmament??) and the planet earth. We assume he created all the planets sun moon earth Mars etc... everything. Ok.
Genesis 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Without form....nothing of it or on it. No torrential massive cosmic ball of exploding violently hot molten energy. So we'll ignore that bit then and go onto.....presumably when the earth has cooled down and the atmosphere has formed although there is no mention of the processes hot /cooler / hot. ok we dismiss the exact sequence here which you state matches perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record... as the "spirit of God" (whatever that is) has moved on the face of the waters. Hang on though... how did the waters get there...ah God has already done that without mentioning atmosphere ("The Firmament"??) It doesn't match the astronomical record.
We have gone in verses 1 and 2 straight from Bang... God creates heaven and earth, to billions of years later... an atmosphere on earth.
Genesis 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
He formed the sun here?. or "The Firmament" which has not yet been mentioned, cleared for sunlight to reach earth. Which one do you decide upon . What reasons do you use to decide? Personal ones? How does this match perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record as you say it does??
Genesis 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
He sets the planet earth into 24 hour revolutions here? There was so spinning up to here? Or do you just assume he divides light from darkness in some esoteric way ?
Just how does that match perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record as you say it does.
Genesis 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So all this according to the 'astronomical and archaeological record' took billions and billions of years ...to form a galaxy, earth and its neighboring planets... yet the 1 day God takes matches perfectly with the 'astronomical and archaeological record'???
I will leave all the other screechingly obvious faults and inconsistencies contained in the remaining 26 verses, as they only get worse.
I'm not mad or anything, but you guys keep ignoring the viewpoint of the observer given in verse 2: it is on the surface of the waters. As I've said several times now, from someone on the surface of the earth, this is exactly when the atmosphere would go from opaque to translucent and light would begin to show through the atmosphere.
You are too used to talking to young earth creationists. Day in Hebrew can mean 24 hours period, but it can also mean much longer periods of time. Of course, I believe in the latter.
Again, it does not say that. It says that light first shows through to the earth's surface (where the observer is). This of course does NOT require to be sitting stationary in space w/o spinning.