The answer to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 22:38
VIEWED: 15240
PAGE 3 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Is love reliable?
Does anyone here think love is reliable? *points to 50% divorce rate*
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wow. One thing that is not reliable is the emotion communicated in posting over the internet. You say, "People are stupid animals." I'm a little taken aback by your sudden...what? Vitriol? My sense is that you're not familiar with the kind of spiritual experience I'm talking about. Have you ever experienced what you would call a "genuine theistic event?"
People are stupid animals. We demonstrate it again and again and again. Granted, we also demonstrate great feats of intelligence but that's what allows us to see that our stupidity is so commonplace.
I have experienced what you would call "a genuine theistic event", more than once but I can more readily explain them in ordinary mundane terms rather than God deciding to speak to me in a very obscure manner.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, see, there, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't credit mystical experience. We over here, on the mystical side, have been "beyond science" from the start. We read your quantum physics and your chaos theory with your attractors and such and we say, "Hey, they're actually getting kinda close with that stuff--you know, if you squint." How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
What I meant was that quantum physics has no need or place for mysticism. It's another of those "insert God into science here" attitudes. There is no need for an omnipotent deity in any of quantum mechanics.
I have no problem with people of faith claiming to be "beyond science", in fact I welcome it. Just as long as they stay there, well away from science. Unfortunately, that's not the case in America these days.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Oh, and Quantum Physics has nothing to do with mysticism, it's just been hijacked by certain groups who half read a few of the books and decided that it was "beyond science". It is a science, bound to the same principles as all the other ones; theories backed up by data from repeatable experiments. The fact that it bears no resemblence to physics as we knew it is neither here nor there.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, see, there, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't credit mystical experience. We over here, on the mystical side, have been "beyond science" from the start. We read your quantum physics and your chaos theory with your attractors and such and we say, "Hey, they're actually getting kinda close with that stuff--you know, if you squint." How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
I'd forward that its virtually impossible to understand these things without experiencing them. I myself would likely have a very different outlook if it werent for the fact that I have had dreams that 'come true' from a very young age...
It doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone believe me or not, I know it to be true, and it has forced me to think of things in a very different way to the current scientific theories.
I have experienced the future before it has happened (albet I have no control over when where etc...). So I think there has to be some mechanism for casting data of future events back through time, and QM does allow for this...
If a particle had negative mass it would be (as far as I understand from my knowledge of Reletivity) incapable of traveling SLOWER than the speed of light. As such its subjective time would run in the opposite direction to the flow of time in the rest of the universe...
QM has shown, experimentally, that two particles can effect each other instantaneously irrespective of distance or any disernible connection, so why couldn't that explain farseeing, for instance?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I have no problem with people of faith claiming to be "beyond science", in fact I welcome it. Just as long as they stay there, well away from science. Unfortunately, that's not the case in America these days.
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
Ahh, the old babel fish argument
.Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
Ahh, the old babel fish argument
It's not the babel fish argument at all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was kind of a joke Grounded...
But I'd still contest that the Babel Fish Argument in Hitch Hikers is very similar to the point you made...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, didn't quite pick up on that. And yes I see the similarity, but it's still not relevant. I wasn't arguing one way or the other - I was commenting on the contradictory nature of the arguing itself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Here's the simplest solution to a rather simple problem:
God is the ultimate engineer. he created us as single cell organisms, knowing we'd eventually evolve into what we are today.
He did it like this because he knew exactly what he wanted us to be, perfections and flaws and all, and knew that the human mind he wanted us to have is beautiful and extremely fragile.
So, had we been created as we are now, from day one, we'd be different, less of the human species we are now.
Therefore, he knew he had to create us one step at a time, to slowly evolve, both physically and mentally, in order to become what we are.
Sure, he could've skipped it all--he IS God, you know--but it would have meant skipping all the changes, all the different ways we were, which, I believe, he found no less beautiful than what we are now. But this model is the one he ultimately was going for.
So, like any good engineer, he designed the prototypes first, and slowly upgraded and improved them, so that we'd have the time to grow into what he wanted us to be.
Simple, huh? Not sure why I'm the only one who sees this...
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
(pretty freakin obvious when I spell it out for you, huh?)
I realize I'm a little late, but here are my two cents...
This theory is called Theistic evolution, or Evolutionary creationism.
I myself have been preaching this logic for years:
Consider the divine, and let us bypass ignorance, as the divine does consists of separate deities, to separate faiths. The singular absolute truth amongst faiths is that God is absolute, that being omnipotent, omnipresent.
Omnipotence: If God is all powerful, and all knowing, then there is no basis for one of God’s creations to fully understand the greatness of God. If one could know God, then one could understand God, then one could be God. Our existence is Teleological, it exist to satisfy a purpose. I believe that our end goal is to seek perfection, not as individuals but as a species. Perfection will never occur, as we are not God, but it is God that moves us forward, both intellectually and biologically.
Omnipresence: If God was God at the beginning of time, and shall be God at the end of time, God then must exist in all times, at all times, therefore to God there is no time. We think of things completely temporal, yesterday, tomorrow, next year. This is because we are imperfect, and in the shadow of a supreme entity that is not held to the laws of space and time as we understand them. The biggest mistake I feel is the six day argument. Why are we still arguing about this? Before the universe there was no time. You can’t measure time when there is no time. God exist outside of time, therefore if God were to create the Universe in a set number of days (or any measurement for that matter) then it would make him subject to the laws of time, which would make him imperfect.
I have so much more, but I have to take a break, I’ll come back tonight or tomorrow.
Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you.
You're pretty much saying what I've had in my own chaotic head for a long time, except that you're managing to say it all articulate-like.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'd forward that its virtually impossible to understand these things without experiencing them. I myself would likely have a very different outlook if it werent for the fact that I have had dreams that 'come true' from a very young age...
It doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone believe me or not, I know it to be true, and it has forced me to think of things in a very different way to the current scientific theories.
A big problem with communicating this kind of experience to folks who haven't had any of their own, is the false equation of personal experience and subjectivity. If only a small sector of the population experiences a thing, the rest of the community tend to discount it out of hand. Even though most of what we take for granted we have on faith from experts. Ooh, does that drive me nuts!
One thing that my personal experiences has taught me is that belief systems across the board tend to cloud reason. As soon as you say, "That can't be true" you've given up on reality and retreated to something more comfortable. Which is not to say that delusion and wishful thinking do not exist, but we don't safeguard ourselves against them by puting on blinders.
"Belief" itself is such a vague, melancholy force. You don't have to believe what you already know. Implicit in belief is always doubt, evidence to the contrary, wishful thinking. But people find comfort in belief systems. God knows why.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME