Evolution Vs. God

mrphilosophias


You know our solar system to not be designed?

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Yes.

thanks, science!

mrphilosophias
to further reinforce my views that all creation from the subatomic, to the cellular; from the systems of the body to the bodies of the Universe reak of intelligent design consider this quote from James Rothman, one of three Nobel recipients for medicine this year:

""One of the major lessons in all of biochemistry, cell biology and molecular medicine is that when proteins operate at the subcellular level, they behave in a certain way as if they're mechanical machinery.""

source: news.yahoo.com...

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Psalm 14

edit on 7-10-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Because machinery is created by us obviously it is going to, in a way, mimic what has designed it. That says absolutely nothing about us being created by a god. All it says is the universe creates itself and finds the most efficient way to continue creating. No god required!

reply to post by Blarneystoner


That's a cool idea about terraforming. Like preparing a planet for a higher purpose.

I wonder what the next Level of existence looks like!



reply to post by mrphilosophias

mrphilosophias
His research was "absolutely fascinating," he said.

"One of the major lessons in all of biochemistry, cell biology and molecular medicine is that when proteins operate at the subcellular level, they behave in a certain way as if they're mechanical machinery."

source: news.yahoo.com...


"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Psalm 14

Very good find and quotes!

This is amazing!

For their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic,
a major transport system in our cells:
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html
www.nobelprize.org...

www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/med_image_press_eng.pdf
www.nobelprize.org...



Reactions will follow as expected.

Knowledge some are never meant to know...

reply to post by AbleEndangered

Reactions will follow as expected.

And what is this, that the evidence contradicts your cherished fables?
Trying to paint established science with the uncertainties inherent in emerging science is both deplorably shameful and a testament to how desperate creationist are, and how low they will stoop to attempt to buoy an inexorably sinking belief system.

Knowledge some are never meant to know...

Why is this, could it be that this knowledge is causing your favorite pixie to shrink?
Or is it because it's childishly simple for creo's to pick any complex biological process and assert out of your seemingly endless ignorance that it could not possibly have evolved, while it takes a considerable amount of time and effort for someone with intellectual integrity to research the field.

You appear to be unaware that directed in vitro protein evolution is an established and successful area of research, to such a degree that companies are producing patents, selling kits and even offering contract services in this area.

I almost feel sorry for you and your fellow creationists who are now forced to spend your days holding up a damn that's creaking and groaning against the unstoppable and ever-growing oceans of knowledge that science is producing. A damn that threatens every day to finally burst from the strain and consume you in the coming tsunami , sweeping you and your like away into the annals of history to be looked at and laughed at by generations to come as nothing more than strange curiosities.

reply to post by AbleEndangered

Knowledge some are never meant to know...

Only those who close their eyes to it.

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

reply to post by AbleEndangered


More arguments out of ignorance. Assuming that if there is an answer, you'll automatically know it. Somehow, I sincerely doubt that is the case.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

If your belief that it is the same thing, we would not be hit with different viruses of the fly all the time. Them being called flu has nothing to do with them being completely different viruses, belonging to the same type of virus.
Just imagine, if there was no evolution, we would not have any new viruses or sickens, for example AIDS, tuberculosis etc. Unless that was given when world was created.


I would love to be able to see some extinct animals back in life. No to let them lose, under controlled environment, of course.



As I said from beginning, you will not see one change in your lifespan, as it takes much longer for this to happen. Take a dog for example, what has been done in past 10k to dogs and how many different kinds of dog now we have, without genetically modifying dogs, just by breeding. Dog and wolf have split into to separate species about 100K years ago. They are still closely related, but they are 2 different species. Another example is human and chimpanzees. Do you know that chimpanzee is more close in genetics to humans then to other kind of primates? You not willing to see how we evolved, as well other animals, hope we can fix that.

First of all, you will never find all links in evolution, simply for most of them we are using in everyday life (fossil fuel, guess how it got it's name). But all what we found so far we are able to place in three of life forms, with many branches. I am sure you have seen that in books, but still probably think it is just theory, where in fact it is proven fact (that is what theory in evolution means).


Sorry if I ever offended you, it is not something I would like to do. We are talking about topic where you are trying to prove that all knowledge we are getting is not worth much because it is not written in your holy book. Neither is written that earth is not center of universe, we all know that there is no one above sky that follows all our movements (except NSA

, but that is different story) and that life is most likely not endemic form to earth.

Let me ask you another question. You mention something like other age and earth being only 10K old. Where do you have that in bible? Can you point out that? Also, when did big flood happen?

This is all these discussions ever amount-to : belief-system vs. belief-system.

Maya vs. Shiva, in a mesmerizing dance, that hypnotizes those who watch.

Where are all of the good folks that can see though this approach ?

The answer is very simple.
It is both evolution and God.

There is no way to come back from the dead and tell anyone which one it is.

So it is both. Film at death.

Solves a lot of diatribes.

I can't bring myself to read all 40 pages of the same convos over and over again. I just want to know if anyone else feels they're all BS theories? There isn't proof god or evaluation exist. Fossil records are iffy because weather and materials. Ancient aliens sounds more realistic at this point.

a reply to: seekshelter

I may be able to save you some time.

For me, it's a false narrative. Comparing "God" with "Evolution" is like saying "Plato" vs. "Tangerines". For me there is no common denominator to form a basis of comparison. Evolution is a scientific endeavor which has a plethora of evidence to support its thesis. God is a faith-based diety of which a majority of the people on the planet believe in, in one form or another. They are not conflicting, not mutually exclusive, but can coexist with only a minimal amount of thought.

This is, of course, merely my opinion. I thought that if you cared enough to post, but didn't care enough to read, you might appreciate an abridged version from someone who has thought on this for the better part of 60 years. (I probably thought on it in some form when I was a younger than that, however I can't recall)_.

originally posted by: seekshelter
I can't bring myself to read all 40 pages of the same convos over and over again. I just want to know if anyone else feels they're all BS theories? There isn't proof god or evaluation exist. Fossil records are iffy because weather and materials. Ancient aliens sounds more realistic at this point.

Maybe because that last idea sounds more intriguing and interesting to you, it 'tickles your ears'? Of course technically, God and angels are ancient aliens (extraterrestrials), but could it be that people have a conditioned aversion to the idea of "God" and "angels" as opposed to the more intriguing and promoted* term "ancient aliens"? (*: in society in general but particularly the entertainment media, including conspiracy entertainment, see the popularity of the subforum Aliens & UFO's on this website for the effect of this promotion; where the aliens discussed are usually from another planet, an idea that is much more popular and intriguing in this world)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

The phrase "will not put up with" is describing the result of the earlier "aversion" I spoke of, the man in the video below also suggests that this aversion to "beneficial teaching" (truthful information about a subject) and where these teachings can be found (a reliable source of information) is a conditioned phenomenon/effect, something that people grow into as the years pass by, they grow older and as they are "molded by this system of things" (Rom 12:2), being affected by what everyone around them tells them and as these people demonstrate that you would be more accepted and/or liked if you had the same preferences and aversion as opposed to if you were someone that beliefs in the existence of God and what He has taught in His word, the Bible (the source of the "beneficial teaching" and "truth" spoken of at 2 Tim 4:3,4), i.e. if you preferred to get your information from that source instead. The key points he makes come after 5 minutes (but his background with taking an interest in conspiracy entertainment may help in better understanding where he's coming from, so that's the first 5 minutes):

originally posted by: whereislogic
...but could it be that people have a conditioned aversion to the idea of "God" and "angels"...

That is exactly what it is, because ancient aliens leaves the door open to many possibilities but when someone talks about "God" and "angels" it is a package deal that means their idea of god and their version of the truth, usually with a list of rules and punishment for not following them.

Meanwhile, material space explorers coming to earth, kick starting life on the planet and then either dying off or just leaving for whatever reason doesn't carry the same dogma.

a reply to: daskakik

Did you notice the term "conditioned" in that sentence? Have you checked out what the guy in the video said about it after 5 minutes? Perhaps he explains it better than I did in my comment.

Do you view yourself as someone who wants to know the truth of a matter (a truth seeker) or someone who is more interested in what could possibly be true, but it's unlikely you will ever find out for sure which possibility is the correct/right/truthful one? Perhaps because you have been told that truth is subjective or relative and have come to believe something similar to what these ancient philosophers said about the matter of truth (or have the same feeling towards your ability to figure it out as Pilate did):

THE two men facing each other could scarcely have been more dissimilar. One was a politician who was cynical, ambitious, wealthy, ready to do anything to advance his own career. The other was a teacher who spurned wealth and prestige and was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. Needless to say, these two men did not see eye to eye! On one matter in particular, they disagreed absolutely​—the matter of truth.

The men were Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal. Why? Jesus explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!”* [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.” Is this how you view the matter of truth? If so, is it possible that you have adopted this view without thoroughly questioning it? Even if you have not, do you know how much this philosophy affects your life?

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

Coming back to the topic of conditioning (also alluded to in the last paragraph above), being "molded by this system of things" (Rom 12:2):

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” For example, in an effort to make homosexuals feel more “comfortable” in the Episcopal Church, Spong wrote a book claiming that the apostle Paul was a homosexual!

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

The same thinking is promoted in countless other ways. For instance, TV and newspaper reporters often seem more interested in entertaining their viewers than in getting at the truth of a story. Some news programs have even doctored or faked film footage in order to make it appear more dramatic. And in entertainment a stronger attack is mounted on truth. The values and moral truths that our parents and grandparents lived by are widely viewed as obsolete and are often held up to outright ridicule.

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Source: “What Is Truth?”

Next page: Why Search for Truth?

MANY religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No.

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

The Price of Relativism

It is in the moral realm, though, where the errors of relativism are most apparent, for it is here that such thinking has done the most harm. The Encyclopedia Americana makes this point: “It has been seriously doubted whether knowledge, or known truth, is humanly attainable . . . It is certain, however, that whenever the twin ideals of truth and knowledge are rejected as visionary or harmful, human society decays.”

Perhaps you have noticed such decay. ...

What Is the Truth?

So let us leave the murky waters of relativism and examine briefly what the Bible describes as the pure waters of truth. (John 4:14; Revelation 22:17) In the Bible, “truth” is not at all like the abstract, intangible concept over which philosophers debate. ...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik

Perhaps because you have been told that truth is subjective or relative and have come to believe something similar to what these ancient philosophers said about the matter of truth (or have the same feeling towards your ability to figure it out as Pilate did):

To use a line from one of my favorite Sia songs, Flames:

"Go, go, go
Figure it out, figure it out, you can do this"

And to tie this into some of the major points from the article, for those who as a result of the philosophies concerning truth that are most promoted in this system of things, have given up on ever figuring it out for certain (find out the real truth of the matter, such as concerning the questions where did we come from/how did life begin, by chance/accident/a mindless process or by creation/engineering/purposeful design, where are we going, why am I here, what makes me a good person, what is morally bad or evil, how do I better myself, i.e. how do I keep progressing or moving towards becoming a better person, one step at a time or in Sia's words again: "One foot in front of the other babe"; first line from the song above):

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

“For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18-23)

The evidence for God's existence and the fact/truth/certainty/reality of Him having created everything can be perceived by the things made if you use inductive reasoning, it is especially noticeable when we're talking about the molecular machinery and technology that makes up life:

Context (playlist, 1st video):

Molecular Machinery of Life

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

well-established and observed fact #1: machinery and technology is the product of engineering
well-established and observed fact #2: life is made up of molecular machinery and a technology that far surpasses our own technology

What general conclusion by induction can one draw from these facts/truths/realities/certainties?

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” [hypotheses: i.e. proposed supposed possibilities, often proposed regardless if they actually are possible or have already been proven not to be, or unverifiable/untestable hypotheses/ideas, proposals and scenarios/stories]

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

By the way, what is nowadays often called "science" used to be referred to in Newton's time as "natural philosophy", and some have argued that it was what Newton referred to as "experimental philosophy" that gave rise to what came to be called "modern science".

Coming back to Romans 1:20,21, and in particular the bolded parts:

“For his [God's] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish ...”

Credit where credit is due: "praise should be given when it is deserved, even if one is reluctant to give it." (definition from Oxford Languages via google)

a reply to: whereislogic

You can't try to find the truth when you are stuck into religious dogma.

originally posted by: Lochid
a reply to: whereislogic

You can't try to find the truth when you are stuck into religious dogma.

Whereislogic does not adhere to religious dogma. He follows the beleifs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some are under the assumption because the religions of Christendom (those of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox faiths) have traditions and dogmas they follow Jehovah' s Witnesses are the same. In fact it is not uncommon to here a Protestant, for example, to ask a JW, "what is your dogma?" They are so used to dogma the idea that dogma shouldn't be followed doesn't even enter their mind.

Jehovah's Witnesses follow the Bible and what it says. And they admit they don't know it all, and that they are wrong sometimes, and that diligent study and prayerful meditation on God's word helps one to perceive his will and the truth. And they are also of the mind that the Bible interprets itself. That is, there is no need for your own personal understanding or interpretation of scripture. Scripture explains scripture. So when one scripture is unclear they seek the context and other scripture to help clarify a subject or matter. This can only be done with a supernatural source of wisdom, as the Bible is the product of over 40 writers over a period of thousands of years, yet they are all in agreement. And sometimes it takes verses in Revelation to make clear and solid verses in Genesis. Something that would be impossible if the Bible were a fiction of men. Even today people writing only years apart constantly contradict themselves, whether it be about fact, or fiction.

For example, take the prophecies given to Daniel, and see how certain visions given to John on the Island of Patmos are similar, and even help you to decipher what they mean.

a reply to: whereislogic
You have proven my point, "ancient aliens" doesn't limit the possibilities to your holy book and your version of the "truth".

originally posted by: Lochid
a reply to: whereislogic

You can't try to find the truth when you are stuck into religious dogma.

Only if you are willing to let go of religious dogma that is wrong/false/incorrect, otherwise you indeed remain stuck, “always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Tim 3:7)

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Part 2:

There you go, an example of religious dogma concerning the topic of this thread.