Is God and Evolution mutually exclusive? Darwin said, No.

yamammasamonkey
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

So sad not even laughable. There has never once been a single fossil found of a transitional species. Only fossils of specimens with mutations and side traits have been found. Even Evolution scientists admit this.

Heh for a second there i thought you stated there are no transisitional fossils. I'm glad that you cleared that up stating we do have a fossil record showing mutations in populations over time. (Not sure you noticed this or not but you just debunked your first line with your second line.)

reply to post by Cypress


I noticed that too
Fick me some people eh?

AbleEndangered
I feel like we've had this argument before...

lol these threads always end up spiraling in the same direction.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey

What are you talking about?

AbleEndangered
Funny thing about it all....

Darwin or the Origin of species is like God's word or "their" belief system!!

No disrespect to anyone's beliefs...

Just another misconception. Please read this before making statements like that again:

Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.”

Response: Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences *

*Source - evolution.berkeley.edu...

** Example for evolution in a lab - evolution.berkeley.edu...


I find following very interesting and ahead of its time... Please read this as well, it might be of interest to you:

Pope John Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly fifty years since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” ***

*** Source - law2.umkc.edu...
**** MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION - Pope John Paul II


Pope John Paul II acknowledged evolution and was well aware that something has to be done, as there can't be 2 truths - how he puts it. I am prone believer if Pope Francis gets to this, there will be no question that one truth might get revisioned and left to be known as 'spiritual truth'.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Then we decide we're not satisfied with the process that led to where we are now, so we decide we're going to overthrow the traditional animal mentality and erect a more meaningful system in its place, one that comforts our budding awareness.

Yes. That does make sense. But then how did this process itself come into existence? Can science explain everything, or is it bound, like a TV, to run into irreducible questions - a kind of philosophical "pixelization"? If the latter is true, then the implication is that even scientists will have to have "faith", in at least one un-verifiable (but, luckily, also in-falsifiable) theory.

Thus, religion. A necessary waypoint in our journey, but most decidedly not a valley to call home. More like a desert oasis.

I do feel this is exactly true for most religions out there.

Children who have no idea of a god or any sort of spirituality cry when they see someone get shot. Children will be concerned and sensitive when someone they know is sad or upset. This is not religion. This is empathy.

But surely this empathy can be better taught to children if there is an universal reference. A short description of the act of being shot, and the agreed solution to this problem. A primitive "instruction manual". Surely one can't deny that religions (by religion I also include ancient mythologies, such as the very colourful greek mythology, which is just fascinating really - it has so much metaphors in it) is an effective mean to broadcast this "manual" to a more primitive society.

I don't think Jesus or any figure resembling him is the paragon of "Omega Point". I think that's more like graduating a class on the way to college and beyond.

I wholeheartedly agree. Funnily enough, I have a couple of christian friends who also gave this exact "graduation" analogy. Jesus... is nothing less, but nothing more, than a mean to something greater. So was Gandhi, and many other great minds on Earth. Does that mean that Gandhi is "God"? Definitively not.

What could I say about Jesus? Ah, here, in your signature: "Remember that there is nothing stable in human affairs therefore avoid undue elation in prosperity or undue depression in adversity." This quote from Isocrates very much reminds me of Jesus's speeches when he tells people to not get too attached to stuff or get too upset with one's enemy.

In addition, I don't think "more advanced" means "more complex". Rather, it would mean "doing more with less".

Hm, very true. I haven't thought about this. You're right!

So, if the ultimate future is not about greater complexity, but about greater, um, "effectiveness", then perhaps it's possible for something "effective" to be there in the beginning of the Universe (perhaps as a causing factor), not just at the Universe's far future (which is implied by the "complexity" assumption, since complexity couldn't possibly exist in the Early universe).

And less complex something is, more likely it is to exist in the first place.

This is getting quite interesting.

Regards,

Swan

Never mind.

Cypress
lol these threads always end up spiraling in the same direction.

Oy!

reply to post by swanne

Yes. That does make sense. But then how did this process itself come into existence? Can science explain everything, or is it bound, like a TV, to run into irreducible questions - a kind of philosophical "pixelization"? If the latter is true, then the implication is that even scientists will have to have "faith", in at least one un-verifiable (but, luckily, also in-falsifiable) theory.

Let's fast forward this. What is a "god"? What scientific basis have we established for identifying an entity as a "god"? What parameters do we attempt to isolate and verify before ascertaining that this being is indeed a deity?

How can you declare that a god exists or is actively influencing this reality, or played a part in the process of evolution, if you do not even have a clear-cut, scientifically established definition for what constitutes a god?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Good question.

First of all: The Bible itself acknowledges that "God" has to move (spend energy) to get information or to create the land, which means he can't be omnipotent nor omniscient.

Secondly: Something keeps popping into my mind: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

If God is magical, and magic is technology, then the more advanced a technology is, the simpler the force it'll use (water is replaced by nuclear, which will soon be replaced by antimatter - almost pure force).

These might bring part of the answer. Divinity is not infinity, it is a finite being whose powers are finite but incredibly advanced. It is fuelled by an energy, the purest of forces (electromagnetic? Gravitational? ). Jesus says that God is in the movement of all things, which leads me to think this force is related to matter itself.

reply to post by swanne

First of all: The Bible itself acknowledges that "God" has to move to get information, which means he can't be omnipotent.

One more example of inconsistency and inaccuracy among even the most stalwart of theists.

Secondly: What could be the answer? Something keeps popping into my mind: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

That's called "deflection".

If God is magical, and magic is technology, and if the more advanced a technology is, the simpler the force it'll use (water is replaced by nuclear, which will soon be replaced by antimatter - almost pure force), then this might bring part of the answer.

In other words, you don't know. You could have just said as much.

All this means the thread cannot be adequately answered yet. Whodathunk?

AfterInfinity
In other words, you don't know.

Well obviously. How can one human, with its limited mind, can comprehend something far more advanced, which spans across all universes?

I do feel thought that this "divinity", this extremely high efficiency point, this maximum of order, exists not in our Universe, but in one of the multiverses. It only makes sense - if multiverses are all alternative timeleines to our universe, including one where Hitler wins the war and one where the Earth is sterile, then it's bound to happen that one of these multiverse will contain a Galaxy with 3 arms instead of 4, or an universe whose galaxies all communicate with each other via entanglement. If these multiverses can contain thing which would think impossible in our universe (such as an universe only made of carbon, etc), then what' preventing one of them from containing a ("impossible") god?

EDIT:

This will be my last post on ATS for a very long time... I just want to wish you a nice January.

reply to post by swanne


It must be proven that this '' higher intelligence '' is actually intelligent and not just a highly efficient principle of code generation.

AfterInfinity
It must be proven that this '' higher intelligence '' is actually intelligent and not just a highly efficient principle of code generation.

How do we know that "intelligence" itself (such as our own) isn't just an efficient principle of code generation in the first place?

;D

Why do people think Atheist or scientist suppose to believe every single word of Darwin.... ? or treat him as god head?

He just suggested ideas, and we added much on top of it..... i don't care if everything Darwin said was fake, we have more evidence for it now thru our own discoveries.

Darwin is a nobody. His name lingers on because of his idea.

reply to post by luciddream


I think Darwin had one half of the truth, and religions have the other half of the truth. The war between the two is what prevents humanity from achieving evolution. For "advanced technology" without "altruist morality" is bound to destruction, and "religious authority" without "thinking outside the box" is bound to eternal darkness.

swanne

AfterInfinity
It must be proven that this '' higher intelligence '' is actually intelligent and not just a highly efficient principle of code generation.

How do we know that "intelligence" itself (such as our own) isn't just an efficient principle of code generation in the first place?

;D

edit on 7-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

I know what you're trying to imply, and I'm going to assume you didn't actually think about that question before asking it. Because of intelligence only takes a few decades to make itself prevalent in someone such as you or me, then why did it take billions of years for an "intelligent" universe, or an intelligent entity engineering a universe, to produce life?

AfterInfinity
Because of intelligence only takes a few decades to make itself prevalent in someone such as you or me, then why did it take billions of years for an "intelligent" universe, or an intelligent entity engineering a universe, to produce life?

Good point.

Though, even after decades of intelligence, I cannot produce life throughout the Universe. And we must keep in mind that this intelligence must evolve on an universal level, not just terrestrial. Like any other intelligence, we must assume it takes time for it to mature, or, in other words, to reach its full potential.

swanne

AfterInfinity
Because of intelligence only takes a few decades to make itself prevalent in someone such as you or me, then why did it take billions of years for an "intelligent" universe, or an intelligent entity engineering a universe, to produce life?

Good point.

Though, even after decades of intelligence, I cannot produce life throughout the Universe. And we must keep in mind that this intelligence must evolve on an universal level, not just terrestrial. Like any other intelligence, we must assume it takes time for it to mature, or, in other words, to reach its full potential.

edit on 7-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

So now there's different levels of intelligence? Where are you pulling this from? Sounds like drivel to me.

AfterInfinity
So now there's different levels of intelligence? Where are you pulling this from?

I thought it was self-evident, sorry.













The question is, what intelligence exists at this level:




In all of these intelligence-carrying life-forms, a fundamental code is present, some call it the Fibonacci Sequence. The thing is, just like in life forms, the Universe and its galaxies also follow this code. Which leads to the ever-elusive question: is there an universal intelligence form?

reply to post by swanne


Oh, you're talking about expanded intelligence. And here I thought you actually meant intelligence changes its nature. No, with expansion in capacity comes an expansion in applications. This doesn't mean its nature changes, because intelligence has no inherent purpose other than to forge new connections between reference points, and in doing so, generate new approaches to the same old stuff. It processes. Beyond that...there's no real "point".