|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 14:33:15 GMT
And how did they serve it up to you in that setting?
Seems to me you're limiting your deity if you can't buy into the theory that they made everything .......to include evolution. And that some desert dwellers simply got the time periods/passage of time wrong because they couldn't comprehend.
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class.
And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally. I would argue that if human body was made of the rarest elements in the universe, that would me more indicative of a miracle or divine intervention than the opposite. It's also worthy of note that while this planet supports life, 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Not really great design IMO.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Apr 26, 2024 14:33:46 GMT
You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world
|
|
|
Post by san926f on Apr 26, 2024 14:50:31 GMT
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class.
And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally. I would argue that if human body was made of the rarest elements in the universe, that would me more indicative of a miracle or divine intervention than the opposite. It's also worthy of note that while this planet supports life, 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Not really great design IMO. Well, Adam was created from the dust of the Earth. A metaphor for us climbing out of the primordial soup? And we, ourselves, have helped quite a bit with the extinction of so many species. Dinosaurs are something that evangelicals struggle with. That's why some say that dinosaurs were on the Ark and other nonsense. To me it is just a matter of there being a season and a time for things. But I am someone who finds a great peace and perfection in the natural world. There's an order to it that is beyond human beings. I don't need to know all the answers. Some things don't need an answer, and that to me is the gift of faith.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 26, 2024 14:54:23 GMT
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class. And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally.
I can certainly see that point/argument for intelligent design or God.........but then again, it's a numbers game. How many trillions of stars with trillions more planets? That's a lot of opportunities for it to be perfect.
I've heard many scientists feel exactly that way. The more they see and learn, the greater their faith and wider their awe. I think I'm in the unique position of seeing it from both sides. On the one hand I see the statistical odds against it all..........but I also see the randomness and insignificance of every species or member of it. It all depends on whether you wanna be optimistic or pessimistic about it all.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 26, 2024 14:55:36 GMT
I would argue that if human body was made of the rarest elements in the universe, that would me more indicative of a miracle or divine intervention than the opposite. It's also worthy of note that while this planet supports life, 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Not really great design IMO.
That's the part that always makes me question people and their own sense of importance? especially if they don't have religion telling them so?
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 21:37:50 GMT
Where you went to school and where I went to school are totally different. You depend on "experts" to tell you what to think. My school does their own thinking. Somewhere along the line your "experts" lost touch. You are fighters, not thinkers, and now you have no "experts" to tell you what you should fight to defend. There you go. If I show you experts you'll agree with me? I do not need your opinion. I do not need your approval. You do not get a vote. There is no voting in science. You will have no idea until someone you recognize as an expert tells you what to think. It's too bad you have no idea who are the experts. So in other words you can't. That's all I needed to know.
No experts are rallying to your support. You are the one who can't. I am my own expert. So far no one with any expert position dares challenge me. Or let's check that again, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 21:49:30 GMT
If you are complaining about a god-of-the-gaps argument you're wasting our time. You might get five or ten years to find an answer. It's been over 150 years. We can use short chains of RNA now to see what they can do. We can know for a certainty what is going to happen because we can watch it happening -- or not happening. I can see you do not like to admit the answer has in fact evaded science. Most people don't like to admit it, even the people who do. It really doesn't matter whether you like it or not though. The answer has evaded science and there is nothing else to try. By the way, starting with short chains of RNA is a sort of a cheat. People got tired of watching the amino acids from the Miller-Urey experiment do nothing and decided to skip ahead to short chains of RNA. Now we're tired of watching that go nowhere. What's next? It is obvious that you know nothing of evolution, mutation or genetics. Nobody argues against intelligent design any more except retarded atheist kids on the internet where they can still dominate. If all this wall of text was supposed to say "there isn't an definite answer yet" - then that is correct. But that goes for 99.99% of things happening in the universe - we just don't know yet.
My initial question remained unanswered: You consider it more likely, with all things we know about evolution, mutation and genetics today, that "someone/thing" created life rather than abiogenesis? Like "ok, this one time we use magic, a creator, something divine, an intelligent designer" call it whatever you prefer but for all of the rest of the processes we stick with biology and physics?
As far as I am aware there have been no miracles in my own experience. Everything I check appears to have a normal explanation. I suspect miracles are rare for most people, if they happen at all lately. That however in no valid argument against the miracle which is the first life on a previously molten Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 22:01:06 GMT
At first your antics were amusing, but it has become disturbing how incompetent you are. Some "experts" on evolution are very careful to note that evolution on rocks is rather unlikely. They speak instead of "abiogenesis." The vast majority of the public appears to miss that point. Are you trying to make a case for intelligent design or claim the case is already made? I say go for it. I have been convinced from the start myself. It amazes me what excuses people make to deny the truth. I do address those excuses, and you might find this helps. The problem is not the scientists. They can see in labs what is possible and not possible. The problem is the enormous numbers of the public who can't see anything. It has to be explained to them in ways they cannot challenge.LOL You are serious? You make up this dumb shit hoping your audience is as dumbas you and think you are a genius for saying gobbledegook they can't understand. Whatever floats your boat. It seems your inability to discern intelligeng discourse hid the fact that I criticised Intelligent design and pointed out (as others also did) that abiogenesis is not evolution and bringing it up is little more than a deflection from discussing real evolution.
I am not accustomed to my opponents in anonymous discussion boards making much sense. I have to guess what they are doing.
Abiogenesis does not explain the origin of life. You seem as though you are trying say, "evolution does not explain the origin of life, abiogenesis does that." But it still does not do any such thing.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 26, 2024 22:12:15 GMT
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class. And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally.
I can certainly see that point/argument for intelligent design or God.........but then again, it's a numbers game. How many trillions of stars with trillions more planets? That's a lot of opportunities for it to be perfect.
I've heard many scientists feel exactly that way. The more they see and learn, the greater their faith and wider their awe. I think I'm in the unique position of seeing it from both sides. On the one hand I see the statistical odds against it all..........but I also see the randomness and insignificance of every species or member of it. It all depends on whether you wanna be optimistic or pessimistic about it all.
Like who? It is fine for some scientists to stretch themselves into a kind of spirituality regarding science itself or seeing their own faith traditions as a metaphor for creation, but the problem is teaching this individualistic metaphysical spirituality as science. If indeed, the universe is the result of divine forces, don’t mistake any religion as being right about it in their creation stories. What gets missed in the Genesis creation story is that this not about God calling the universe into being with his thoughts, the first part the Genesis narrative was moved to the end of the Book of Job. The never explains how God got to be God or how the supernatural cosmos he exists within was created. As such, this makes the Bible’s creation narratives, and there are two because the ancient Israelites couldn’t make up their minds between Yahweh and Ba’al, match up with the older Mesopotamian narratives upon which the Bible scribes wrote their version for the Torah.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 22:29:15 GMT
I can certainly see that point/argument for intelligent design or God.........but then again, it's a numbers game. How many trillions of stars with trillions more planets? That's a lot of opportunities for it to be perfect. I've heard many scientists feel exactly that way. The more they see and learn, the greater their faith and wider their awe. I think I'm in the unique position of seeing it from both sides. On the one hand I see the statistical odds against it all..........but I also see the randomness and insignificance of every species or member of it. It all depends on whether you wanna be optimistic or pessimistic about it all.
Like who? It is fine for some scientists to stretch themselves into a kind of spirituality regarding science itself or seeing their own faith traditions as a metaphor for creation, but the problem is teaching this individualistic metaphysical spirituality as science. If indeed, the universe is the result of divine forces, don’t mistake any religion as being right about it in their creation stories. What gets missed in the Genesis creation story is that this not about God calling the universe into being with his thoughts, the first part the Genesis narrative was moved to the end of the Book of Job. The never explains how God got to be God or how the supernatural cosmos he exists within was created. As such, this makes the Bible’s creation narratives, and there are two because the ancient Israelites couldn’t make up their minds between Yahweh and Ba’al, match up with the older Mesopotamian narratives upon which the Bible scribes wrote their version for the Torah. You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science?
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 26, 2024 22:45:56 GMT
Like who? It is fine for some scientists to stretch themselves into a kind of spirituality regarding science itself or seeing their own faith traditions as a metaphor for creation, but the problem is teaching this individualistic metaphysical spirituality as science. If indeed, the universe is the result of divine forces, don’t mistake any religion as being right about it in their creation stories. What gets missed in the Genesis creation story is that this not about God calling the universe into being with his thoughts, the first part the Genesis narrative was moved to the end of the Book of Job. The never explains how God got to be God or how the supernatural cosmos he exists within was created. As such, this makes the Bible’s creation narratives, and there are two because the ancient Israelites couldn’t make up their minds between Yahweh and Ba’al, match up with the older Mesopotamian narratives upon which the Bible scribes wrote their version for the Torah. You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science? You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? No, since that is statistically impossible. And MD’s generally speaking are not scientists, but technicians. Their opinions about the creation of the universe and the existence of life is irrelevant. And at no time will a legitimate physician use the Bible and thoughts and prayers instead well established scientific methods to heal someone. You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science? No, I have no reason to think that. But again, that’s irrelevant to their profession as far as actual medical treatments and surgery goes. Perhaps it’s great for them to make their lives as doctors easier or even in their “bedside manner,” but it does nothing to advance medical science. The Bible is mystical book and it must approached as that. If you believe it is the divine revelation of God, that’s fine for you, but not for anyone else to believe if they don’t understand the magical thinking and cultural artifacts that goes into religion. Before magic is to be transposed to science, it needs to have falsifiable, empirical, reproducible data to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 22:59:32 GMT
You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science? You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? No, since that is statistically impossible. And MD’s generally speaking are not scientists, but technicians. Their opinions about the creation of the universe and the existence of life is irrelevant. And at no time will a legitimate physician use the Bible and thoughts and prayers instead well established scientific methods to heal someone. You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science? No, I have no reason to think that. But again, that’s irrelevant to their profession as far as actual medical treatments and surgery goes. Perhaps it’s great for them to make their lives as doctors easier or even in their “bedside manner,” but it does nothing to advance medical science. The Bible is mystical book and it must approached as that. If you believe it is the divine revelation of God, that’s fine for you, but not for anyone else to believe if they don’t understand the magical thinking and cultural artifacts that goes into religion. Before magic is to be transposed to science, it needs to have falsifiable, empirical, reproducible data to make it happen. You need to get out more. The real world does not share attitudes. Did you know there are "Catholic" hospitals where the nurses are nuns? And, ladies and gentlemen, there it is, a person who firmly believes that only one, science or religion, can be right and the other must be wrong. You didn't think we would find anyone that stupid?
Maybe this will help. Suppose people have to decide whether to get a lawn sprinkler, a bird feeder, or a badminton court. Can science help them decide? Absolutely not. In fact science is utterly incapable of addressing most issues in politics. There is an art to life and religion is that art.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 26, 2024 23:27:04 GMT
You think people with spirituality never went to medical school and became doctors? No, since that is statistically impossible. And MD’s generally speaking are not scientists, but technicians. Their opinions about the creation of the universe and the existence of life is irrelevant. And at no time will a legitimate physician use the Bible and thoughts and prayers instead well established scientific methods to heal someone. You think people who went to medical school were never persuaded of the spiritual by the science? No, I have no reason to think that. But again, that’s irrelevant to their profession as far as actual medical treatments and surgery goes. Perhaps it’s great for them to make their lives as doctors easier or even in their “bedside manner,” but it does nothing to advance medical science. The Bible is mystical book and it must approached as that. If you believe it is the divine revelation of God, that’s fine for you, but not for anyone else to believe if they don’t understand the magical thinking and cultural artifacts that goes into religion. Before magic is to be transposed to science, it needs to have falsifiable, empirical, reproducible data to make it happen. You need to get out more. The real world does not share attitudes. Did you know there are "Catholic" hospitals where the nurses are nuns? And, ladies and gentlemen, there it is, a person who firmly believes that only one, science or religion, can be right and the other must be wrong. You didn't think we would find anyone that stupid?
Maybe this will help. Suppose people have to decide whether to get a lawn sprinkler, a bird feeder, or a badminton court. Can science help them decide? Absolutely not. In fact science is utterly incapable of addressing most issues in politics. There is an art to life and religion is that art.
Whoa, we are not even talking about the same subject and you are attacking me because you don’t understand me. Suppose people have to decide whether to get a lawn sprinkler, a bird feeder, or a badminton court. Can science help them decide? No, however the same thought process goes into science as choosing a new bird feeder. It’s called reason. You would not consult the Bible or pray to God to help pick out a lawn sprinkler, you’d consult the advertising, compare the other products the manufacturer, gather information from folks you know what lawn sprinkler they think is the best for the money, or you like how it looks. Science is about reasoning out a problem. In fact science is utterly incapable of addressing most issues in politics.Science doesn’t legislate, however scientists are consulted by politicians when it is relevant to the policy. There is an art to life and religion is that art. Before science became modernized during the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Reason, the number Zero was considered blasphemy by the Church. Scientists back then were called alchemists and they were always at risk from the Church as daring to the speak the mind of God. Religion is not an Art. It may use art, but it a de facto social machine. You know about as much about art and religion as you do science. You need to stay out of the major league fields. Science is right only when it delivers the goods, religion as the spokes organ for an omnipotent God is insult when it is asked for proof it is right.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Apr 26, 2024 23:49:19 GMT
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class. And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally.
I can certainly see that point/argument for intelligent design or God.........but then again, it's a numbers game. How many trillions of stars with trillions more planets? That's a lot of opportunities for it to be perfect.
I've heard many scientists feel exactly that way. The more they see and learn, the greater their faith and wider their awe. I think I'm in the unique position of seeing it from both sides. On the one hand I see the statistical odds against it all..........but I also see the randomness and insignificance of every species or member of it. It all depends on whether you wanna be optimistic or pessimistic about it all.
Add to the possibility of The Big Bounce (Infinite cycles of Big Bangs and Collapse) or Schwarzschild cosmology (every black hole has a chance to hold a universe inside it) then you can have infinite Universes x Trillions of Planets for us to spring up from... Infinity x Trillions = Infinity does it not? Seems like a lot of chances that at 1 point in that Infinity for a perfect set of scenarios to form to bring rise to us.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 27, 2024 2:57:16 GMT
I can certainly see that point/argument for intelligent design or God.........but then again, it's a numbers game. How many trillions of stars with trillions more planets? That's a lot of opportunities for it to be perfect.
I've heard many scientists feel exactly that way. The more they see and learn, the greater their faith and wider their awe. I think I'm in the unique position of seeing it from both sides. On the one hand I see the statistical odds against it all..........but I also see the randomness and insignificance of every species or member of it. It all depends on whether you wanna be optimistic or pessimistic about it all.
Add to the possibility of The Big Bounce (Infinite cycles of Big Bangs and Collapse) or Schwarzschild cosmology (every black hole has a chance to hold a universe inside it) then you can have infinite Universes x Trillions of Planets for us to spring up from... Infinity x Trillions = Infinity does it not? Seems like a lot of chances that at 1 point in that Infinity for a perfect set of scenarios to form to bring rise to us. Or everything is connected and seeks life wherever and wherever it is possible.
|
|