U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-29-2011, 08:36 PM
 
34,856 posts, read 9,002,086 times
Reputation: 4814

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
As I said to rifleman in a previous post---I can't handle debating people that deny evolutionary theory...it tweaks me out and messes up my constitution.
MOF...IMO, anyone that, in light of the information we now have, could/would deny Evolutionary Theory, isn't "all there".
I don't think the evidence can be dismissed and the efforts to detect God are not too convincing. Even Behe's irreduceable (no matter how I spell that it says I'm wrong ) irreducible complexity misunderstands the way it works. Even so, it bothers me that we haven't found any real changes or transitions between species that would really prove speciation on a macro scale though it ought be there. I sometimes wonder whether the new species discovered aren't really 'new' ones. Some recorded proof of an adaptation that really changes one beastie into another that is really noticeably different would be significant. That was the case with dinosaurs into birds and recently that proof has been coming out of China in piles.

Quote:
I only forego the option of there not being a "Source Force/Entity", because I can't logically and reasonably see it as able to be any other way...and any "source" everything came after and from, and which controlled/maintained/sustained what had been created...would definitively be "God" to me, no matter what "label" others put to it.
I don't forego it either. I just reserve judgement, especially since Hawkings seems to have got over the 'nothing from nothing' problem in theory, so it isn't 'impossible' anymore. I'm inclined to regard it as amazing what nature does rather than be too ready with the 'God' label as the concept does tend to involve speaking to us in our heads and finding supposedly relevant quotes in the Bible.

Quote:
The sentence structure of linking portions with three little dots goes back to my youth...that's just always been my way of writing down my thoughts, and how I've always written. Check out the archives of even my very first posts to this forum...you'll see.
I feel it's more than coincidence that it was also the habit of another that had a "vibe" I found myself so "in tune" to that it would lead to a change of the "core concepts" I subscribe to.
Great minds, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2011, 09:01 PM
 
6,643 posts, read 3,872,289 times
Reputation: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I don't think the evidence can be dismissed and the efforts to detect God are not too convincing. Even Behe's irreduceable (no matter how I spell that it says I'm wrong ) irreducible complexity misunderstands the way it works. Even so, it bothers me that we haven't found any real changes or transitions between species that would really prove speciation on a macro scale though it ought be there. I sometimes wonder whether the new species discovered aren't really 'new' ones. Some recorded proof of an adaptation that really changes one beastie into another that is really noticeably different would be significant. That was the case with dinosaurs into birds and recently that proof has been coming out of China in piles.

I don't forego it either. I just reserve judgement, especially since Hawkings seems to have got over the 'nothing from nothing' problem in theory, so it isn't 'impossible' anymore. I'm inclined to regard it as amazing what nature does rather than be too ready with the 'God' label as the concept does tend to involve speaking to us in our heads and finding supposedly relevant quotes in the Bible.

Great minds, eh?
I wish my mind was half of his...I can't imagine what I could have accomplished. Luckily, it's enough to get me by okay.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only Atheist to Theist conversion on the board. I'm pretty certain I am the only one because of the board.

Atheist to Theist---Anyone else but me here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 01:21 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,733,533 times
Reputation: 12223
Neil says it well...


Neil deGrasse Tyson shares a cool thought - YouTube!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 05:45 AM
 
34,856 posts, read 9,002,086 times
Reputation: 4814
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I wish my mind was half of his...I can't imagine what I could have accomplished. Luckily, it's enough to get me by okay.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only Atheist to Theist conversion on the board. I'm pretty certain I am the only one because of the board.

Atheist to Theist---Anyone else but me here?
I think I recall one or two more. The only other one I know of is Anthony Flew and he was bamboozled. I think you were, too and I don't know whether as an atheist you had some belief that your inner feelings were something more than just evolved mental reactions.

However, Flew, and you and Mystic Philosopher, too, don't have much time for organized religion or the Christ - myth and that's really where you and atheists (as I said to Mystic a couple of times) we are on the same page. The speculative stuff about meditation and the Mystic experience and a universal conscious mind we can keep an open minds about.

I hope at least it's an open mind rather than opting for one particular interpretation as a valid demonstrated fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 08:34 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5862
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Rifleman,

I recently realized something that may help you in all of this... The other day there was a news release that scientists at CERN had found certain neutrinos to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Of course, the implications of anything traveling faster than the speed of light are extraordinarily grand and mesmerizing for those "in the know," and especially those who understand the premise of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. The scientific community will be poring over the recently released paper to scrutinize and pick apart any possibility that something may have been done in error.

In fact, I got so excited when I read the news that I just had to go and find the paper myself. I did. It's right here. I decided to read and do my best to understand it. Admittedly, it is over my head, but not from a lack of doing my best to try and understand everything possible. I think it was the addition of the second TT sensor for the measurement of the FPGA that threw me a little bit.

But, all that aside, what I realized by reading it is that an extraordinary amount of time, energy, knowledge, and already proven scientific methods were used to perform such an intricate test. Everything from the ultra-sensitive GPS system (which can detect continental drift down to the cm) to the OPERA system itself is built upon the shoulders of giants.

That paper alone, and we know there are literally millions of them ranging from physics to biology to chemistry and so on, all building and advancing upon previously known findings with further amazing research, are the very essence of what the stubbornly ill Creationist/Intelligent Design community simply cannot argue with. They can wave their magic book full of magical thinking, make-a-wish science, and Bronze Age ethics and morals, as though it has any authority whatsoever. In reality, they're pathetic rebuttals and weak traverses across the landscape of knowledge and science and have nothing to stand on.

The thing is that you can show them paper after paper of this. You can present them with papers such as the one I linked to and say "Use your book to defeat that," and, well Rifleman, they will find a way to ignore every single iota of what's in it in a matter of cognitive dissonance so astoundingly dense and massive that if it were to collapse would trigger something akin to a black hole.

The essential point is that we may never be able to show those members of the Creationist/Intelligent Design community how ignorant, stupid, and poorly researched their hypotheses are. We could talk to them until we are blue in the face, until we've prevented every ounce of scientific evidence, and yet, they have far too much emotional investment in such ballyhoo that nothing would convince them otherwise.

On the other hand, there is a massive group of people out there who are simply ignorant of science, what it means, what it entails, and how it is performed. These are the people who are probably what you could mostly consider "neutral" to the entire thing. In fact, the majority of these people often make comments such as "I think both theories should be taught in school for equality purposes." This is the part of the population that MUST be reached, that MUST be shown the blatant lies of Creationism, the attempts at injecting a strict religious viewpoint into the classroom, and most of all, the part of the population that must be inoculated against the deadly, brain-eating mind virus that is Intelligent Design/Creationism. If people such as me, or you, or certain other individuals can communicate to the vulnerable, un-vaccinated crowd in a way that shows just how powerful good science is and just how weak Creationism/Intelligent Design is, then we are doing everything we can to prevent the casual zombie from turning an entire population full of hordes of zombies looking for brain matter because theirs are gone.

Creationism/Intelligent Design has never, and most likely will not ever present, formulate, or propose a paper anything remotely close to what the paper from CERN (or the many others) proposed. They will continue to re-write the "Conclusion" section of the scientific papers to cater to their crowd, they will continue to ignore any and all evidence contrary to their small-minded and ignorant view of the universe, and they will continue to try and misinform the general populace. It is imperative that we do not bend to these people, that we cut them no slack, and that we ridicule and expose their blatant lies, their hypocrisy, and their lack of actual science at every corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I know, Troop...isn't it just sooooooo wonderful that there are people that are so smart, so focused, and so dedicated, that they can/will work to try (and sometimes succeed) to figure out nothing more than the "inner workings" of this awesome conglomeration of matter and energy we call "The Universe"...that Source God has created/instigated?!!!

To support your "genre" of concept...the matter and energy that comprises "The Universe" (or some "source" for it) must have necessarily "always been", and has "evolved" to "become" what we now have...and continues in this "state of becoming".
When you get hip to the fact that IS a "God Claim" (and that this so-called "Universe", and everything in it, IS God), you will have finally reached a point of "true understanding".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I'm going to have to disagree that it is a "God Claim" on the grounds that a word popularly used to define something is not required to be used as an accurate means of totally defining something. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and I'm not really out to harangue that viewpoint because I don't think it's dangerous to humanity. I simply disagree with it.

In my point of view, it's a bit like a person at the turn of the twentieth century calling an airplane a "Bird Claim." For centuries, the only thing people had to make analogies and representations of flying objects was the bird. This does not mean that the bird is the source of flight, is the "owner of flight," or anything else of the sort. However, using the word "bird" to describe something flying through the air is an apt analogy, sufficiently presented and has been used for probably most of human history.

Likewise, for centuries, the only thing people had to explain the universe was the term "God." This does not necessarily mean that when we explore the universe and its origins that we must make "God Claims" to do so. God, like using the word "Bird" or the phrase "Like a bird" to describe flying objects, is a well known example but does not mean that all attempts to explain the universe are merely "God Claims." The airplane takes sufficient place as an analogous representation of a flying object, could exist on its own and stand on its own merit without a bird ever having evolved, and to talk about an airplane does not require that we make "Bird Claims."

Nevertheless, I don't hold a lot of hostility towards you and Mystic's viewpoint, but I do merely disagree with certain elements of it. Not a big deal, in my opinion. My argument and distaste lies mostly in those who purposely mislead people (especially children) about science and, more specifically, the attainment of knowledge for nefarious and narcissistic purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Why would we need that ^^?!---We already have the awesome, random, purposeless, unintelligent, unconscious, "Naturedunit" (or "Universedunit", or "Evolutiondunit") as an answer for "the source", and how it all went/goes down.

Which is REALLY cool...since that has lead to things that are select, things that are purposeful, things that are intelligent, and things that are conscious...All by themselves!!...for no reason at all!!...WHOOPEEEEEEE!!!

You need to get hip to the fact that "Random, Purposeless, Unintelligent, Unconscious Change--to--Select, Purpose, Intelligence, and Consciousness"...is the most whacked-out "Creation Story" of all. The "6-Day Instapoof By Biblegod" story...though VERY whacked-out too...is a distant second.
Wonderful posts, especially yours Troop. I hope you are inspired to acquire the skills and degrees necessary to join in such fine examples of the scientific method. But as GldnRule has tried to "hip" you to, (GldnRule, I am pleased you are holding your own, my friend) none of that can eliminate the reality of God/Nature, whatever you prefer to call Him. No one demands that Nature explain itself or its existence. But its existence is the greater entity that establishes all other existences. That's pretty damn Godly in my book. YMMV. Besides that biggie, what other qualities does the descriptor "God" need to impart on things that we all can agree exist? Here is a possible subset that are inexplicable on their own:

God/Nature is the reason gravity, EM force, strong and weak nuclear forces, exist.
God/Nature is the reason baryons and non-baryonic dark matter and
energy exist.
God/Nature is the reason there are constants and consistency in our reality instead of chaos.
God/Nature is the reason galaxies, suns and black holes exist.
God/Nature is the reason planets and life exist.
God/Nature is the reason DNA/RNA exist.
God/Nature is the reason life has a survival instinct.
God/Nature is the reason life evolves.
God/Nature is the reason consciousness exists.
God/Nature is the reason intelligence exists.
God/Nature is the reason there are constraints on what life can and cannot do.

In case you might be tempted to use some of these to "explain" the others on the list, don't bother. The list contains only those whose existences are not directly explicable except by God/Nature so they cannot be used as explanations for the existence of each other. The very forces you might want to use to explain . . . need to have explanations for themselves . . . which do not exist. That makes them inscrutable and inexplicable attributes of the God/Nature that "Just is."

Just my 2 cents. I have been enjoying lurking and reading. Much more peaceful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 04:05 AM
 
34,856 posts, read 9,002,086 times
Reputation: 4814
Yes, Mystic. I think by now we are very well aware of the various logical positions.

You and other theists take these things which are know or are suggested by other knowns and insist there is a 'god' behind it.

We don't. And you toss in terms like 'Obvious' 'asinine' and 'arrogant'.

We toss in terms like 'Faith', ID and speculation and it all gets a bit heated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 07:51 AM
 
570 posts, read 619,044 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yes - e.g. Intra-individual Change Over Time in DNA Methylation With Familial Clustering, June 25, 2008, Bjornsson et al. 299 (24): 2877. But unless the changed DNA is in sperm or egg cells it won't be passed on to the animal's offspring so you're looking in the wrong places for the source of variation which natural selection (and drift, etc) work upon.

Every time I learn a new infromation about the DNA it increased my faith of Allah .
Even the simplest level of logic makes it absolutely impossible for that kind of Complex and accurate system to be emergence by an unconscious power .
I do not want to up set any one by my words but I swear to God it is the way I feel .
Sobhan Allah .

Quote:
This is the third time I've answered the same question. Seems strange you'd keep asking the same question only to ignore the responses. Why is that?

Because of the large number of posts, sometimes I can not follow all the replies .
Sorry .

Quote:
Bcause from what I know the DNA molecule stands as a wall blocking the possibility that one species could change into another.
Am I wrong on this one ?
Yes.

Yes !!!
Ok ...
Where did we see one species change into another ?
Since the discovery of the DNA & way befor that does anyone see something like that or it just happen in ancient ages ?
Give me a practical example of a direct change in the DNA that actuly turns a specie into another ?!!
Scientists figure out how a gene could change so why not apply it in practice to clear every doubt ?

Quote:
You see ... evolutionists problem is they always say that the change could happened only in a long period of time
Proof of this claim?

How long did it take for humans to developed into our current form & how long will it take for us to change again ?
I mean when the next step of evolution will take place ?
your answer will be the proof you asked for .

Quote:
If humans and Apes comes from a common ancestor how come there is a difference in the DNA structure up to 5% which considered huge?!!!
What ape species are you talking about, and where do you get this 5% number?

I said a common ancestor not Ape species .
"A study in October 2002 revealed that Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" .
Genetic similarity turns out to be 95 %. In a news studi reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought,"
it reads: There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study. Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent" .Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.
CNN/2002/science/humans.chimps.
*New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled": We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps .
newscientist.com
You want more surces & news ?

Quote:
About that common ancestor .. was he/it a human or Ape ?
Yes, a non-human ape by definition. That's how taxonomy works

I see .. You mean the missing fossil that not have been found ... yet

Quote:
How his DNA contained hereditary qualities of both Humans and Apes ?
Why would you think a non-human ape would have human DNA?

Because humans descendants from it !!!!!

Last edited by squall-lionheart; 10-01-2011 at 09:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,084,286 times
Reputation: 3717
Wink Good to see yah!

Actually, squall, you should probably take more a careful and close technical look at DNA's structure and general lack of complexity. It is, in fact, a compound association of other simpler molecules, those which we have now seen can and do form up on their own out of the most basic bio-chemicals, out in the nice warm southern oceans. Proven. Sorry.

Having said that, I, as a biochemically trained biologist with some majors in genetics, still find DNA's remarkable abilites to be the one astounding thing I observe in this universe. Without it, Evolution as seen here on Earth cannot happen, though of course I suspect some clever bio-chemical engineer could no doubt concoct and design another sort of molecular setup that might accomplish the same thing.

Mystic, sorry I didn't respond to your posted abrogation of command. I was, in fact, firmly ensconced in my own bed in our local cardiac ER, where I stupidly insisted, for a short time at least, in having them position the monitor so I could watch my own very erratic a-fibbing heart beat. Stupid fellow! The obvious bio-feedback processes were indeed astounding, and not to be trifled with. Anyhow, it does lead one to perhaps pursue a somewhat less stressful thinking & posting regime, eh?

I still note that your various absolutes remain your own steadfast and personally desirous determinations, absent, as you have acknowledged, any actual evidence. In fact, you have created a very complex and conveniently interdependent, multi-dimensional regime, something that L. Ron Hubbard or Robert Heinlein, or Frank Herbert or Ray Bradbury, would have been proud of. After all, you can't have any untidy loose ends that a perfectionist might pick up and run with, right?

My overwhelming and even more hardened position, even as I was briefly tempted by death's wrinkly finger, is that I found none of it necessary at all to my peaceful existence, so I still do not have to suspend my disbelief in any way. It simply "IS". Can you accept that one, I wonder?

Thus, I maintain that, despite our (human..., I mean...) obvious lack of the necessary evolved intellect (for the present at least) to take it to the next level of understanding, it is just a chaotic, chance system that happened, this time, focusing itself into a self-organizing complex that is bound for somewhere in time and space, probably to self-immolate at some future time, but to try it all over again.

As for squall's newfound fascination with DNA as somehow a proof-absolute of God's existence, that at least shows some glimmer of intellectual hope. I just hope he goes that necessary one step further, but I do seriously doubt it. DNA does allow and explain Evolution with great and simple clarity, and accomplishes it with clarity and finésse. That's now easily observed in the lab as it has been out in the natural world for tens of decades.

Stay well, Mystic. Hey; mayhaps we'll meet briefly, both destined for hell's acres since we both vehemently deny some of the same outrageous literary Godliness. But heck; any party in a storm, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:17 PM
 
37,615 posts, read 25,312,999 times
Reputation: 5862
Default Good to se you too, rifle

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Mystic, sorry I didn't respond to your posted abrogation of command. I was, in fact, firmly ensconced in my own bed in our local cardiac ER, where I stupidly insisted, for a short time at least, in having them position the monitor so I could watch my own very erratic a-fibbing heart beat. Stupid fellow! The obvious bio-feedback processes were indeed astounding, and not to be trifled with. Anyhow, it does lead one to perhaps pursue a somewhat less stressful thinking & posting regime, eh?
Very wise. As I was told, you don't mess around with your health. Glad you made it out of there.
Quote:
I still note that your various absolutes remain your own steadfast and personally desirous determinations, absent, as you have acknowledged, any actual evidence. In fact, you have created a very complex and conveniently interdependent, multi-dimensional regime, something that L. Ron Hubbard or Robert Heinlein, or Frank Herbert or Ray Bradbury, would have been proud of. After all, you can't have any untidy loose ends that a perfectionist might pick up and run with, right?
It works for me.
Quote:
My overwhelming and even more hardened position, even as I was briefly tempted by death's wrinkly finger, is that I found none of it necessary at all to my peaceful existence, so I still do not have to suspend my disbelief in any way. It simply "IS". Can you accept that one, I wonder?
Of course, my friend. So can God. Unless you are some secretly evil bastard, we should both be just fine.
Quote:
Thus, I maintain that, despite our (human..., I mean...) obvious lack of the necessary evolved intellect (for the present at least) to take it to the next level of understanding, it is just a chaotic, chance system that happened, this time, focusing itself into a self-organizing complex that is bound for somewhere in time and space, probably to self-immolate at some future time, but to try it all over again.
I understand. It is that "self-organizing" euphemism that I find unsatisfying.
Quote:
Stay well, Mystic. Hey; mayhaps we'll meet briefly, both destined for hell's acres since we both vehemently deny some of the same outrageous literary Godliness. But heck; any party in a storm, huh?
She who must be obeyed won't have it any other way, my friend. You stay well also. I have no doubt we will meet . . . our consciousnesses are linked through our experiences here . . . but there won't be any hell to go to . . . just the party part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 09:09 AM
 
570 posts, read 619,044 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Actually, squall, you should probably take more a careful and close technical look at DNA's structure and general lack of complexity. It is, in fact, a compound association of other simpler molecules, those which we have now seen can and do form up on their own out of the most basic bio-chemicals, out in the nice warm southern oceans. Proven. Sorry.
on their own
I definitely agree... it works on their own ...
When you want to set the alarm clock on your computer at 7 am every day for a whole year ... you push a couple of buttons & guess what happens next ?
It works on their own !!!
But this remains as simple example & do not compare to the work of DNA .
God put the laws that make the universe proceeding according to a particular system & then it works on their own .
unconscious powes can not work without a maker but it definitely can work on their own .

Quote:
As for squall's newfound fascination with DNA as somehow a proof-absolute of God's existence, that at least shows some glimmer of intellectual hope. I just hope he goes that necessary one step further, but I do seriously doubt it.
DNA Is one of the biggest proofs of the existence of a system in the universe .
Nothing left to tamper ... Nature is the painting which includes the design , DNA is the tools & God is the artist .
It fits perfectly well & it is more logical than " it is what is it "!!!
Quote:
DNA does allow and explain Evolution with great and simple clarity, and accomplishes it with clarity and finésse. That's now easily observed in the lab as it has been out in the natural world for tens of decades.
The believe of intelligent creator do not inconsistent with evolution theory, it set the starting point .
For me ... the information in DNA is evidence of a design in living things .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top