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.
Yes I am here, even though I had said otherwise. Please see my posts in other threads, if you would like a clearer picture.
Sorry if this may seem controversial, for more than one reason, but this topic is relevant to (the theory of) God. It came up in a sub forum where the debate's title is 'what would constitute proof that God exists?' Unfortunately when the topic became 'unrecognisable' in relation to that thread we had to abandon it. Hence, even though I had expressed that we would have to just stop with 'acceptance of opinions', I feel I need to show what I was thinking and meant.
If I summarise, I had started by explaining how one should(based on how I do things) be clear of any previous evidence-based or other theories, beliefs in order to prove anything. Then go about providing your case, when accepted, with reasoning which should be the right way. When the topic of this(our, current) thread came up, in response to somebody/a poster, I claimed that assumptions were being made which in turn could not provide certainty to the theory of evolution to the extent that it has 'magical thinking' inherent in it.
So to explain I will provide queries, which obviously you are welcome to provide reasonable feedback to and anything related, in order that we can reach an understanding or at least try to. Please do not feel that you have to comment, but if you feel you are right to you can.
Query 1: If evolution is a theory where there is no 'intelligence' driving the selection process, taking into consideration trial and error, then how is the selection process occurring. If somebody calls it nature, what do they really mean, because to many people nature is a divine creation? Is it not right that even if it is not divine that it has at least some amount of intelligence for it to be selective, because otherwise we are making an assumption on the same level as the assumption of God.
Query 2: If we accept that there is no intelligence involved then, just the same as everything else in this existence or 'creation', does that not infer that everything is by chance and hence the argument that the probability of that is so improbable that in fact almost, if not actually, impossible? Which in itself is evidence that God exists, whether just an intelligence, energy, being or other form? Therefore also that there is (definitely) no concrete proof to be sure about all the convincing arguments based around the theory of evolution, almost the same as those of (many, if not all) previous arguments for existance of God or maybe worse.
Query 3: If we accept there is intelligence involved, surely that means that there is a 'force' that we cannot assume we know(about) or understand, just like many other aspects of anything, or at least existance/creation. This again only points(people) to the idea of God.
I understand why person(s) thought I had assumed that God exists in the thread where this topic arose from, especially if they joined the debate after my first two posts. However I still feel everything had not been (properly) considered with an open mind, and in turn my responses. I practice everything I 'preach', and more, to the extent that I do not 'preach' anything unless I know I can do it as a minimum.
Other things to consider: the theory of evolution was reasoned, in the original thread, by using the example of a predator hunting 2 prey where one of the prey was weaker in a characteristic so to avoid being caught mutations would occur over centuries and millenia. I understand, but if I feel that I might be a potential victim of a crime, what use are the mutations(in this case evolution of humans) when firstly the same criminal will also adjust, or evolve/mutate and secondly in reality there won't be just one criminal and so who knows who will win the battle in future generations, while in the mean time I have suffered just like many others.
This is still really only a small part of the possibilities, as in reality we live in a part of Everything, not just as a society of 'invincible' humans. To explain who knows what condition, disease or illness they will develop in any point in time which are not all, if any, due to human factors alone, or at all. A meteor/comet, tree collapsing, snake venom, tsunami, hurricane, flooding in monsoon, etc., to name a few will cause somebody or more likely many beings suffering, if not certain death. This in the end is chance at best, but 'more likely' pointing to the whole picture which is why I referred to my concept of The Truth or The Absolute Truth.
I think I can say now that many things have been overlooked, as a minimum. In reality this type of theory explains what science was setup to be able to see: an object usually in isolation from its natural environment whose selected, known properties are adjusted one at a time in a selected range, while all other properties of that object are kept (have to be) strictly the same, and the effect on another object observed by available means in a manner only as far as the scientist's knowledge will allow(at best). I think this will show what I meant by many assumptions not just in this 'theory of evolution' but in all of science.
Science will never be able to prove anything as nothing is known about the unknown, and by the time 'it gets close' Everything would have been destroyed to reveal nothing. Unless one knows one cannot prove, and if one knows then what is there to prove other than what is known.
Therefore there are no better theories than ones based on good-hearted(real intention in other words no (unreasonable) bias, if any at all) theories because as explained previously only these can ensure that the best is being done for Everything. One may or may not use evidence, but if one (chooses to) use(s) any evidence then they will inevitably be causing some bias in the result(s) as a minimum because they will never be able to gather all Evidence. This is why this theory of 'Evolution' is deeply flawed with many unknowns(some which we cannot imagine or possibly know and therefore understand). 'My' theory is not any super-delusional theory because I have only used what other people can also see or as a minimum understand and so know.
As a conclusion, I do not need to prove there is anything. If somebody believes in God or anything else to explain what others see but not because they truly feel there must be God or any other theory, then they need to review what and why, etc., beginning with themselves. In the end people will only get what they have a right to based on deeds or Karma.
Sorry I know it is a lot of writing.
Please feel free to comment.
It doesn't matter Bhand. To many here have an agenda. We have people here fighting religion driving every evaluation of what is said. scarred and recovering people. Very few are just here completely independent of religion. Their first and last question is "How can theist use this.". Some don't know they are doing when they see something said and they feel "that's looks woo-ey" and so they disagree. Some know it and try to convince themselves with "But they are so pushy I don't even want to say it."
I agree with your premise. If you have seen post you know. We are not the top of the reality stack. There are just too many lines of evidence showing that. The most basic "science", I wouldn't call it "deep science" and classify it as everyday science" shows that. I haven't seen one atheist disagree with that. But many say "thats a strawman". They avoid using that to evaluate what people say for obvious reasons. They choose a top down approach and start with "It looks spiritual or reminds me of religion".
But that's not the point for people. They are here fighting the word "god", not discussing your idea. Basically, they see anything that hints of spirituality they are on the attack.
I also include omission by atheist. Atheist' that see another atheist post something rational and don't say anything while they get pounded is deceitful to me. So people are choosing sides without evaluating what is actually said.
Query 1: If evolution is a theory where there is no 'intelligence' driving the selection process, taking into consideration trial and error, then how is the selection process occurring. If somebody calls it nature, what do they really mean, because to many people nature is a divine creation? Is it not right that even if it is not divine that it has at least some amount of intelligence for it to be selective, because otherwise we are making an assumption on the same level as the assumption of God.
Raindrops fall. Some of them collect in a pond. The shape of the pond is a perfect three-dimensional mirror image of the hole in which it resides. Natural forces have organized these raindrops into this shape. No intelligence necessary.
Earlier this week I walked a number of beaches on Lake Superior. Invariably, the rocks on those beaches (most of them are partly or entirely rock, not entirely sand) had been sorted into shapes. The larger rocks here, the smaller rocks there, in layers above the (then) waterline. No intelligence necessary.
In tornadoes and hurricanes, air organizes itself into circulating vortexes. No intelligence necessary.
There are all manner of non-intelligent selections going on all about us, that no one attributes to divine agency. In the case of natural selection, the principle of variation (every organism is different, due to sexual reproduction and invariable faults in genetic copying) and survival (it should be abundantly obvious that some organisms will be better suited to surviving, and will disproportionately make copies of themselves compared to organisms less suited to surviving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Query 2: If we accept that there is no intelligence involved then, just the same as everything else in this existence or 'creation', does that not infer that everything is by chance and hence the argument that the probability of that is so improbable that in fact almost, if not actually, impossible? Which in itself is evidence that God exists, whether just an intelligence, energy, being or other form? Therefore also that there is (definitely) no concrete proof to be sure about all the convincing arguments based around the theory of evolution, almost the same as those of (many, if not all) previous arguments for existance of God or maybe worse.
No. Again, no one thinks God makes ponds or sorts rocks on beaches or makes cyclones. Yet these things are not random. They are shaped by natural forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Query 3: If we accept there is intelligence involved, surely that means that there is a 'force' that we cannot assume we know(about) or understand, just like many other aspects of anything, or at least existance/creation. This again only points(people) to the idea of God.
Does anyone accept that intelligence is behind the formation of ponds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Other things to consider: the theory of evolution was reasoned, in the original thread, by using the example of a predator hunting 2 prey where one of the prey was weaker in a characteristic so to avoid being caught mutations would occur over centuries and millenia. I understand, but if I feel that I might be a potential victim of a crime, what use are the mutations(in this case evolution of humans) when firstly the same criminal will also adjust, or evolve/mutate and secondly in reality there won't be just one criminal and so who knows who will win the battle in future generations, while in the mean time I have suffered just like many others.
Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'.
You clearly are incredulous at these things. I understand. I'm incredulous that airliners not only fly but deliver their passengers safely at such an astonishing (to me) rate. But I learned long ago to trust information over my emotions. Emotions have utility, but cold rationality gets one further in terms of understanding than feelings.
Raindrops fall. Some of them collect in a pond. The shape of the pond is a perfect three-dimensional mirror image of the hole in which it resides. Natural forces have organized these raindrops into this shape. No intelligence necessary.
Nipped for space ...
Does anyone accept that intelligence is behind the formation of ponds?
Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'.
You clearly are incredulous at these things. I understand. I'm incredulous that airliners not only fly but deliver their passengers safely at such an astonishing (to me) rate. But I learned long ago to trust information over my emotions. Emotions have utility, but cold rationality gets one further in terms of understanding than feelings.
lets use something else and not a pond. A pond just isn't complex enough to use.
Lets use the formation of a motor protein on a cell strand. The strand is better fit then a pond. Then proceed in your line of logic.
Raindrops fall. Some of them collect in a pond. The shape of the pond is a perfect three-dimensional mirror image of the hole in which it resides. Natural forces have organized these raindrops into this shape. No intelligence necessary.
Earlier this week I walked a number of beaches on Lake Superior. Invariably, the rocks on those beaches (most of them are partly or entirely rock, not entirely sand) had been sorted into shapes. The larger rocks here, the smaller rocks there, in layers above the (then) waterline. No intelligence necessary.
In tornadoes and hurricanes, air organizes itself into circulating vortexes. No intelligence necessary.
There are all manner of non-intelligent selections going on all about us, that no one attributes to divine agency. In the case of natural selection, the principle of variation (every organism is different, due to sexual reproduction and invariable faults in genetic copying) and survival (it should be abundantly obvious that some organisms will be better suited to surviving, and will disproportionately make copies of themselves compared to organisms less suited to surviving.
No. Again, no one thinks God makes ponds or sorts rocks on beaches or makes cyclones. Yet these things are not random. They are shaped by natural forces.
Does anyone accept that intelligence is behind the formation of ponds?
Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'.
You clearly are incredulous at these things. I understand. I'm incredulous that airliners not only fly but deliver their passengers safely at such an astonishing (to me) rate. But I learned long ago to trust information over my emotions. Emotions have utility, but cold rationality gets one further in terms of understanding than feelings.
Unfortunately you are misusing terms like 'sorting' rocks, when this implies intelligence, to something that is chance at best, and 'natural' selection to mean chance again even when you have the view that it is random and because you do not know what nature is (in other words it is just a term, of convenience) which is obvious in your use of it. I am not going to address all the points you have raised individually, but you have assumed that because all of the arguments point to an intelligence that that intelligence dictates everything that happens at an individual level when all I have said is to suggest everything from a greater, or overall level/picture.
I think you can see that you have failed to grasp my theory as I have emphasised repeatedly throughout 'my' theory of The Truth defined in some posts. You have also confirmed the disease that modern scientists suffer with by making isolated experiments the normal approach when this, as I have spoken about but has been ignored, would obviously lead to the assumptions that you made. This approach is also evident in the way you addressed each matter individually, as opposed to a whole picture, hence missing out key components in your conclusions, when actually I have not said at any point that The Truth is complete in writing in other words you have to step out of your laboratory to start to even get an idea.
To give you an idea of what I am referring to please study the way clouds are formed and then the journey to the point at which your raindrops fell not just raindrop, who sees an individual cloud with an individual raindrop fall perfectly in chance and not intelligence or enough to suspect there might be a driving force or reason. I understand that if you lived perfectly by yourself in this world your theory might hold weight, but no this world is more than just about one person or atom.
Raindrops fall. Some of them collect in a pond. The shape of the pond is a perfect three-dimensional mirror image of the hole in which it resides. Natural forces have organized these raindrops into this shape. No intelligence necessary. Earlier this week I walked a number of beaches on Lake Superior. Invariably, the rocks on those beaches (most of them are partly or entirely rock, not entirely sand) had been sorted into shapes. The larger rocks here, the smaller rocks there, in layers above the (then) waterline. No intelligence necessary. In tornadoes and hurricanes, air organizes itself into circulating vortexes. No intelligence necessary. There are all manner of non-intelligent selections going on all about us, that no one attributes to divine agency. In the case of natural selection, the principle of variation (every organism is different, due to sexual reproduction and invariable faults in genetic copying) and survival (it should be abundantly obvious that some organisms will be better suited to surviving, and will disproportionately make copies of themselves compared to organisms less suited to surviving. No. Again, no one thinks God makes ponds or sorts rocks on beaches or makes cyclones. Yet these things are not random. They are shaped by natural forces. Does anyone accept that intelligence is behind the formation of ponds? Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'. You clearly are incredulous at these things. I understand. I'm incredulous that airliners not only fly but deliver their passengers safely at such an astonishing (to me) rate. But I learned long ago to trust information over my emotions. Emotions have utility, but cold rationality gets one further in terms of understanding than feelings.
intelligence is behind everything.
there are no accidents, there are no coincidences, there is no chance,
and nothing is random
You have also broken guidelines by being abusive. I have stated explicitly enough and shown that I have never assumed anything, even God (despite knowing). God to you might mean something which does not correlate to how somebody or other beings think of it, but this is not to say they don't overlap.
I can see or understand well enough what you are visualising when you think of God doing individual tasks but who said that that is what I believe even to the level of controlling The Truth. Yes I said God must exist, caused existance, but never said he has ever controlled it or not, which he both does and not. The key is God does not dictate, he merely put everything in place. Yes he plays a part. You can't tell me that you are not, in your words or not, bias or inexplicable, negative in intention because otherwise you would not have ignored.
Raindrops fall. Some of them collect in a pond. The shape of the pond is a perfect three-dimensional mirror image of the hole in which it resides. Natural forces have organized these raindrops into this shape. No intelligence necessary.
Earlier this week I walked a number of beaches on Lake Superior. Invariably, the rocks on those beaches (most of them are partly or entirely rock, not entirely sand) had been sorted into shapes. The larger rocks here, the smaller rocks there, in layers above the (then) waterline. No intelligence necessary.
In tornadoes and hurricanes, air organizes itself into circulating vortexes. No intelligence necessary.
There are all manner of non-intelligent selections going on all about us, that no one attributes to divine agency. In the case of natural selection, the principle of variation (every organism is different, due to sexual reproduction and invariable faults in genetic copying) and survival (it should be abundantly obvious that some organisms will be better suited to surviving, and will disproportionately make copies of themselves compared to organisms less suited to surviving.
No. Again, no one thinks God makes ponds or sorts rocks on beaches or makes cyclones. Yet these things are not random. They are shaped by natural forces.
Does anyone accept that intelligence is behind the formation of ponds?
Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'.
You clearly are incredulous at these things. I understand. I'm incredulous that airliners not only fly but deliver their passengers safely at such an astonishing (to me) rate. But I learned long ago to trust information over my emotions. Emotions have utility, but cold rationality gets one further in terms of understanding than feelings.
Unfortunately you are misusing terms like 'sorting' rocks, when this implies intelligence, to something that is chance at best, and 'natural' selection to mean chance again even when you have the view that it is random and because you do not know what nature is (in other words it is just a term, of convenience) which is obvious in your use of it. I am not going to address all the points you have raised individually, but you have assumed that because all of the arguments point to an intelligence that that intelligence dictates everything that happens at an individual level when all I have said is to suggest everything from a greater, or overall level/picture.
I think you can see that you have failed to grasp my theory as I have emphasised repeatedly throughout 'my' theory of The Truth defined in some posts. You have also confirmed the disease that modern scientists suffer with by making isolated experiments the normal approach when this, as I have spoken about but has been ignored, would obviously lead to the assumptions that you made. This approach is also evident in the way you addressed each matter individually, as opposed to a whole picture, hence missing out key components in your conclusions, when actually I have not said at any point that The Truth is complete in writing in other words you have to step out of your laboratory to start to even get an idea.
To give you an idea of what I am referring to please study the way clouds are formed and then the journey to the point at which your raindrops fell not just raindrop, who sees an individual cloud with an individual raindrop fall perfectly in chance and not intelligence or enough to suspect there might be a driving force or reason. I understand that if you lived perfectly by yourself in this world your theory might hold weight, but no this world is more than just about one person or atom.
Evolutionary pressures are immediate, but they build on each other over time. The antelopes get faster, or die. The cheetahs get faster, or die. Myriad other examples abound. This is sometimes referred to as the 'evolutionary arms race'.
.
Indeed. And very poetic example.
Here's caveat. For cheetah to survive, there has to be an antelope. All features, cheetah evolved, are based on presence of a certain type of prey. Cheetah may live in the most abundant in fruits and vegetables area but, no antelope - no cheetah. For antelope to exist, and be prey for cheetah, something else has to evolve and, evolve exactly so that antelope can survive, so that cheetah can eat it. If you keep going deeper and deeper into immense magnitude of evolutionary traits of a certain animal - or plant - not just superficial jump at a feature - you WILL find that they all depend on each other. And then, suddenly, you WILL see, that it ALL works as one well designed organism, where every feature of every Nature unit is correlated to other units and to there features.
EVERY evolutionary advantage for ANY unit of nature is there because there is its dedicated reason available. Not a single unit of nature, be it plant, or animal or fish, evolved a single USELESS feature just for giggles. They ALL have their purpose. And, if it was just a haphazard play of chance, you'd have had all kinds of useless appendages or else, just because it happened so.
Every evolutionary trait is there because there is its complimentary counterpart. And THAT counterpart has to evolve exactly the way, to complement discussed feature.
Unfortunately you are misusing terms like 'sorting' rocks, when this implies intelligence, to something that is chance at best, and 'natural' selection to mean chance again even when you have the view that it is random and because you do not know what nature is (in other words it is just a term, of convenience) which is obvious in your use of it. I am not going to address all the points you have raised individually, but you have assumed that because all of the arguments point to an intelligence that that intelligence dictates everything that happens at an individual level when all I have said is to suggest everything from a greater, or overall level/picture.
I think you can see that you have failed to grasp my theory as I have emphasised repeatedly throughout 'my' theory of The Truth defined in some posts. You have also confirmed the disease that modern scientists suffer with by making isolated experiments the normal approach when this, as I have spoken about but has been ignored, would obviously lead to the assumptions that you made. This approach is also evident in the way you addressed each matter individually, as opposed to a whole picture, hence missing out key components in your conclusions, when actually I have not said at any point that The Truth is complete in writing in other words you have to step out of your laboratory to start to even get an idea.
To give you an idea of what I am referring to please study the way clouds are formed and then the journey to the point at which your raindrops fell not just raindrop, who sees an individual cloud with an individual raindrop fall perfectly in chance and not intelligence or enough to suspect there might be a driving force or reason. I understand that if you lived perfectly by yourself in this world your theory might hold weight, but no this world is more than just about one person or atom.
Sorting is a scientific term. At least in Geology and Geomorphology. Sorting does not require intelligence. Your problem is that you can not conceive how natural processes occur without the need of a God to determine that as water that slows down loses the ability to sustain suspended particles.
As far as evolution goes again your problem is that you are it as the end product with goals to be achieved that needs a intelligent designer. But there is no goals and small random mutations occur. Most of those mutations fail because they do not make the organism better adapted to its environment. In order for evolution to be forced by an intelligent God, that God must be an absolute incompete bubbling fool to create mostly failures. Does that describe your God?
Maybe learn about what evolution actually means and how it works and also how geomorphology and geology as well as physics works . Your lack of understanding and refusal to see anything but a God is your problem not one of the sciences or of other posters.
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.
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.
