Religion IS crazy!

[bellenuit]

Pav, i didn't want to get involved in this thread but i can't help but wonder how you can compare a belief system with a theory. You're a smart guy, so I'm sure you understand what a theory is. The bible is not a theory right? The theory of evolution is not a belief system, or religion...right?

Regardless if the theory of evolution has a staggering amount of evidence backing it up it still is a theory and cannot be proven at this stage. As far as i know religion is a belief system and not a theory, for all the evidence collected so far by the scientific community contradicts the bible, or the belief system.

OR are you saying there is enough evidence available supporting Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism that they are to be considered theories and not religions (belief systems)?

CanOz

Just to add to what CanOz said. The theory of evolution refers to the process by which evolution came about, not to the fact that evolution has happened. Evolution is a fact. There is evidence all around us and covering many different scientific disciplines. The theory of evolution refers to the process by which this evolution came about and that process is natural selection combined with random mutation. The word theory in science, as is the case of the theory of evolution, has a different connotation to that used by lay people. When used in science it means the best possible explanation of the process and will only retain the status of theory so long as no evidence comes to the fore that disproves it. If new discoveries prove the theory incorrect, then the theory has to be abandoned or modified by the new information (meaning that the modified theory must account for all previous discoveries/evidence and the new discoveries/evidence). The word theory as used by laypeople particularly those that say "evolution is just a theory" equates to the word hypothesis in science. An hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A scientific hypothesis will becomes a scientific theory if it withstands all testing and no evidence can be found to show the hypothesis is wrong.

The Catholic Church fully accepts the theory of evolution as well as the fact of evolution. However, the church insists that the hand of God actively intervened at crucial points along man's evolutionary path.

 

[pavilion103]

Micro evolution is a fact. Natural selection which involves the LOSS of genetic information. Of course this is a fact. There is not a single example of macro evolution however, which is the gaining of genetic information.

Yes I believe the evidence scientific, philosophical, historical points to a creator. Blind faith in anything with no evidence is foolish.

To say science is contradicting God is not accurate. In fact the more complexity that is found, particularly the irreducible complexity of the human cell points to a creator.

Philosophical reasoning is looked over foolishly too.
- how does something come from nothing? Only something from outside of time can create a cause inside of time. This question can't be skimmed over.
- there are no examples of life coming from non life so by science (observable and repeatable) it cannot be concluded that life arose from non life
- genetic information decreases not increases. Genetic entropy is a fact.

So Canoz, much like trading, I feel many skim over these glaring points and conclude what they want. Plus a range of other points. Don't be so easily convinced because society tells you so. Many of the cliches thrown around in this thread point to obvious ignorance on the part of many backing up macro evolution.

 

[fiftyeight]

Science loves new evidence contradicting current theories as it opens up new areas of study.

I am open to being wrong re evolution, are you open to being wrong on evolution?

If scientists can create life artificially, how wold this impact your thinking? What about if god came down and was like "I exist, I created the big bang as a joke but yeah life was just an accident that I had no part in it", would this change your thinking?

 

[Julia]

Pav, no obligation to respond, of course, and I don't want to be intrusive, but I'm wondering how you formed your beliefs?

 

[Paul Woodward]

Interesting. Does this also apply to other philosophies and belief systems such as evolution and other theories or just religion?

Absolutely. As we evolve a lot of our belief systems change. A few decades ago we believed the world was flat.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Micro evolution is a fact. Natural selection which involves the LOSS of genetic information. Of course this is a fact. There is not a single example of macro evolution however, which is the gaining of genetic information.

Many of the cliches thrown around in this thread point to obvious ignorance on the part of many backing up macro evolution.

Posted for the THIRD time. Pavillion not sure why you're ignoring me. I understand that individuals that hold strong belief systems can find dissenting evidence confronting. You've made the above bolded statement several times in this thread. You've loudly challenged anyone to provide dissenting evidence. Twice before I have quietly directed you towards what you have asked for. Once again I point you in the direction of the book Virolution as a mechanism of gaining of genetic information, (and not the only one). I'm not saying this book will answer every question you have. Over the last 30 years there have been extraordinary advances in our understanding of biology and genetic structure. I don't think this book will have all your answers, and also doesn't address the question of other evolutionary processes such as sexual selection and neutral evolution. Read the book...make up your own mind.

Here's a quote...

We are part virus. This bizarre yet inescapable fact has been revealed over the past 30 years, as scientists have spelunked their way through the human genome and encountered stretches of DNA with the telltale chemical signatures of viruses. All told, they've found 100,000 such segments so far. As Frank Ryan explains in "Virolution," these pieces of virus DNA ended up in our genome through a peculiar kind of infection. From time to time, viruses slipped their DNA into the eggs and sperm of our ancestors. Parents then passed down the virus DNA to their offspring. These viruses could no longer escape their hosts, but they could still make new copies of their DNA, which were then inserted back into our ancestors' genomes. And so it is that, after millions of years of infection, viruses now make up at least 8% of the human genome. Our "own" genes””the genes that encode the proteins that constitute our bodies””make up a measly 1.2%.

Dr. Ryan, a British physician and science writer, argues that this discovery demands a new vision of how evolution works””hence the name of his book and a splashy boast on its cover: "The most important evolutionary book since Dawkins's 'Selfish Gene.' " In that landmark 1976 work, Richard Dawkins presented a gene-centered view of evolution. Evolution did not work for the good of the species, he argued. Altruism and other selfless traits were actually strategies that evolved so that genes could make more copies of themselves. In "Virolution," by contrast, Mr. Ryan presents a virus-centered view of life, in which viruses help steer the course of evolution. "Natural selection alone could not have given rise to the evolution of life," Mr. Ryan declares.

When Mr. Dawkins wrote about natural selection 35 years ago, he was describing a process in which genes mutate as they are passed down from one generation to the next. Viruses, Mr. Ryan notes, can deliver entire sets of new genes all at once. Sometimes this viral DNA can become domesticated: It evolves from a recipe for a parasite to a vital service for its host. Placentas, for example, stick to the wall of uteruses thanks to proteins that originated in viruses. Without our viral DNA, in other words, none of us would have ever been born.

 

[CanOz]

Thanks Sir O!

 

[Sean K]

Here are the very best of religious explanations for creation:

Mesopotamian around 1100 BCE:

When the sky above was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being.
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...

Aboriginal maybe 20000 BCE:

The Baiame myth tells how Baiame came down from the sky to the land, and created rivers, mountains, and forests. He then gave the people their laws of life, traditions, songs, and culture. He also created the first initiation site. This is known as a bora; a place where boys were initiated into manhood. When he had finished, he returned to the sky, and people called him the Sky Hero or All Father or Sky Father.

Abrahamic around 700 BCE:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

I tend to be swayed towards the theory, until a better explanation appears.

 

[FxTrader]

Posted for the THIRD time. Pavillion not sure why you're ignoring me. I understand that individuals that hold strong belief systems can find dissenting evidence confronting.

You could repeat yourself 100 times and still not get the likes of Pavilion to seriously examine the evidence in favor of evolution. Anyone that ascribes any credibility to the faux "creation" science that is intelligent design theory and its thoroughly debunked premise of irreducible complexity, is someone who will cling to their religious mythology at any intellectual cost. The only "science" the religious will embrace is that which seems to confirm anything they already believe.

The focus on evolution vs divine creation is a game of misdirection religious converts play ad nauseam. In the main, the assumption is that if evolution can be discredited by whatever means then the only other possible explanation for existence is an infinite sky God of some description. This strategy is aimed at taking the focus off of the many fallacies of religious belief by attacking science and the scientific method as if this can somehow vindicate and justify one's belief in the supernatural accounts and claims in iron-age magic books. It's best to just decline to play this game with the religious and put the focus on what they believe and why they believe it.

Religion is mythology cloaked in a veil of intellectual legitimacy by believers that it does not deserve. When this veil is lifted and the naked fraud that is religion is revealed it just makes most religious converts angry and defensive rather than causing them to seriously question their beliefs. Such is the nature of strong human attachment to religious superstition.

 

[pavilion103]

1) If a virus has deposited DNA into us, the DNA has not been created. It already exists. It’s added it’s own DNA to our DNA. It isn’t new DNA. It’s not evolution. It's a mix up of the genes. We are not building any new DNA. It is old DNA mixed, no manufacturing of new DNA.

So where did the FIRST living thing get it’s DNA from?

In the virus example its simply using the same materials to make different structures. Just like the a builder uses the same materials to build different buildings.

On a bit of a different point: In terms of any similarities between us and a virus, well there are similarities between a Boeing 747, Ferrari and a bicycle. That’s where it ends. All it shows that it came from one mind. One designer. God.

We have genetics similar to a virus so we come from a virus. We have genetics similar to a banana too, did a banana it impregnate a woman?

So I ask the same question. Give me an example of NEW genetic information being created. Not existing information being mixed!!



2) Also this is not science. It is not observable. How it came into being has not been observed. An assumption has been made, a leap of faith. Just like a cup of coffee is on a table, we can only observe that it is there. Once we make assumptions about how it got there, then it is philosophical reasoning and not science.


3) What is observable today?
The same engineer using the same design in different things because IT WORKS.
Just like similar design principles appear in vastly different structures today.
This points more and more to a common creator.

 

[pavilion103]

You could repeat yourself 100 times and still not get the likes of Pavilion to seriously examine the evidence in favor of evolution. Anyone that ascribes any credibility to the faux "creation" science that is intelligent design theory and its thoroughly debunked premise of irreducible complexity, is someone who will cling to their religious mythology at any intellectual cost. The only "science" the religious will embrace is that which seems to confirm anything they already believe.

I call BS.

Look at my response above.

I am so utterly tired of evolutionists in here passing off philosophical reasoning as science.


When will someone answer MY questions:

1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?
2) Give me one example of life coming from non-life?
3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?
4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?


So many people sitting there taking potshots at creation but how about you answer these questions above huh? Rather than dodging them repeatedly.

Utterly intellectually dishonest that you throw things at me but cannot address my questions.

Address question 1 first.

 

[Trentb]

To answer pavillion

1) A fart. Where does that come from?

How do you know it is not eternal?

2) After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

Are humans the only life in the world? If not then did god breathe into a dogs nose too?

3) Insertion mutation

4) one piece at a time, you?

 

[pavilion103]

To answer pavillion

1) A fart. Where does that come from?

How do you know it is not eternal?

2) After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

Are humans the only life in the world? If not then did god breathe into a dogs nose too?

3) Insertion mutation

4) one piece at a time, you?

Ok I'm going to start with point one and stay in this until we work through it and THEN tackle the rest.

A fart comes from a living being which already exists. I am utterly staggered by this question/comparison, staggered beyond belief!!!!!

It isn't something coming from nothing. How could you even use such an example?
Try again...

How do I know it's not eternal? Have you put a single moment of research into this? Don't give me lazy questions. Take a look

 

[FxTrader]

I am so utterly tired of evolutionists in here passing off philosophical reasoning as science.

Since I am not an "evolutionist" but instead someone who forms beliefs based on evidence and not what is scribed in magic books, I must assume you are not referring to me here. As for "philosophical reasoning" this is exactly one of the things you called upon on Pg 55 to justify belief, quote...

You haven't acknowledged philosophical reasoning which supports creationism.

Clearly you give such "reasoning" much credibility.

You continue to play the evolution vs creation game to justify religious belief. I will deal with your questions in the same dismissive spirit they are posed...

1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?

First explain how God came from nothing and thus solve the problem of infinite regression then you can pose this question legitimately.

2) Give me one example of life coming from non-life?

Adam and Eve

3) Give me one example of an addition of genetic information?

It may exist in some scientific studies, but the absence of example does not add any credibility to religious belief.

4) How do you account for irreducible complexity?

I don't because IC is a fraud!! IC has been thoroughly debunked and I won't waste time discussing it since it would not convince you to abandon your blind faith in religion.

 

[fiftyeight]

Question 1

Why do I need to answer question 1 for evolution to be a valid theory? God existing and evolution being correct are not mutually exclusive.

Not that I think there is a god, but lets say god set the laws of physics and kicked things off. Which eventually led to Earth forming and being conducive to life and then evolution did the rest.

Question 2

As far as I know this his not been achieved yet. But there are lots of things science does not understand currently. If science did create life would this alter your thinking?

Question 3 and 4

Cellular autonoma go someway in explaining how complexity can be created by very simple rules.

I am open to being proven wrong and so is science, are you?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

1) Give me one example of something coming from NOTHING? The universe is not eternal so it began to exist. Give me ONE plausible explanation how it came into existence from NOTHING?

Most of the masters say that Nothingness (the Great Void) is God. So everything comes from nothingness. But these masters knew it as a direct experience. I don't know it as an experience I'm just re-telling what they said.

Buddha was all about direct experience of holiness (wholeness), and told his followers to forget about all the intellectual debating. He said:

Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

Then there's the Zen saying "Disputation is a proof of not seeing clearly', which to me means that anyone who is debating this stuff (including me) has not experienced the ultimate truth.

 

[pavilion103]

Since I am not an "evolutionist" but instead someone who forms beliefs based on evidence and not what is scribed in magic books, I must assume you are not referring to me here. As for "philosophical reasoning" this is exactly one of the things you called upon on Pg 55 to justify belief, quote...

Clearly you give such "reasoning" much credibility.

You continue to play the evolution vs creation game to justify religious belief. I will deal with your questions in the same dismissive spirit they are posed...


First explain how God came from nothing and thus solve the problem of infinite regression then you can pose this question legitimately.


Adam and Eve


It may exist in some scientific studies, but the absence of example does not add any credibility to religious belief.

I don't because IC is a fraud!! IC has been thoroughly debunked and I won't waste time discussing it since it would not convince you to abandon your blind faith in religion.

I do give credit to philosophical reasoning. I am merely saying don't try to claim as science what clearly isn't.

1) easy. If God is eternal he exists outside of time. Anything that is not eternal requires a cause. Anything that is eternal clearly does not (by definition).

2) ok - Creator

3) lol so there is an absence. Actually there is not one single scientific example

4) BS


So I can pose question 1 legitimately now. I've given my reasoning. You give me yours...
From your worldview, how can something come from nothing?
Stick to this point 1.
Answer briefly and concisely is you can. Don't stray.

 

[pavilion103]

Most of the masters say that Nothingness (the Great Void) is God. So everything comes from nothingness. But these masters knew it as a direct experience. I don't know it as an experience I'm just re-telling what they said.

Buddha was all about direct experience of holiness (wholeness), and told his followers to forget about all the intellectual debating. He said:

Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

So how does something come from nothing?

How did matter appear in a non eternal world without someone outside of time creating it?

 

[pavilion103]

I see many lengthy answers yet no one being able to provide one better or even plausible explanation than an eternal creator creating matter.

Someone just freaking answer in 2-4 sentences. To the point, on topic (if you can). CONCISE!!!

 

[fiftyeight]

So I can pose question 1 legitimately now. I've given my reasoning. You give me yours...
From your worldview, how can something come from nothing?
Stick to this point 1.
Answer briefly and concisely is you can. Don't stray.

It does not need to be answered if we are strictly talking about evolution as I said above