It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution Vs. God

page: 42
22
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I added more to my post. Check it out and adjust your post accordingly. Also, there's nothing magical or divinely inspired about evolution. There's no reason to believe it occurred of anything other than its own devices. I am open to being proven wrong, but it must be proof, not speculation.
edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I added more to my post. Check it out and adjust your post accordingly. Also, there's nothing magical or divinely inspired about evolution. There's no reason to believe it occurred of anything other than its own devices. I am open to being proven wrong, but it must be proof, not speculation.
edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Your edit did not prompt me to change my reply. The phrase I quoted was not changed.

I will tell you this though... the more I understand about our physical world... the more I am convinced of a divine creator... not one that is seperate from creation but fully integrated within and without. I will not try to convince you or anyone else that my beliefs are valid. It's not my place to impose upon you conclusions that I've drawn with regards to what I consider very spiritual and personal doctrines.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Well then, my previous post should suffice in answering your post.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

FlyersFan
No, he accused the poster of being a troll, as many people around ATS has done today, because of that posters attitude. The term 'troll' fits.


Seems you label anyone asking questions you don't like a troll....but you never know, he might be one of those government employed trolls I keep hearing about...


Prezbo369
Common sense .. if the poster had a belief system that was incompatible with evolution .. then he'd either no longer have that belief system OR he wouldn't have had it to begin with. Therefore, him believing in a God is not incompatible with evolution.


Common sense takes a backseat when it comes to peoples belief systems, same with rationality.



QUESTIONS -

WHY do people think that it has to be either Creationism or Evolution? There are other ways humans could have gotten here.

WHY do people think that evolution is incompatible with a belief in God? A 'God' can certainly use any method He wants to create people. I know there are some who take the bible literally and so THEY don't think God can do anything except the old 'Adam and Eve' thing. But there are a whole lot of Christians on this planet who recognize that Genesis is a creation myth and that doesn't take away their belief in a God.


ANSWERS:

There are a whole lot of Christians on this very planet that do believe that evolution is completely incompatible with their belief systems. Hence creationists, the Creation Museum, the plethora of threads here on ATS attempting to debunk evolution, Ray Comfort and Kent and Eric Hovind.

But with at least 44,000 different and incompatible versions of 'Christianity', some of which even reject the divinity of Jesus, it's to be expected that they won't all agree with you, no?...

Hopes that helps!


edit on 21-9-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


That didn't really answer the question.
edit on 21-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



I will tell you this though... the more I understand about our physical world... the more I am convinced of a divine creator... not one that is seperate from creation but fully integrated within and without. I will not try to convince you or anyone else that my beliefs are valid. It's not my place to impose upon you conclusions that I've drawn with regards to what I consider very spiritual and personal doctrines.


I also wanted to inform you that I respect that position. Quite honestly, I don't have a better answer for you, so I wish you the best of luck with your conclusions.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Blarneystoner
You can take your snotty little attitude and jump off. You're obviously trolling, this is your only participation in this thread. You saw my response and decided you'd have a little fun eh? You'll get no satisfaction from me. My beliefs are personal, my concept of God is not conventional and I doubt that someone of your mental capacity could even begin to understand it. If you were sincere you would have taken me up on the offer to discuss this with you in private.


I was sincere. I see no need to take this very on topic discussion in private unless you are afraid of what people will see in your answer. I asked for the sake of the discussion, not to make a new buddy.


I don't need your's or anyone elses validation to shore up my beliefs. I'm almost 50 years old and I've carefully vetted everything I believe. If you think for one second that it could be explained in a few brief bursts of text on a conspiracy website then you've underestimated me. But I get the feeling that you're not much of a thinker.


You sure do like to personally attack people you never actually met. You sound like a loving Christian.


BTW - you don't get to tell people what they can and cannot do within these threads. You seem to have an over-inflated opinion of yourself to think that you do.


So you telling me to take my attitude and jump off is.....?


So... go back to eating your cheetoes and find somewhere else to be a pest.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


LMAO! So YOU get to tell people in this thread what to do? Ahhh, of course.


LOOK, RUDE.
I simply asked you a question that had to do with this discussion. You should have just said you have no answer and let it fall at your feet and leave it there. For some reason, instead, you want to attack me. GOOD FOR YOU!!!! Now I will attempt to converse with people that do not react this way to simple questions.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


They weren't really questions, more generalisations

So I replied in kind...



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Blarneystoner


What makes you think valid questions deserve an answer?



Then why are you on a discussion board?



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Blarneystoner
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


My personal beliefs are not the topic of this thread. You've been invited to PM me if you care to find out about them. I don't care to discuss them in public and I think you and everyone else should respect that.

Have a great weekend...


I only asked one question about your very personal belief because YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT OPENLY ON A DISCUSSION BOARD.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Then why bother posting at all if you didn't have a good answer?



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If you go back and read my post, you'll see that the 'ANSWERS' weren't the entirety of my reply.

Slow down, your fervour to find fault is leading you astray



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



If you go back and read my post, you'll see that the 'ANSWERS' weren't the entirety of my reply.

Slow down, your fervour to find fault is leading you astray


Who said I was finding fault? I asked a question, you gave me an answer. No need to get lippy.

Oh, and I did go back and look again. Your answer wasn't an answer. You basically reiterated the question from another angle without making it a question. I apologize for not being clearer, but I wasn't wrong, so I won't apologize for that. Thank you.
edit on 21-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

* * * * * * * * * ATTENTION * * * * * * * * * *



The thread topic is "Evolution vs. God", and is in the Origins and Creationism forum, not member personalities. Enough with the interpersonal bickering, please. Please post on topic.

thank you



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
OP this fascinating topic has been an intellectual passion for me, Here is a relatively brief but thorough essay on the matter that I have written.


Metascience

Science is merely a lens through which to view the world around us. The picture that we perceive when looking through this lens is called a world view. The world view that science paints for us is depicted as being superior to all other world views in that in can be verified by observation and peer review, its language is precision and mathematics, and also because it's practical application-namely technology-is proof of concept. The strength of Science in theory is that, ideally, it does base it's predictions, premises and conclusions on that which is observable, that which can be observed and understood, and that which can be manipulated for verification. Furthermore the theories and axioms of science, in theory, will always be subject to the possibility of falsifiability by counter-example.

One could approach scientific criticism by attacking any number of its specific conclusions. For example it is possible in theory to show that the speed of light is not a constant by demonstrating it traveling at a velocity other than C. Another way that one could approach scientific criticism is to demonstrate that the foundations and methods it rests upon are fundamentally flawed in principle.

One such example of a foundational principle that is assumed without categorization by the physical and natural sciences, is that everything is material. If there exists any such things in the physical Universe which are not material (comprised of neither matter nor energy), observable (whether directly or indirectly), manipulable(to be experimented upon, industrialized, or commercialized), or predictable (meaning if this hypothetical thing does not conform with Science, it's accepted ideas, and implicit assumptions), then Science can not say, for it refuses to allow for both that which is seen and unseen, and consequently science emphatically declares that this thing therefore does not exist.

Incidentally some of the leading theories and accepted theories of quantum physics seem to exist solely in an abstract universe of discourse, observed and described only within a framework of the most complex mathematical notions. The veracity of these theories hinges upon accurate predictions within a small margin of error. When dealing with things like atomic and sub-atomic particles which have unpredictable behavior that defies everything we know about the Universe, quantum fields, strings, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, Universal forces, dark-matter, and a host of other theories in contemporary science, it seldom is questioned where the line is drawn between that which is “material”, and that which is immaterial. It seems duplicitous that it is acceptable for a scientist to speak about the 11th dimension without raising a brow, but to wonder aloud if the 11th dimension is eternal paradise, or ask where thoughts, principles, and physical laws can be observed, these are laughable as the ponderings of an ignorant uneducated fool, or even worse-scorned.

This a priori rejection by science of that which is metaphysical, while propagating notions that are indifferentiable from metaphysics in such a way as to obfuscate this conflation, is worse than duplicity, it is intellectually dishonest.

This influential worldview science communicates ripples through class rooms of liberal public and higher education, and pervades sociological institutions like mass media, or pop culture. This worldview is communicated as the idea that Science doesn't need God to make sense of the Universe, life, or the Human experience; that the methodology, theories, and axioms of Science are sufficient to arrive at truth; that 'truths' arrived at by other intellectual disciplines-especially philosophy and religion-are epistemologically inferior; that therefore God doesn't exist, nor even the notion of that which is metaphysical, or supranatural; as the notion that it can explain everything in the Universe with the simplest, yet inaccessible, equation; that a quantum particle, which may or may not be a figment of sciences imagination, is tantamount to God; by the promises and future hope of paradise and salvation in knowledge and technology, as promised by press and mass media.

How is the integrity of the physical laws preserved as it pervades through the Universe? Are the physical laws material? If so where are they written? If not does that mean they do not exist? If by some miracle the Universe did deviate from the worldview decreed by Science, and its laws, what would it look like? What would it be called? Would it be written off as an anomalous outlier? Where do miracles or extraordinary circumstances of divine intervention fit into the equation for science? Is it a hallmark of objectivism to sublimate any point of data that disagrees, as a matter of principle?

Regarding the alleged laws and forces that so efficaciously govern our Universe, where did they come from, and for what reason? In a Universe with a planet such as ours, host to intelligent life such as us, who ask questions such as these, is it folly to wonder if these laws and forces that science describes, are merely glimpses of the fantastic genius of a Divine Architect? What if it could be demonstrated that the Universe science paints for us looks an awfully lot like a Universe designed with life in mind, and in particular Human life, is it possible for science to acknowledge at least this? It is the intention of this essay to attempt to do just that, to understand and communicate the world view science paints for us, and by this picture highlight criticisms of science, to demonstrate that the Universe which science teaches about, is abounding with phenomenon that is better understood if it existed in a Universe intelligently designed by the inconceivable genius, and efficacious power of a Creator God.


The Big Bang


The prevailing cosmological theory in science to explain how this Universe came to exist is that of the big bang theory. The theory posits that some time more than 13 billion years ago there existed a singularity bound up in a moment. This singularity was so dense it contained all of the mass and energy in the entire Universe in a point of space and time, smaller then even a Plank length, which is the smallest unit of space. What bound up this singularity, where it came from, and what caused it to spontaneously expand, are questions science attempts to answer as a function of quantum fluctuations, or as an infinitely oscillating system. While these theories are ambitious and imaginative, it seems evident in the mind that unless science has discovered some sort of Einstein-Rosen bridge allowing them to closely observe the origins of the Universe from a space and time far removed, then it would seem that this is a matter that science is unable to answer with any degree of certainty.

Why is science unable to affirm these theories with any degree of objectivity? By it's own criterion it is beyond the scope of science to make predictions, hypothesis, experiment, and reach conclusions, if the matter in question is unobservable and/or immeasurable. Are the Universal singularity, the catalyzing 'quantum fluctuation', its' subsequent inflation or unfolding observable or measurable?




posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   

The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today are not able to be observed or measured directly, and therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative to say the least. Even still science does offer us a confident story about where the Universe came from and how it unfolded and developed over time. Science makes the argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe here and now, it is possible to extrapolate and project to that which can not be directly observed, and to do so with some degree of certainty. I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible, and self-evidently so, to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then. If this were possible it would be a sort of reverse entropy, or shift in the arrow of time.

Consider this quote from world renown theoretical astrophysicist Professor Steven Hawking:


“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

...Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.”(Lecture by Professor Steven Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”. Hawking, S.W., www.hawking.org.uk...)

The prevailing cosmological theory that describes the unfolding of the Universe, where matter, stars, solar systems and galaxies come from, is a story about a compacted singularity containing everything in the Universe rapidly expanding from a point smaller than the smallest mathematically describable unit of space and time. As this super heated compaction of plasma expanded it cooled allowing the resolution of reactions between primordial subatomic particles. The victorious subatomic particles emerged in the moments following spontaneity in an unevenly distributed fashion allowing for pools of order to form in spite of the surrounding chaos, and increasing entropy. In this scientific cosmology, just moments after spontaneity is when it is believed the laws of physics achieved some sort of stasis. This stasis is like a harmonious equilibrium that allegedly guides its unfolding to the present moment. This stasis is assumed to have disintegrated in the hypothetical unified state prior to spontaneity which existed in this singular anomaly. A theory that reunifies what in Science is known as the Universal forces is a sort of Holy grail for theoretical Physics. If we can't understand grand unified theory in the presently cool Universe how can we even begin to grasp the grand unified theory of the chaotic first moments described through the lens of Scientific materialism? Due to the equilibrium arrived at in the first few minutes of the Universe it was later possible for lighter elements like H and He to appear, a necessary ingredient for the first stars to forge, in whose furnace these light elements would be transmuted into heavier elements that would be necessary for planets to form.

Within the framework of this theory it is also accepted that the timely and precise resolution of these cosmological quantum variables constitute critical factors in what would later become a Universe hospitable to life. It is not unreasonable to wonder if the number of such critical factors are as numerous as the quantum particles potentially bound up in the singularity. In how many ways can everything in the Universe fit neatly into a space smaller then the Planck length? Reasoning from causality would the distribution of potential in the singularity before spontaneity inexorably affect every moment that followed its sudden expansion?

In light of all that was necessary to make this moment possible at first it seems intuitive and self-evident that it is inconceivably improbable for this Universe to materialize in the absence of an intelligent and efficacious Creator. It seems to be that if everything were not precisely mise en place from the very first moment this singularity came to exist, regardless of how it came to exist, then it necessarily follows that this Universe would not exist, and consequently neither would mankind. How could one attempt to calculate the likelihood that this Universe should exist assuming the Scientific cosmology is true? Human limitation and ignorance make this task impossible with any degree of certainty.

A response to theist attempts to construct a lens of probability to examine and scrutinize the unlikelihood that a Universe like this could manifest absent the intelligence and efficacy of a Creator is the argument from the anthropic principle. Much like the moments pervading that of spontaneity, the modus operandi for defending scientific claims breaks down here, with a crude logic that blurs the distinction between the scientific method and philosophy.

The anthropic principle reasons that if the Universe were not tuned in such a way so as to eventually produce a hospitable environment, and life, in spite of its likelihood, it would not be home to life, and therefore there would be no intelligent life to ponder its meaning. Furthermore because there is intelligent life pondering the likelihood that it should exist, it therefore follows that the probability of the Universe being perfectly tuned to eventually host and give birth to life is certain, and consequently there is no need to infer whether the coinciding fortuity of the Universe is a matter of Providence, or likelihood. The anthropic principle begs the question of existences likelihood, and is often presented as such that its significance is conflated with both science and veracity, of which it is demonstrated to be neither.

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

The anthropic principle is a principle that implies we either turn a blind eye and ignore the sheer improbability for the life giving Universe to exist, without a Creator, or we assume the existence of a multi-verse consisting of every possible Universe such that the probability that a Universe such as ours should exist approaches certainty. It is the idea that the Universe is because it is. While this rebuttal to statistical scrutiny of the scientific worldview is presented as sound and valid, it is yet to be shown whether it lends any insight into the question, and challenge, that it allegedly rebutts. This second possibility infinitely regresses into begging the question, like a set that contains all sets, and a cascade of multiverses of multiverses, and how can these multiverses be reasonably accounted for, etc, ad on infinitum. As such this premise can be dismissed as a paradox leading to logical absurdity, and as such as beyond our intellectual grasp. Consequently it doesn't appear that the anthropic principle addresses the contention that is in question which is the theoretical degree of unlikelihood that this Universe should exist, in the absence of an intelligent and efficacious Creator. Essentially the argument from the anthropic principle proves useless spare it's value as a thought experiment for some obscure purpose.

This anthropic principle is deceptively clever, and lest fall into the snare of its fallacy, it is important to better understand. The challenge originally presented by theists is that due to the volume of critical factors assumed to be perquisite for the Universe to be hospitable and host to complex, biodiverse, and intelligent life, as derived from the theories of cosmogenesis and biogenesis presented in the worldview of scientific materialism, that the likelihood and actuality that this particular Universe should emerge from a matrix of all possible universes, and to do so without intended cause, is a likelihood that approaches a probability of zero. While an infinitesimally minute likelihood would be reasonable to hypothesize, and even though it may seem self-evident, an honest estimation of the situation that these probabilities are beyond the ability to be calculated meaningfully according to mankind’s present knowledge or capability. It seems this is a contention left for the future to resolve.

Regardless of what probabilities can be naturally and objectively deerived and calculated to lend support for evidence of design, it seems an undeniably peculiar thing for a Universe hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause. Imagine standing on our interdimensional Einstein-Rosen bridge watching this happen holographically from hyperspace, and observing the entire history of the Universe described in the theories of the physical sciences unfold before your eyes in minutes. Visualize this. Now suppose you knew nothing about the scientific theories of cosmogenesis, theoretical astrophysics or quantum physics. Is this imaginary holohistory birth and life of the Universe viscerally something that can be accepted in your intellect as a marvel that is explained sufficiently as nothing more than a mundane anomaly without need or recourse as to its cause, or that it is the product of intent? In a materialistic Universe causality would demand that the big bang had a cause, but what of intent?

If the Universe were created with intent we would expect to find something extraordinary like life intelligent enough to ponder its meaning and purpose. The very existence of questions of meaning and purpose, questions which transcend nations and empires, and are pervasive in the quest for gnosis and truth as detailed throughout time in the worlds various philosophies, religions, cultures, and worldviews
.
The inherent question posed and hunted by the various disciplines of physical science is “how does the Universe work?” Is it evident that questions about how the Universe works are inextricably bound up with the question of why it works at all. The question of how physical systems work is answered roughly by the physical sciences/ The question of why the physical systems of the Universe work could hypothetically be approached by identifying that which the system effetively accomplishes. Both questions of how and why continge on the intent, intelligence, and efficacy(potency) of a Creator.

It seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, or in digital models, as the physical sciences describe it, it is inevitable to arrive at the observation that the Universe science describes reeks of efficacy and the appearance of design. Is there a standard of measure by which to define an appearance of design, in order to better approach the question of whether that physical system was designed, or not? By examining how complex systems we know to be designed work, systems like industrialist machinery or computers for example, it seems possible to derive a list of attributes that accompany a system that is intelligently designed. Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life. If a black box were analyzed to determine whether it is a naturally occurring system, or if it is the product of purpose and design, the probability that the blackbox in question is designed increases rapidly in the evidence of each coinciding characteristics. It should be evident that the Universe described in the worldview of the physical sciences abounds with evidences of these very characteristics of complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Why then should it be some sort of scandalous idea to seriously press the issue that the Universe appears to be designed, and attempt to explore any implications which may follow?

Any student of biology can appreciate just how complex, intricate, interconnected, interdependent, efficient, efficacious, and ruggedly fragile life, in all its diversity, is, even down to the microscopic level. Are these characteristics not some of the very fingerprints that one would expect to find about a thing that is designed with intent, and created with purpose? The organic physical systems that comprise life are not alone in this distinction. The mechanisms of the 'inanimate' physical systems of the Universe described by science are accompanied by these very same characteristics, and in every nook and cranny of existence that science peers.

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

To cling stubbornly to the anthropic principle in response to what was originally posited as a seemingly reasonable conjecture inspired by an honest examination of the scientific facts, suggests an inherent bias in institutional science that risks undermining its conclusions, and clouding the lens through which it discerns that which is the truth and matter of things. Why should the discerning mind loathe to consider higher questions inspired by that discipline of human inquiry which is so highly regarded? Why does science find it repulsive for its discoveries to illuminate greater meaning in life, or lend its evidences as weight in favor of the existence of anything that might suggest a Creator God,or metaphysical reality? Is this aversion to approaching the timeless questions of life and God inextricably entwined to the notion of intelligence in contemporary western thought? An eclectic approach grounded in contemporary epistemic history suggests that this institutional bias seems to exist as a potentially maladaptive artifact, and stubborn vestige, of the struggle for recognition as societies accepted epistemic authority. These are questions that science as an institution will need to ask of itself if it is to avoid epistemic deemphasis in the future at the hand of the marvelous mysteries it helped discover and unravel.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Seems like a giant and laborious argument from ignorance...

'We don't know X, therefore a creator (Jesus)'

If there were any evidence of anything that was not material, science would be all over it like white on rice. But there isn't any such evidence and so there's nothing to investigate.

Creationists often attempt to imply some kind of scientific conspiracy as to why their claims are not taken seriously by mainstream science, despite them failing to proving any evidence outside of their chosen religious scripture.

That's intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 

Yes, it was picked apart in another thread.

It sure didn't need to be reposted.




top topics



 
22
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join