Evolution vs.Creation End of discussion

Originally posted by randyvs
The only thing science can prove is science. That is the total futility of any discussion

Science isn't a thing, it's a way of thinking and judging the validity of a theory through empirical evidence, that is to say evidence that is non subjective as opposed to basing conclusions on personal theory and conjecture.

Science does not mean men in white coats with test tubes in labs

Here is the Emperical cycle

Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypotheses.
Induction: Formulating hypotheses.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypotheses as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypotheses with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing.

This can be applied to god as much as anything else, unfortunately there is not enough empirical data to even form a hypothesis from

The reason people say that the scientific method has no bearing on the existence of God is that belief in god usually relies on faith i.e. believing without evidence and in this sense scientific thinking does indeed hold no sway at all, neither do logic, critical thinking or any other kind of deductive reasoning.

reply to post by randyvs

In response to the OP and other comments by randyvs:

I don't see any "end of the discussion" here.

Both science and theology (or religion) originate in the 3-dimensional 'curved' space consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'. Thus, conflicts between theology and science are conflicts at merely the horizontal level.

What is involved here, however, is a vertical conflict between dimensions of consciousness; that is, a conflict between the 2-dimensional 'flat' space "observing consciousness" (of the Buddhist and Eastern esoteric traditions) Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27) of the monotheistic Revelations, and the dualistic consciousness (of the Buddhist and Eastern and Western esoteric traditions) or the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' of Western psychology and psychiatry.

This 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is symbolized as, respectively, the "beast of the sea" in Revelations 13:1 and the "beast of the earth" in Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Quran.

And, according to Krishnamurti, the dualistic consciousness is the very orign of conflict, violence, bloodshed and genocide; although he makes the mistake of assuming that the duality originates in thought; when, in fact, it originates in the 'movement' of self-reflection symbolized by the "primeval serpent" in Genesis 3 and the "dragon" in Revelations 12:9. See, also, Kierkegaard's definition of the "self" in The Sickness Unto Death.

Michael

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by randyvs

 

Evolution vs.Creation End of discussion

Let's see... you create a thread and by the very title, declare the end of the discussion. The thread is DOA.

Do you see something wrong here?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by redoubt

 

Do you see something wrong here?

As a matter of fact there is something wrong with you putting to much on anything I declare. Even secondly I believe you must of missed the line, "as far as I'm concerned". You shouldn't strain yourself looking for something to critisize.

You totally missed the point of his post. Your topic refers to a discussion between two things that have nothing in common. So you could have written "The end of all discussions on apples vs. hippos", and it would have made just as much sense.

I do get your point though, but clearly, since you obviously have no grasp of the topics of which you refer to, the point of this thread is meaningless.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

I do get your point though, but clearly, since you obviously have no grasp of the topics of which you refer to, the point of this thread is meaningless

The point of the thread is very simple. We can all be certain these discussions won't end. The fact that they should end is obvious seeing that nothing is acheived in any of these endeavors. Point.. not meaningless.

reply to post by randyvs


Randy, I believe these discussions and your steadfastness do make a difference for the better....its just often not in realtime....your wise posts are a record my friend....that folks will refer to time after time....it is providential!

Originally posted by davespanners
This can be applied to god as much as anything else, unfortunately there is not enough empirical data to even form a hypothesis from

The reason people say that the scientific method has no bearing on the existence of God is that belief in god usually relies on faith i.e. believing without evidence and in this sense scientific thinking does indeed hold no sway at all, neither do logic, critical thinking or any other kind of deductive reasoning.

hmm???

Dave, have you seen this evidence? www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by randyvs


There are 2 types of “Science”….

a. The Science of “the human primate”… The human Interpretation.
And…
b. The Science of LIFE or “Awareness” used to Create.

Both are based on “Concepts”.

a. The Concepts of “the human Primate”.
And…
b. The Concepts of LIFE or “Awareness”.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by davespanners
This can be applied to god as much as anything else, unfortunately there is not enough empirical data to even form a hypothesis from

The reason people say that the scientific method has no bearing on the existence of God is that belief in god usually relies on faith i.e. believing without evidence and in this sense scientific thinking does indeed hold no sway at all, neither do logic, critical thinking or any other kind of deductive reasoning.

hmm???

Dave, have you seen this evidence? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ah, trying to advertise your threads again, eh OT?
Need more stars and flags mate?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Well I'm glad there won't be any more of this evolution vs creationism nonsense.
But that just means you're going to focus alot harder on atheists, doesn't it?

I swear, if that isn't one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen out of you chippo.

You should lighten up more often. Have I ever tried anywhere that you know of to convert anyone?
The answer is no, cause I have never done that period. You crack me up with all this worrying.
Ease up.

Yes, multiple times.
If I recall you once played out a scenario where dead atheists were being woken up with the sound of a trumpet.
The entire thread was nothing but scripture.

Either way, I'm glad you're ok with evolution now.

reply to post by randyvs


There are areas in which religion and science do conflict but there need not be. Truthfully the discussion is already over as far as most actual scientists are concerned. There is no controversy amongst the scientific community whether a scientist is a theist or an atheist there is a consensus that Evolution is a sound and well-established theory. Those that spend their time debating Creationists do so mainly to clear up misconceptions that the public might have.

One of my biggest peeves with Evolution is that it is presented very poorly to the public. It is no wonder so many Creationists scoff at the idea of Evolution when they compare it to the beliefs they were brought up with. Even some science text books only gloss over what Evolution is and why it is so widely accepted. When I was a kid I was confused by the fact that scientists said the dinosaurs were wiped out, "How could they have evolved into birds if they all died" I wondered. So I think a lot of work needs to be done to help better present evolutionary science to the masses. We can't have kids growing up thinking that Charmander into Charmeleon is a text book case of Evolution.

When religion makes a claim that is falsifiable, such as claims that prayer works, it is okay to go ahead and test. But you are right in saying that the concept of God itself is out of science's purview, assuming of course this God exists outside the natural realm.

Evolution and theism can and do co-exist perfectly well.

Of course Creationists won't accept that and that's the problem with putting myth in place of truth. They forget that their God isn't merely a book and that a book can be wrong without their God being wrong. Here's some visual aids from my blog that illustrate my point.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79bf2080719.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37f2c294798a.jpg[/atsimg]

Thumbs up Randy

reply to post by randyvs


WTF..?!?


Randy...I was just about to U2U that I FOUND GOD today and now see the light..! We were gonna sing and dance together and recite verses from the good book...


Now look what you have done...

Did anyone notice that the translation of Genesis at
www.thechronicleproject.org...
actually agrees with science.

It says on page one of the Chronicle (Genesis) and the Earth HAD existed for a long time without attention.

The actual Hebrew agrees with science that the Earth is much older. Maybe the PTB have had the translations screwed up on purpose to keep both sides fighting. Together we might have actually seen what they were doing.

reply to post by shoulda taken the blue pi

The actual Hebrew agrees with science that the Earth is much older. Maybe the PTB have had the translations screwed up on purpose to keep both sides fighting. Together we might have actually seen what they were doing.

Holy! What the, Finally somebody nails it. This has been one of my main points for sp long I almost forgot about
it. I've tried to make people see this in all sorts of ways. Then you just step up and casually post it!
Flaws in the Bible are still tuff for me but yes we are divided for a reason. Control. good post.

Titen

There are areas in which religion and science do conflict but there need not be. Truthfully the discussion is already over as far as most actual scientists are concerned. There is no controversy amongst the scientific community whether a scientist is a theist or an atheist there is a consensus that Evolution is a sound and well-established theory. Those that spend their time debating Creationists do so mainly to clear up misconceptions that the public might have.

I'm going to be an observer from now on I think. as far as these discussions go. I'm sure you know Titen my
beliefs are still in tact. I have you and quite a few others to thank for my better understanding of evolution.
Prolly why the thread. Thank you for another great reply. I really appreciate your time.
Considering my obvious lack of Academic skill, I often struggle with what I'm trying to convey and it has to be trying sometimes.

Facelift

Now look what you have done...

Well as far as what I believe Face nothing has changed. How do I get to your house?

Chippo

If I recall you once played out a scenario where dead atheists were being woken up with the sound of a trumpet

Ok Ok but as far as actually trying to convert any one person?


OT

Randy, I believe these discussions and your steadfastness do make a difference for the better....its just often not in realtime....your wise posts are a record my friend....that folks will refer to time after time....it is providential!

Not to worry OT I still mean every post in the context in which it was written.
I think I needed to have a lot more respect for Scientists and all the work they do.
I've grown and there's room for more even for my belief in God. I certainly don't know all there is to know about anything.

Any way like Chippo pointed out now I can concentrate on the Atheists

reply to post by shoulda taken the blue pi


Actual Hebrew? You do know the Christian Bible was written in Greek and then Latin. The Talmud however has never been changed.Torah Your site is the same thing the Mormon church and Islam tries to present. This religious text is wrong and here is the correct text.

reply to post by randyvs



Randy, I'd just like to say I'm glad to see that your opening your mind to new idea's Unlike some OTHER poster's who simply use this forum to force their belief's down others throats.

Whats that Hebrews quote " Faith is the substance of things" I like that, .... because even they knew it back then, .... it means reality is perception. The computer screen exists in front of you because you "know" it's there. Reality is dependant on the observer. anyway, i dont want to ramble away.

But the bible isn't the end all, be all of everything. It is many men's interpretations of what "is". A church is not made of stone and brick, it is within us Randy.

I know its too late for many to alter their beliefs, ... because religions are the glue which hold their life's together, friends, family, .... they use religion as a social device.

Use it as it serves you my friend. But it is a miniscule misinterpreted fraction of what god is, ..... god cannot walk through closed doors, ..... or closed minds.

So keep it open Randy, my friend, .... and he may just end up finding you.

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


Stella I'm just gonna say one thing in reply to your post. And not direct it at anyone.

God! There are some great minds on this site.

reply to post by randyvs


Off topic! You live in Apple Valley right? Are there a lot of apples there or is that just the name of the city you live in?

reply to post by randyvs


Thank You Randy,

You are a fine representative for Christians everywhere.

I was a Christian for many years, did I ever tell you that ?? I grew up in a strict christian household, went to church probably 4 times a week, ... twice on Sunday, it was everything I knew.

Then ..... I woke up. But I know where many christians minds are at.

I extended an offer to OldThinker, and I'd like to extend it to you as well, ..... if you two would ever like to talk relgion, evolution, .... or of the true creator, ..... we can talk it up in chat. Many of us are in skype as well.

It would be .... enlightening

I was told this once and i believe it to very relevant to this discussion. When it comes to science and god we can't disprove god, but that's no reason to believe, but by the very nature of the arguemnt, we can't say we know it's not true - there's just no reason to think that it is. Saying that we know it's not true is unscientific because you're saying something you just cannot prove.

Since there's no positive evidence for a god, thinking of ways that it could, or would exist is like asking how much nothingness fits inside a box. 0 is like god, it doesn't have a useable form, you can't show with math, how much 0 space fits inside a box, and you can't show with science how a being with no positive evidence exists

Originally posted by andre18
I was told this once and i believe it to very relevant to this discussion. When it comes to science and god we can't disprove god, but that's no reason to believe, but by the very nature of the arguemnt, we can't say we know it's not true - there's just no reason to think that it is. Saying that we know it's not true is unscientific because you're saying something you just cannot prove.

Since there's no positive evidence for a god, thinking of ways that it could, or would exist is like asking how much nothingness fits inside a box. 0 is like god, it doesn't have a useable form, you can't show with math, how much 0 space fits inside a box, and you can't show with science how a being with no positive evidence exists

Science has it's empirical evidence. What about other evidences. Do people have visions? There is a wide range
of evidence that science can't begin to grasp. What is one persons evidence may be anothers lunacy.
Evidence isn't solid state in every form. I have my own evidence of God that others may think is silly.
I understand that at least to a point of ridicule. Then again it didn't happen to them. You see?

Romantic
Ya I'm in Apple Valley Ca. No it 's not a valley of apples. Who ever named it I think was apphole.
It's a wasteland pretty much. High Desert. 50 billion rocks. Calico ghost town 1/2 an hour north.
I didn't hate when I got here but I'm learning.