The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

reply to post by letmeDANz


if aliens created us, the aliens would still need a creator as well. Everything that exists must do so through participation in existence, whatever that is, that is the essence which makes all things come into being. When you do some research you find that this existence is singular and unified.

reply to post by DrChuck


"and then there macro-evolution, where monkeys are men and vice versa"

...what? macroevolution includes changes that occur over such a vast period of time that, by the time the changes are complete, the resulting organism is so different from its predecessors that it is considered a new species. Monkeys are not men and men are not monkeys, and there aren't any serious scientists or researchers who would make that claim. The monkeys around today are in no way the creatures we evolved from. We have our own evolutionary path, we used to be humans, now we are different looking humans with bigger brains. It's really a simple concept, just on a grand scale. I don't see why people are so quick to dismiss macroevolution with "I ain't no goldurn monkey!" Is that what you're saying?

I would say the big problem with the idea of creationism is that material science can neither affirm not deny that which is immaterial.

reply to post by filosophia


This 'you' on another plane, can you locate it?
Things, such as hand movements happen the same as clouds passing.

reply to post by filosophia


Philosophy is proof of God? nope. not proof. I'm not saying that faith and religion NEED proof either. but you can't offer philosophical writings as proof of anything. that's like saying channeled visions are proof or Atlantis or ETs. I'm not saying that I don't BELIEVE in channeling, or God for that matter, I'm just saying that there is no way to prove it. Also, just because someone didn't have the same interpretation of texts or scriptures as you doesn't mean they didn't read it. After almost ten years of study into world religion and philosophy, the only thing I've learned with any certainty is that everyone has their own interpretations. What you see as proof, I see as conjecture.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

This 'you' on another plane, can you locate it?
Things, such as hand movements happen the same as clouds passing.

The you is not localized, it is simply the focal point of your consciousness.

I can make my hands move in front of my eyes, but when a cloud moves past me that is not my working. The cloud is coincides with the moving of my hand, but my hand is being caused by my own will, whereas the cloud is not.

It's all in Boethius, consolation of philosophy.

reply to post by filosophia


The hand moves and a voice says i moved my hand but did it just happen and a little voice was then heard saying i moved my hand.
The watcher of the movie, watches the little character that thinks it's a individual person, in a big scary world.
One day the individual person somehow realizes and instantly disintegrates.
All that is left is this.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Can Science Know the Mind of God? (YES)

" With truth, understanding, and reason in the balance, UC Berkeley's Phillip Johnson makes a persuasive case for the reality of the mind of God arguing against the naive idea that all reality can be explained in terms of purely physical and material causes. His lecture is thought-provoking.
Series: "Focus on Origins" [3/2002] [Humanities] [Show ID: 6290]"

reply to post by filosophia


ah, but here's the problem; how do you know that when you move your hand, you're doing it all by yourself? Couldn't the very idea of moving your hand, the phenomenon you use as proof of your own autonomy, have been placed there by an outside actor? by "the dreamer?" We assume that because we decided to move our hand, the decision was ultimately ours. The cloud drifting by is blown by the wind which is caused by the earth's rotation which is caused by... see? How do we know that the idea of moving your hand started with you? in your own brain? each and every one of our actions could be produced by a similar effect to the cloud being blown in the wind. the cloud may think that it is going where it pleases, when it is actually being strictly controlled by the forces acting upon it.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by filosophia

 

Philosophy is proof of God? nope. not proof.

Just because you say two negatives back to back doesn't make it any more convincing. If you tried to explain quantum physics to me and I said "nope, not proof" you'd probably just say I was ignorant and didn't understand, rather than it not being true.

I'm not saying that faith and religion NEED proof either.

You must have been talking to someone else because I didn't once mention religion or faith, I know it's hard to believe but I'm not Christian.

but you can't offer philosophical writings as proof of anything.

Actually, I can, it's up to you to believe it though. I can offer up a snail as proof of comic books.

that's like saying channeled visions are proof or Atlantis or ETs.

True, but the vision of God is a singular light, not something complicated and subject to misinterpretation.

I'm not saying that I don't BELIEVE in channeling, or God for that matter, I'm just saying that there is no way to prove it.

Proof is for you to find, not for me to give you.

Also, just because someone didn't have the same interpretation of texts or scriptures as you doesn't mean they didn't read it.

Have you read Boethius, consolation of philosophy?

After almost ten years of study into world religion and philosophy, the only thing I've learned with any certainty is that everyone has their own interpretations.

Hmm...ten years? Did you include Hinduism: The Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads in that study? I learned the truth of religions in just a few years with those books.

What you see as proof, I see as conjecture.

What you see as disproof, I see as lack of knowledge (on your part). If maybe you'd talk about some of the philosophers I mentioned, Plotinus or Boethius, Buddhism even, then maybe I will be convinced you actually know what I'm talking about.

reply to post by RicoMarston


It's funny, so funny. Cause it's true. I like the bit about the cloud thinking he is in control and he has defiantly decided he wants to go in that direction.
Nothing is ever interdependent, separate. If it ever becomes popular belief they won't be able to lock anyone up anymore for crime.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

The hand moves and a voice says i moved my hand but did it just happen and a little voice was then heard saying i moved my hand.

Well, this seems like an easy experiment to try. Try it with me: put your hand in front of you, close it in a fist and then out again, do it repeatedly. Stop whenever you feel like stopping, if you can stop of your own power, you are causing it, if you can't then you are not controlling it. I can stop and start whenever I choose. But the wind (and it is windy today) I can not stop, meaning I can not control it.

reply to post by filosophia


Are you also beating your heart, pumping blood through you body, digesting your food? It is all being done, there is nothing that is not being done. But it is being done by no one. No person is doing it.
Try this experiment, if you are the one in control, then stop doing it.
If you ask stop what, then, my answer would be, anything that you would like to stop.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by filosophia

 

ah, but here's the problem; how do you know that when you move your hand, you're doing it all by yourself? Couldn't the very idea of moving your hand, the phenomenon you use as proof of your own autonomy, have been placed there by an outside actor? by "the dreamer?" We assume that because we decided to move our hand, the decision was ultimately ours. The cloud drifting by is blown by the wind which is caused by the earth's rotation which is caused by... see? How do we know that the idea of moving your hand started with you? in your own brain? each and every one of our actions could be produced by a similar effect to the cloud being blown in the wind. the cloud may think that it is going where it pleases, when it is actually being strictly controlled by the forces acting upon it.

The dreamer is moving his hand, only the words "hand" "movement" "dreamer" are generic, they could mean anything. If we were speaking spanish, we would use different words for hand (mano?) but the fact would remain, the dreamer is controlling the hand, regardless of the language spoken. You see, I can't prove to you that you can move your hand, I only know that I can move my hand. If you can't, I feel sorry for you, but I can move my hand and I am assuming you can as well. If you can move your hand, at will, and you can pick up things, then it is not just in your mind, but in a physical reality, but there is a mind, the mind that sees the hand moving, that is self-conscious but also aware intellectually enough to ask, "Am I really moving the hand?" But the real question is "Did I just ask that question?"

Consciousness is best described by Buddhism as a collection of points of awareness, connected together into what appears as a dream or an illusion, but the connectivity is the important part to focus on, because otherwise the dreams would be totally random and chaotic. Nothing happens without a reason behind it: things fall because of gravity, people act out of desires, and countries migrate because of political problems. All these things have a reason behind them. When you move your hand, it has a reason, either caused by you or some outside influence, a lot of times people are controlled by an outside influence, but that doesn't mean the will is negated, at best there is a 'war' going on between your will and foreign influence, influence that affects your sovereignty, but it's still your will. Not everyone has the same will, some people have very limited freedom, others have great amounts of freedom, some people spend their life in jail but still live a happy life, while others live in mansions but are miserable with every little thing. Happiness is not material, it is a gift from within, it is knowledge that only the mind and intellect can comprehend. At best, the hand moves but it means very little to the mind which is immaterial and never moves, and thus never worries if something else is controlling it.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

Are you also beating your heart, pumping blood through you body, digesting your food? It is all being done, there is nothing that is not being done. But it is being done by no one. No person is doing it.

The heart is different, it is an unconscious organ, like digestion. The heart is the unconscious physical operations that keep the body (the illusion) alive. The heart is not conscious. Or at least if the heart is conscious, strange enough to imagine, we are not conscious of it, unless you think you have a conversation with your heart. The heart is thought more as a spirit, the spirit which has divinity in it, which is the center of the body. The heart is you, but your spiritual self, which is why you do not control it but at the same time it is the "heart" (pun intended) of your being. But the heart does not come from itself, it comes from a parent, so the heart is not in any way immortal, it only resembles immortality (An Emulation of the divine, as all things emulate the divine in some fashion or another). So there is definitely two things at hand: one being your hand, and the other being your heart, the first is conscious, the second is unconscious, so there is a material and an immaterial, but whereas your heart is just a fraction of the entire system (of the universe, not just your body), the heart is part of the larger unconscious law of the universe. To be conscious of this law is to understand the spirit in your heart, that is your connection to the divine.

reply to post by infojunkie2


...no. That's just silly. Understanding how something came about doesn't mean you can necessarily recreate the process or even create an entirely new process with the same end result. We've got a pretty good idea about how self-sustained nuclear fusion works...yet we're not able to make that happen either.

But we can use the knowledge gained from that understanding. Understanding human evolution helps us understand a lot in medicine. Understanding nuclear fusion...well, we've made bombs with that one.

reply to post by filosophia


In the dream there are hearts and minds and consciousness and unconsciousness. We have conscious hands and unconscious hearts. All of everything, hearts and hands and all the other things that are seen in the dream are only ever made of dream stuff. All appearances within the dream are only ever that - appearances.
The ultimate seer of all the things and events can only ever watch as the drama appears to happen. It has no control, and also the happenings have no meaning. We don't know what moves heaven and earth, but we have no choice to move with it. We can however stand in awe and wonder at the beauty of the patterns.

reply to post by filosophia


Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a kitten.

Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification

Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.

Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.

Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.

8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.

Everything I said is not "new" it is 1500+ year old philosophy and metaphysics,

Fallacy: Argument from tradition.

society has just simply ignored it because it is no longer "mainstream" which is why people have psychological problems: they don't meditate and attune to the higher spirit.

No, people have psychological problems because of chemical imbalances, deformations of the brain, and/or traumatic experiences of both the physical and mental variety.

And it's ignored because it's poppycock.

It also is the reason why religious wars are waged: because people have lost sight of the true God (within).

...last I checked I've got meat and liquids inside of me.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


...no, that's how science works. If an idea has no applicability and no explanatory power then it's not a good scientific idea. Science explains and explanations have utility. The ideas have merit in and of themselves and people initially discover new ideas without any clue of how to apply them...I doubt Darwin had a clue as to how useful his idea was. Creationism is an old idea, if it had any sort of explanatory power or application then it would have been uncovered by now.

Toss the idea, it's useless.

reply to post by DrChuck


What is the barrier between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution (a distinction not found in scientific literature)? Is it speciation? I started a whole thread pointing out instances of that, it should still be on the first page of O&C. Hell, what's the barrier that prevents 'micro' evolution from becoming 'macro'? What's there to stop one from leading to the other?

Oh, and the proof of evolution on the 'macro' scale isn't just in the fossil record, it's primarily in genetics.