Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by IamJoseph, Jul 26, 2010.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I don't understand what you mean by Catholics making "the Creator a cursory afterthought". Also, what do you mean by "Their only interest is manipulating everything to align it with the Gospels". Can you dilate on these a bit?
You may or may not have been Catholic, but nonetheless, my botany textbook stated that Charles Darwin "to his death believed in a Divine Creator". I believe that evolution is how we got here, and God is why we are here. Neither the scientific community nor the Church has any rules against that. Remember, Catholics are NOT fundamentalists.
Christians, although their belief is genuine - as is all humanity's beliefs - appears to not be able to believe in the creator without referring to a local figurehead it sees as the one and all. This even when christianinity sees its lord as a son - the father is still never in the radar and hardly ever mentioned.
This syndrome of forgetting/casting away the father of creation is seen all over the place - even in the trinity and the fullfilling away of the world's most majestic laws. In a sense the doctrines of the Gospels have put christians in a straight jacket and emersed them in quicksand - its like if they address the father they cannot maintain ther beliefs anymore. But because christians have taken on board the Hebrew bible - there is an obligation to remind them to remember the ONE Creator without embellishments.
Its as if I am saying some terrible here but really the reverse applies - the antithetical position of the first two laws of the 10C's is what severed Christianity from its mother religion, as well as from logic, science, history, geography and math. It is perhaps the greatest enigma in human history how such a situation could ever result, notwithstanding it became the world's greatest religion. I blame Rome and the Hellenists for the Gospels - it could never have emerged from Jews in a pink fit. And no Christian will accept this - same as no Muslim will accept anything said by Christianity: this alone says at least one of these big fat belief systems numbering in the Billion is 100% wrong. Chaos encounters of the first kind? :shrug:
There are millions of Christians who see Isaiah as great only because they thought it connected with the Gospels. This is true even after a host of great christian scholars finally agreed this is a totally misrepresented and manipulated distortion. What does it say of the gospel writers? :shrug:
You are correct. Evolution is nothing more than the wiring in a construct of creation, and evolution was introduced to humanity in its correct protocol and placement not by Darwin but in Genesis. Darwin merely saw these forces at work and shouted Eureka - no Creator! That is like saying a car's manual proves there is no car maker. Does not the reverse apply!?
Darwin totally [stupidly!] even ignored the seed factor and the critical seperation of the elements [listed in Genesis] as the pre-requisite anticipatory factors which made life possible. As if evolution can subsist without those factors! :shrug:
Thank you for explaining. Please follow thislink (read section 64)
If you want to talk specifically about evolution then all you need are 3 rules (or functions if you prefer):
1) Replication of the selected with inheritance
2) Variation with replication
3) Selection of the variation with competition
Note that Variation does not have to be random variation, it can be deterministic variation and that Selection does not have to be from within the system, but can be imposed from outside the system (this is usually called artificial selection as opposed to natural selection).
These 3 very simple rules are all that is needed to produce evolution. These 3 rules can be encoded into a Turing Machine. Turing machines are an abstract concept that mathematically encapsulate certain functions. As long as the hardware they are implemented on can perform those functions, then any combination of those functions (algorithm) is allowed.
This means that Turing machines are "hardware independent" and that if two turning machines can perform the same basic functions, than an algorithm designed for one of them can be (with some degree of modification) be adapted to run on the other.
So all that is needed to prove evolution must be true is to show that living systems can perform the 3 functions needed for evolution and that they are arranged in the correct algorithm.
- Do living systems replicate with inheritance: yes
- Do living systems have variation from generation to generation: yes
- Do living systems show selection with competition: yes
- Do these functions exist in the correct order to create the algorithm: yes.
In other words: Evolution of living systems is a mathematical fact.
It can also be mathematically shown that the algorithm of evolution has the property of complexity from simple systems (ie: the 3 rules in that algorithm).
For an interesting example of a universal Turing machine, see Conway's Game of Life
Yes, and Newton totally and stupidly ignored the cause of gravity, instead saying he had no explanation for it.
It's a good thing there are people like you around to point out the flaws...
Fascinatingly bizarre. Could you go over this without reference to evolution so I'm not logically obligated to verbally kick you in the balls?
No. I recommend The Blind Watchmaker.
"Elements"? As in the Grecian?
Conflicts Between Science and Religion
Mod Hat - Inquiry
Mod Hat — Inquiry
An admirable suggestion. I'm having a hard time figuring if this thread is going anywhere. So far, it seems to be a battle between unyielding supestition and imperfect, incomplete science.
As the science itself is incomplete and at least slightly imperfect, and the superstition a fairly comfortable position from which one need not put forth any genuine effort, but, rather, simply grasp after whatever random suggestions happen to drift by, the discussion seems more an exercise in the futility of personal satisfaction.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Thus, a general question: Is this thread actually going anywhere?
What you have is what I call ignorance. You are ignorant to the facts.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Lock it. Its annoying. I hate creationism.
Do you hate a car which has a car maker too? I hate cars which have popped out of magic, myself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No! It has merely served as a platform for IamJoseph's crackpot woo-woo nonsense. I vote 'Cess & lock'.
Its going nowhere. Because those who cannot prove how a finite universe just popped up - are upset at those who don't accept that a finite universe can just pop up. Subsequently, those who cannot prove how a finite universe can just pop up - are upset at those who cannot prove how a finite universe cannot just pop up.
I say, science does not apply here - becase from a scientific POV a finite realm cannot be based on any scientific principles. In this case, where none can prove either of their cases - the sound premise must apply:
Until you can prove how a finite realm can just pop up, the CAUSE & EFFECT factor of creationism wins. Call it a surprise, unpopular win if you like. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pure drivel. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is a logical fallacy.
See [enc]false dichotomy[/enc].
Obviously, there are other alternatives to 1. The universe "just popped up" and 2. "There's a supernatural, all-powerful God who created the universe".
The treatise on the universe's origins should correctly open with a declaration the uni is either finite or infinite. Of note this is the opening in Genesis, its bold and challenging sock-it-to-em there was a BEGINNING. And you sir? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Willing and able to recieve thy enlightenment. Spit it out!
There is no evidence that the universe is finite.
Separate names with a comma.