Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
IamJoseph:

I'll wait until you respond to the rest of my post before replying. You've only responded to about one third of it so far.
 
I think you have no idea of the difficulties of interstellar space travel. Nor do I think you have much appreciation of the low chance of evolving a technological civilisation.

We cannot search every nook and corner of the universe - but what have you against a first hand poll survey in the known universe - it is the most scientific way possible? We have performed planetary visits, zoomed into billions of miles, peeked into far away galaxies and sent probes: ToE has made no imprints here despite an array of varied invironments at its beck and call. The poll proves that the unknown universe is more like the known than not so. I don't see our mastering of the universe as a low call but an inevitable one. The math says there is no life out there - and I refer to good math.

You're factually and demonstrably wrong about this. We know how and why DNA changes over time. A lot of modern medicine is based on that knowledge. The whole of modern biology is based on that knowledge. We observe directly the modification of DNA all the time, all in the absence of a "program which caters to modification".

Before you use such absolute language, try to focus differently than the usual. Dna does not change anymore than an apple ripens. The change you refer to is factored in the program - else we would not exist beyond the first weather change. With all the majestic engineering in the human body, you are saying it forgot to include any pliability - not even a car maker would build that way. Again, the DNA adapts and allows changes in millions of modes, accumulates this knowledge and passes it on - sort of like an immune system whereby the cells develop new changes - but nothing to do with your invironment. There is a saying: THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IN WISDOM.


In short, when it comes to science you have no idea what you're talking about, as I established back at the start of the thread. You ought to go out and buy yourself a textbook on elementary biology.

Established? - you mean like the UN Resolutions? My science is fine - check if your sweating.




Can't find the answer in Genesis? Oh dear.

I could not even find 'SKUDS' in the Hebrew bible.

So "seed factor" is just your term for spermatazoa and ova? Ok then.

I suspect you are not debating honestly here, as with the blood issue. I said, a seed is an issue of essence from the host, and also gave examples this can be used in manifold ways, including lineage. The term spermatozoa is recent and bears no negative impact here. Now this word spermatozoa is also not seen in the works of Galelio, Newton or Einstein - so what? Tomorrow we may call it squigazoa!


Are you aware that entire biological kingdoms reproduce asexually (i.e. without sperm or ova)? What is their "seed factor"? Do they have one? What does Genesis say about that?

Think of 'essence' if an issue output does not satisfy. Now I see why you have a comprehension problem - or worse.

In fact, what does Genesis have to say about bacteria? How about viruses? Which verses should I look at to learn about viruses?

These factors were introduced in the Hebrew bible. The first recording of malignancy, its id and treatment, along with quarantine, infectious and contagious deseases - are copiously listed in relation to leprosy. Here, medicine, a science faculty, was for the first time seperated from occultism. You surprise me!




Many errors here.

1. Nature is not a fiction. Look out your window. There it is!

I stretched my neck. No nature. You must now nominate what causes things without using the term NATURE - this is a bogey man akin to Zeus.

2. Just because you can't conceive of a process happening without a conscious "director" doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

From a scientific vew, a complex process cannot occur wthout a director. This does not mean we have to prove a director or not - the sound premise prevails. No such thing as effect w/o a cause. Ask yourself what caused a finite universe - which was once not existing. Please don't say the invironment!

Your accusation that I think "nature" is a kind of person is just you projecting your need for a person to "direct" things onto me.

Obviously, I was only stressing the point. Nature is a term used to avoid saying WE DON'T KNOW WHO DONE IT - nothing more. The leap to saying NO ONE DID IT is the most unscientific premise imaginable.

Evolution doesn't require a "director". "Nature" isn't a big man in the sky who "directs".
3. "Natural laws" are not the same as human-made laws. Natural laws describe our knowledge of observed regularities in nature. They do not require a big man in the sky to exist.

Well, at one time nothing contained in this universe existed. Not even nature. How now - where do we go from here? What you call nature can be described as follows from Genesis:

1. FORMLESS WAS CHANGED TO FORM. The introduction of laws you like to call natural laws is what Genesis says, namely first the premise of a law must be introduced - then come the laws. E.g. Can you have wisdom unless the premise of wisdom per se occurs - and do you see how this gets very hedy when a big picture is incorporated? Life cannot exist before the premise of life is first introduced. Life, wisdom and laws never exsted at one time - nothing contained in the universe existed at one time. Can you add 2+ 2 unless the premise of 2 is frst existent?

2. Critical seperation forces of the earth's elements occured before life emerged, according to Genesis. These are forces which will sustain life - and what you call 'nature'. These are critical forces because they interact with forthcoming life and vice versa. They are produced especially for life on this planet, forming an invironment which can support life. Imagine if the invironment was too hot like in Mercury: a ToE'ist will say that's why life does not exist in Merculy - instead of saying life exists on this planet because of those critical actions nominated in genesis. Do you see the difference here?



4. Your assumption that evolution has no cause and effect is in contradiction to your claim that it says that environmental factors are a cause. You can't have it both ways. Do you think evolution posits a "cause" or process, or not?

I see evolution as an effect of a directive program. Like growth when we eat. I don't see food as the causation factor for life.


Yes, and you're still living back in that world. You claim a deity controls the wind and the "seed factors", don't you?

My science says a finite universe must have a universe maker. I don't use words such as deities, whch appears your own issue with religions - this became obsolete with Monotheism - the greatest scientific equation of all. We cannot describe a supreme being/entity which transcends and predates the universe - but we darn well cannot say there is no one and nothing behind the universe - that is not science nor evolution. You easily subscribe to jitterbugging quarks and strong easterly winds as your creator without any qualms - but go balistic at the thought of a Creator as envisioned by Abraham - how did that happen?



So let's clarify: do you believe that genetic drift occurs? Yes or no?

Certainly we see flowers comitting cross pollination - but this is not nature - it is a directive program which allows this facility. We see different life forms behaving differently - and it cannot be allocated to nature or the invironment. We can identify dfferent dna structures - we see a human has a thumb and a chimp does not, and when we learn to read the dna imprints better, we will find the reason for these variations in life forms - inside the life and not in the rainbows. This is how I see it, at least in that there is no credence in ToE's nature and invironment deities.

Oh. My mistake. Please cite the verses where the words "program" and "factor" appear in Genesis.

Program directive: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'

Action result: "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind"

The above is superlative science, not religious myth. Darwin saw this in action, was able to observe some links in the process, then shouted Eureka! No Creator! No car maker! Darwin never stopped to ask, what makes grass grow as grass, herb as herb - nor whether this has anything to do with the seed. This clear embarrassment caused neo ToE'ists to proclaim its the invironment that done it - because they cannot align with 'seed' - a forbidden religious jargon, right? This is all that happened!


Your first sentence here is a clear lie. Do you want me to go back and find the post where I carefully explained to you why we don't see chimps turning into humans every second?

I don't want to trouble you - or embarrass you. My math is excellent. If evolution is an on-going process, even if it moves at a pace of a nano-cm per 10,000,000 years [the usual bogus answer] - we would still be able to see and witness its evolutionary changes. Because every second of that period will have an adjacent one beside it in an on-going basis. The time factor has no impact on an on-going process. This, and the speech factr, is an insurmountable achiles heel for ToE - even the staunchest supporters of ToE have admitted this.

If I do waste my time finding that post, will you apologise and bow out of this argument?

Absolutely. And I will be totally honest with you also, without any manipulation.

I should also mention again that no chimp ever turned into a human being. That's a basic Creationist mistake you're making, even after I explained to you in detail why it is a mistake.

Fine, I will factor this in. My response applies also to any changes of any kind - they will at all times be observable with no effect of the time factor.


"The history of the alphabet started in ancient Egypt. By 2700 BCE Egyptian writing had a set of some 24 hieroglyphs ..."

I referred to alphabetical books. You win if you can produce one older than the Hebrew. Note that the book of the dead is not a book [continueing, multi-page narrative], and it is also not alphabetical or historical.

I will check this link and show you its errors.

Please cite the verses of Genesis where the word "species" appears.

Species is a recent term. Its original source word is KINDS [introduced in Genesis], which refers to life form groupings and sub-groupings with its groups, and can be allocated by various criteria. While genesis nominates the most fundamental and foremost criteria observable by all generations - by terrain, ToE does this via skeletal and gene imprints.

One example:

"Thou shalt not jay-walk across the street, but thou mayst lawfully use a pedestrian crossing."

That's an extention of a law [safety parapets; no hole in the ground; owner is liable if his house is not safe; etc], which occurs with passing generations. There are millions of such safety laws. We need not become desperate and render the issue of laws as a mockery and trivia. One day such signs will appear on Mars - beware of martians.

I seem to remember some statement in the Gospels by this guy called Jesus who talked about the greatest commandment (law). Have you read any of the Gospels?

No laws cometh from the Gospels. And no Hebrew laws were successfully fulfilled away. Believe it!

The Qur'an contains many laws. Have you read any of the Qur'an?

Not a oner. A law is not what a christian or muslim follows - it must be seen to be enshrined in institutions and the judiciaries which are not christian or muslim. Laws do not require names - they stand pristine on their own if they have merit. Its like science and history.



Consider this question: who was the first member of your family?

A dual gendered human called Adam, circa 6000 years ago - the first recording of a name, and the reason we have no predating name. Amazing, no!

Was it you? Your father? Your mother? Your grandfather? Your material grandmother? Your great great great great grandmother?

There must have been a first member of your family. How can there not be? The reverse argument says that many of your family "just emerged".

Genesis says the first of any life frm was dual gendered. No alternatives here.

An apple on a tree turns from green to red as it ripens. Does Genesis say that the apple original had the red somewhere inside it? It must have in order to turn red. Right?

Its not the invironment, but the stuff inside the apple which allows it to turn red. The invironment does not change green things to red things. Genesis is correct - a female and/or a male can only emerge if the host is a combo of both - as in the egg which has combined with the male sperm. But the first original was a duality: there was no other to combine with! The offspring inherits the duality trait and can reproduce either of those genders.




So God created a hermaphrodite zebra originally, did he? Did it mate with itself to produce male and female, or did God take a rib from a male and create a female?

It possessed both genders. Then it seperated. How else?

The translated word for rib does not mean rib, and there was no apple in the garden.


Bizarre. Do other Creationists believe this, too, or just you?

Why bizarre - the text actually says so! No need to question the reader who happens to agree with the logic.


Zebras can't breed with horses and produce offspring that can themselves reproduce.

Correct - each follows its own kind, as per the data inherited in the seed. [Genesis].

Why not, if they are both the same species? Does Genesis explain that?

Comprehension issue here. The term 'each' agrees there are sub-groups within each group. [Genesis].


By the way, you shouldn't use words like "quark" when you don't know what they mean, because you end up looking stupid. All quarks of a particular type are in fact indistinguishable, not unique.
.

Ok, but you missed the point I was making.


You failed to answer the second question. I assume it's because Genesis doesn't tell you the answer.

Were quagga a separate creation to plains zebra? Or did they split off at some time into separate species?



You didn't answer the questions. Want to try again?

I answered all your questions adequately. I understand some species became extinct - all things are time limited. An infinite cannot subsist in a finite realm.

Conclusion:

CREATION VS EVOLUTION is incorrect.

Better:

CREATION; EVOLUTION.

I mean, how can you evolutionise what is not existing yet!
 
Q: Is it correct that C14 dating cannot apply to inanimate things [like stone], only life? And that C14 is inaccurate for periods over 50K years? Does anyone know?
 
"The history of the alphabet started in ancient Egypt. By 2700 BCE Egyptian writing had a set of some 24 hieroglyphs ..."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetic_writing#Middle_Eastern_Scripts


?

Wiki is notorious and facing numerous court challenges for its cow towing to Muslim preferences. Wiki calls Judea 30 CE as Palestine - an impossibilty when this name was applied to this land 40 years later by the Romans: when asked why, Wiki's answer is it is more conducive to popular reference! So much for an encyclopedia.

This article is wrong on two factors:

However, although seemingly alphabetic in nature, the original Egyptian uniliterals were not a system and were never used by themselves to encode Egyptian speech.[6]

It admits this is not alphabetical and disputed, which is evidenced by the lack of alphabets from Egypt, but no such lacking with the Hebrew.

In the Middle Bronze Age an apparently "alphabetic" system known as the Proto-Sinaitic script is thought by some to have been developed in the Sinai peninsula during the 19th century BCE, by Canaanite workers in the Egyptian turquoise mines.

While it gets its dating correct aproximately [bronze age] - it fails again with its Canaanite allocation. The Canaanites never spoke Hebrew nor did they possess alphabetical writings, and no semetic language aside from Hebrew possessed the V letter, not even sumer or phonecia. We have an ancient writings in advanced alphabetical book form [The Hebrew bible], which text declares that the Israelites entered Canaan with the five books of the Torah already in hand. We know for a fact that Monotheism was not a Canaanite practice - nor do we have a single Canaanite alphabetical book. We have 55 alphabetical Hebrew books, written some 50 years apart, listing ancient history and millions of stats - why should anyone see Wiki as more credible!? :shrug:
 
We cannot search every nook and corner of the universe - but what have you against a first hand poll survey in the known universe - it is the most scientific way possible? We have performed planetary visits

One. We have performed ONE planetary visit. To a world we already knew probably didn't have anything.

, zoomed into billions of miles, peeked into far away galaxies and sent probes

We've fired a few probes to other, equally life-crappy planets in the solar system, and scanned them from a few thousand miles out. I don't think that qualifies as much of a "scan for life forms", unless you were expecting those life forms to start shooting at the probes or something.

: ToE has made no imprints here despite an array of varied invironments at its beck and call.

"Invironments"? Who the what now?

The poll proves that the unknown universe is more like the known than not so. I don't see our mastering of the universe as a low call but an inevitable one. The math says there is no life out there - and I refer to good math.

Actually, the math suggests that there is. In a massive, massive universe, the probabilities against it will eventually be "ratioed-out" to a high positive integer.

Before you use such absolute language, try to focus differently than the usual. Dna does not change anymore than an apple ripens.

DNA mutates, undergoes selection and drift, heterochrony, variable activation via RNA pre- and post-translation and methylation.

The change you refer to is factored in the program - else we would not exist beyond the first weather change. With all the majestic engineering in the human body, you are saying it forgot to include any pliability - not even a car maker would build that way.

Are you implying complete plasticity? Is environmental stress, resulting in cancer, factored into the program?

I mean, how can you evolutionise what is not existing yet!

Simple: early self-replicating molecular systems.
 
One. We have performed ONE planetary visit. To a world we already knew probably didn't have anything.

One is still greater than none, allowing no excuse to make an antithetical assumption based on viable math. However, I don't agree we made only small investigations. We know our solar system and many galaxies, including delving into the first minutes of the start-up BB. Nor can we disregard mandatory advanced life based on the time factor or conclude that all space bodies are too far relatively. There is no sign of life or imprints for some 15 Billion years anywhere we look, and none on earth for some 5 billion years. We 'MUST' conclude based on current info that there is no life, as opposed allowing a posibility of life.

Here, the relevant question is, does ToE still stand if life is only existant on earth? Usually, this question beguiles and the 'POSSIBILITY' factor is clung to - which is poor, mythical math. Of note is that Genesis, which cannot be disregarded here - being the first document which delves into this subject, particularly highlights the earth for life - which infers it is saying no life outside earth - else this becomes superfluous. From a literary pov, the Hebrew bible is grammatically and mathematically perfect and unequalled by any other writing humanity possesses, allowing for no superfluos or contradicting statements.

An example: consider that the first day is not termed first but 'DAY ONE' - while the following days are termed SECOND, THIRD, FORTH, etc. This is because 'FIRST' represents one of many others, which does not align with an actual first. Thus DAY ONE for the absolute first day. The day [and week] was introduced in Genesis, in its most appropriate location - because we cannot measure anything unless we can effectively measure time.

We've fired a few probes to other, equally life-crappy planets in the solar system, and scanned them from a few thousand miles out. I don't think that qualifies as much of a "scan for life forms", unless you were expecting those life forms to start shooting at the probes or something.

It does qualify, to the extent we will always be in this position even after 100,000 years. The uni is too big to make viable indents, and clinging to a circular path is the wrong one. A tiny sample in the form of a direct and first hand survey is the best we can ever achieve. I find that suddenly, scientists become non-scientists when this form of arguement is raised - it denotes a wilfull agenda of intentional negation at the cost of science itself.


Actually, the math suggests that there is. In a massive, massive universe, the probabilities against it will eventually be "ratioed-out" to a high positive integer.

Incorrect. The math does not allow a ratio based on a vacuous premise. Its like saying millions of humans can be found under the ocean bed because of its size!

DNA mutates, undergoes selection and drift, heterochrony, variable activation via RNA pre- and post-translation and methylation.

Incorrect. There is no mutation or drift outside established parameters based on life repro on this planet - which aligns exclusively with Genesis: we have never seen drift outside the earth.

Are you implying complete plasticity? Is environmental stress, resulting in cancer, factored into the program?

Incurable deseases are factored in. We have colds, flu and cancers - and immune systems. This is a war where life forms are battling, same as what we see as manifest in a jungle. We also have natural death - which means life forms inevitably seccumb. Death and incurable deseases is factored in Genesis at the very onset of human life, in a scientific treatise accounting to many pages: medicine as a faculty of science was first introduced here.

Simple: early self-replicating molecular systems.

There can be no self replication unless this facility is embedded in the chip. This factor is clearly included in Genesis, namely that one life form follows its own. This says it cannot in any wise be seen as self replication: try rejecting this where there is a dfferent scenario and no follow-up of the host is present?
 
We 'MUST' conclude based on current info that there is no life, as opposed allowing a posibility of life.
That is just about the most unreasonable assumption I could think of. Current info is far from comprehensive.
 
That is just about the most unreasonable assumption I could think of. Current info is far from comprehensive.

Its a totally scientific and mathematical conclusion based on factual emperial criteria only. 'far from comprehensive' has no meaning here other than applying to its antithetical premise - one which assumes we cannot make any premise untill every nook and corner of the universe is examined. This is not how any science factors work. A first hand survey poll is unequalled in the criteria requirements for a conclusion.

The possibility of life in a remote unseen part of the universe is equal to its antithesis only, namely there can equally be no life. But this premise is beaten when any indicative sampling is at hand - it says the known parts are more like the unknown than not so.

ToE in almost every sector clings to slight of hand novel, fctional casino science when push comes to shove. Should the world's politicians, mathematicians and scientists cease referring to polls anymore!?
 
One is still greater than none

One is the lonliest number.

, allowing no excuse to make an antithetical assumption based on viable math.

However, I don't agree we made only small investigations. We know our solar system and many galaxies

But we can't see into the planets on them. We can't see little aliens running around.

There is no sign of life or imprints for some 15 Billion years anywhere we look, and none on earth for some 5 billion years. We 'MUST' conclude based on current info that there is no life, as opposed allowing a posibility of life.

I assume you have a link that demonstrates this based on some bizarre planet-wobbling data.

Here, the relevant question is, does ToE still stand if life is only existant on earth?

Usually, this question beguiles and the 'POSSIBILITY' factor is clung to - which is poor, mythical math. Of note is that Genesis, which cannot be disregarded here - being the first document which delves into this subject, particularly highlights the earth for life - which infers it is saying no life outside earth - else this becomes superfluous.

1. Which parts of Genesis discount the possibility of life on other planets?

2. There are numerous other religions with Creation myths before those of Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

3. Genesis is not a scientific document. It is literature, not analysis.

From a literary pov, the Hebrew bible is grammatically and mathematically perfect and unequalled by any other writing humanity possesses, allowing for no superfluos or contradicting statements.

Vast and completely unfactual assumption. The Hebrew Bible is replete with errors, inconsistencies and contradictions.

I passed over the following two paragraphs since they appeared to make no sense whatsoever.

Incorrect. The math does not allow a ratio based on a vacuous premise. Its like saying millions of humans can be found under the ocean bed because of its size!

But the probability of that is zero, and the size of the ocean relatively small and finite.

Incorrect. There is no mutation or drift outside established parameters based on life repro on this planet - which aligns exclusively with Genesis: we have never seen drift outside the earth.

...we have never seen drift outside the earth because we have never found alien life forms. What exactly are "established parameters" for this planet?

Incurable deseases are factored in. We have colds, flu and cancers - and immune systems. This is a war where life forms are battling, same as what we see as manifest in a jungle. We also have natural death - which means life forms inevitably seccumb. Death and incurable deseases is factored in Genesis at the very onset of human life, in a scientific treatise accounting to many pages: medicine as a faculty of science was first introduced here.

Ergo, selection and evolution inevitably occur - "a war where life forms are battling".

There can be no self replication unless this facility is embedded in the chip.

Chip?

This factor is clearly included in Genesis, namely that one life form follows its own.

As in "breeds true"? Continuously? Clearly, this is false.

This says it cannot in any wise be seen as self replication: try rejecting this where there is a dfferent scenario and no follow-up of the host is present?

Then "perpetuation of a molecularly almost identical structure via direct molecualr contact of loose elements with the template". Same same.
 
Instead of this broad topic of a "literal reading of Genesis", I encourage everyone to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for the actual doctrines being taught regarding Adam.. Once one finds the actual doctrines regarding the creation of Adam, then one will be able to understand why Jesus hung bleeding on a cross.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam, created in the Image of God
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

I cannot post the link because I just signed up. (I need at least 20 posts before I can post it) but if anyone is interested you can google:

St Charles Borromeo Catholic Church Catechism of the Catholic Church

(One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism's search bar once you access the website)
 
Instead of this broad topic of a "literal reading of Genesis", I encourage everyone to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for the actual doctrines being taught regarding Adam.. Once one finds the actual doctrines regarding the creation of Adam, then one will be able to understand why Jesus hung bleeding on a cross.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam, created in the Image of God
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

I cannot post the link because I just signed up. (I need at least 20 posts before I can post it) but if anyone is interested you can google:

St Charles Borromeo Catholic Church Catechism of the Catholic Church

(One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism's search bar once you access the website)

Woof! Catholics have not a clue of the Hebrew bible - they have 'NEVER' observed it at any time and found it 2000 years after it first emerged - their first act was to declare anything they could not accept as fulfilled away - then they made the Creator a cursory after thought - if that.

Their only interest is manipulating everything to align it with the Gospels. Islam does the same, albeit using different names. But neigher of those scriptures can transcend, edit, add or subtract - this has been a manifest failed agenda.
 
Its not an assumption. There are indicators relied upon. Its antithesis is the assumption.

The "thesis" (if we take your phrasing) is at least as much assumption as the "antithesis" and suffers from no mathematical support.
 
IamJoseph (or Cheskiclone, which ever you prefer),
Let's try taking a slightly different angle of argument. Lets say you have a grand computer network that is capable of housing an emulation/simulation of the entire universe, however it starts as completely devoid of any data.

To build a universe will require a program to run, it will require stages of that program to be met before stages after it can follow on.

Now during this programming phase, you could say "We will build it based upon the Religious Manual to how the universe is suppose to be". The problem with this method is the universe you build will be very different to the one we are in, in fact I'm pretty sure that you'd end up with a Blue Screen of Death stopping your universe from coming into existence because of the countless syntax errors caused by religion, it's propagation and belief in general.

If the programming that was applied attempted to follow physics and applied Evolution to the model, you would find a working simulation. It didn't require a god, or belief, it would just require plain and simple logic that a consensus agreed upon. No sudden jumps through miracles or some divine entity making "secret sauce" omissions.
 
Woof! Catholics have not a clue of the Hebrew bible - they have 'NEVER' observed it at any time and found it 2000 years after it first emerged - their first act was to declare anything they could not accept as fulfilled away - then they made the Creator a cursory after thought - if that.

Their only interest is manipulating everything to align it with the Gospels. Islam does the same, albeit using different names. But neigher of those scriptures can transcend, edit, add or subtract - this has been a manifest failed agenda.
Can you give an example of this? If I recall, Pope John Paul II was always very open to the discoveries of science and even encouraged them, believing that faith and science were mutually beneficial to each other.
 
The "thesis" (if we take your phrasing) is at least as much assumption as the "antithesis" and suffers from no mathematical support.

The antithesis of 'cause and effect' is not 'no cause but ever occuring effects'. A universe maker and a universe is a scientific premise; and monotheism is a mathematically correct premise. This is sutainable even with the confounding frustration none of them are provable. The sound premise wins.
 
Can you give an example of this? If I recall, Pope John Paul II was always very open to the discoveries of science and even encouraged them, believing that faith and science were mutually beneficial to each other.

Maybe. But the premise of fullfilling away majestic laws which turn humanity is a failed experiment. Christianity and Islam have lost their battle with the Hebrew bible - only this is impossible to acknowledge. The first two of the 10 commandments are manifest scientific premises which have never been disproven or indicated as incorrect - it needs no embellishings. But when Jerusalem was destroyed - the world turned astray, thinking all roads lead to Rome. But Rome is dead.
 
IamJoseph (or Cheskiclone, which ever you prefer),
Let's try taking a slightly different angle of argument. Lets say you have a grand computer network that is capable of housing an emulation/simulation of the entire universe, however it starts as completely devoid of any data.

To build a universe will require a program to run, it will require stages of that program to be met before stages after it can follow on.

Thus far, I like your idea very much and think it intelligent.

Now during this programming phase, you could say "We will build it based upon the Religious Manual to how the universe is suppose to be".

The term religion is new - and post Hebrew. Genesis does not harbour any religions, and speaks of a scene before religions appeared.

The problem with this method is the universe you build will be very different to the one we are in, in fact I'm pretty sure that you'd end up with a Blue Screen of Death stopping your universe from coming into existence because of the countless syntax errors caused by religion, it's propagation and belief in general.

Well, lets see. If one follows the Genesis texts, we will end up with a universe which is finite and that there is a universe maker, and that this source is indefinable and indescribable. Which part is different from the universe you inhabit?

If the programming that was applied attempted to follow physics and applied Evolution to the model, you would find a working simulation.

Evolution is introduced in Genesis - it is an after the fact process.


It didn't require a god.

Now that's a confident statement. How can any science apply when a finite realm had no back-up promoter? Genesis is not based on myth and magic nor religions - your premise is.
 
The "thesis" (if we take your phrasing) is at least as much assumption as the "antithesis" and suffers from no mathematical support.

We've become too overwhelmed by a clinical approach. We hardly relate with what it means by life emerging or a mango occuring the first time. It was not there and then it appeared - its an awesome occurence aside from the clinical details.

Imagine that for the first time you would be shown a mango - after agreeing to pay $100,000 for its viewing of a few minutes only and also be allowed to smell it and touch it. I say, if you had the money and if a mango never existed - you would gladly pay up. So life is not just a result of some equations or jitterbugging quarks, but an unimaginably spectacular occurence - maybe even transcending the universe's emergence itself. Imagine if there were no stones in the universe - would you care to see one for the first time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top