Are you a visionary?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Hi Guys

I was watching the TV program " Big Bang Theory" the other day and there was this great quote from Sheldon when he was arguing a point of physics with Rajesh, where he thought he couldn't possibly be wrong (but was).

"There's a big difference between being wrong and being a visionary but you need to be a visionary to see it"

I know there are some staunch 'visionaries' on PA but they just seem wrong to me but then obviously I'm so often not a visionary, what about you?

Dave

 

Don't quite see what you're getting at!

 

There's two levels to the statement which is both a logical fallacy and tautologous

One - the humour is, who's the fool? the confident fool or the fooled confidant

Two - Who on PA thinks they are visionaries!? Conumdrum, if you think you are a visionary then you are admitting that you can't see that when your wrong but you don't have the insight to see it :dizzy: but if you admit to not being a visionary then even if your right you can't see it even though you do have the insight to see when your not:dizzy:

Who wants to admit to being a fool or who's a fool and doesn't realise it?

Well you had to be there

On the other hand, I went into a corner shop the other day and asked for Helicopter flavour crisps, the kind grocer said sorry sir were right out of helicopter flavour but we do have plane flavour if that will do instead!

Ho Ho Mark Get it eh!? see what I did there? Helicopter / Plane / Plain:bash:

well it was good in the Pub

Dave

 

Ok.....on that basis, if one were indeed to exist, hypothetically speaking, of course, do you think that a god - who was directly responsible for our creation and everything we know and don't understand - would be a visionary; and if so, how should we view it?

 

Oh now then Mark! Now your both teasing me and spanking me at the same time - I like it!:craig:

Now if there were such a God and He were to be omnipotent, omniscient and inerrant then the terms and assumptions contained in the original statement cannot apply since this God could neither be fooled or foolish and any statement He made would have to be correct by definition. Further, although it might be tempting to call this God a visionary that would be a false definition because Visionary implies foresight I.E. to see or imagine what is impossible to know by rational means. Since this God created everything including time He is not restricted to a chronological perception of a set of linear events and so He has no need to guess or predict using foresight since He already knows all possible outcomes of any action or event. The other option is a non starter since anybody knows that God cannot be fooled and always knows He is right and righteous.
So you'll notice I avoided directly answering your question but by using the reasoning of genetic fallacy I think voters will be diverted by the magnificence of God and totally forget how unimportant the expected answer would have been.

Mark can you foresee a time when you all people of the world would worship and praise such an astounding God?

If you could imagine such a God did exist then you could be fooled into meeting Him and then He would say "Mark you're so loved, so amazing and as perfect as the day I knitted you in your mothers womb".

Regards Dave :drinks

 

I think that your answer more than adequately explains what Dawkins meant by the "God Delusion". The answer is no. It is otherwise.

 

Ah yes Dawkins, well he is a true visionary


Hey, nothing is real, it's all what you believe
Something you dream inside your head
You know how I feel because it's just you and me
Something I need to call my own
To feel and call my own

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v983811H5Ww

Goo Goo Dolls - Nothing is real

Regards Dave

PS 2 recent 'New Scientist' Headlines

Science has run out of theories to explain the universe
Time is running out (I.E. time itself is coming to and end)

Both those statements were first written and iterated in the Bible many times.

 

We are all brought up as a child with different belief systems. We are all taught the current knowledge at school and the university. It is those that question those belief systems and dogma that open the doors to potentials that move us all forward...or in some cases, backward.

Is movement better than sitting still? What is more pure, a swamp, or a river flowing through the mountains? There are an infinite number of pieces to the puzzle of the universe. Visionaries happen to just see more of them.


Steven


“Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Steve Jobs quotes

 

I have found that the main problem with the "God's Word" being truth and correct (since he is perfect, like my ex wife), unless you have personally discussed a topic with God, it is always second hand information.

I know when I talk with Him, he usually just listens.

Steve

 

Gosh! They must be true then..

 

Aha! is that a light bulb going on Mark - or just the flash of irony against irony?.

Truth - shmuth! Science only deals in probability and so if an outcome consistently matches the prediction then the probability that the proposition is not a coincidence is increased and so tends to push the probability scale towards truth.
God's long term and unvarying predictions(which are really not proposals at all but statements of fact) are continually found to match the outcome.

In terms of cosmology and astro physics the long term outcomes continually confound the predictions and new proposals are made in the hope of finding the truth (which science does not allow so its really a forlorn hope). So there become many and varied proposals all of which continue to be confounded even tho having many guesses would appear to stack the odds in favour of finding some probable match of prediction and outcome but in reality it doesn't seem to work out


"Paradigm powers prediction and prediction powers emotion"
So if your paradigm is wrong so is your prediction and your emotional response is misdirected zeal.

Therefore if you continually find that your predictions are wrong then you should think about changing your paradigm. Some might say that changing to the paradigm that continually produces outcomes matching predictions would be a good choice, at least to explore with good intent.

The problem here is that misdirected emotion takes over from the logical response and defends probability above truth and put faith in forlorn prediction.

The thing here is that faith or a strong belief or a confident trust in something, must have some hope to pin it on. Hope needs a solid destination, it must be real and attainable and come from a promise of some desirable future outcome.

So the confident trust in science is based on the hope of what? and from what reliable source has the promise, that hope hangs on, come from?

Hope and trust must have a firm grasp on each other otherwise the further apart and the weaker the influence of one on the other the less substantial either becomes.

Hope must be strong and attainable, if not then a vague hope is forlorn and who can have strong faith or confident trust in a forlorn hope. Well science appears to but one has to ask why?

If faith or trust is weak and sets hope adrift then what good is faith that cannot have hope to attain the goal?

What of the source of the promise that the hope is attainable? What authority has given the reliable promise of the hope that science has faith to attain?

I'll await some answers and get back to you later


Best Regards Dave

 

You need an open mind to find the answers you seek, Dave - not a superstitious one. Until then, keep smiling!

Mark

 

Some definitions ofSuperstitious:

1) Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
2) A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice...
3) An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
4) a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.
5) an irrational belief in or notion of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, etc.
6). a system or collection of such beliefs.
7). a custom or act based on such a belief.
8). irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
9). any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Why do you think these definitions contain highly pejorative words.
Excessively, Unjustified, Irrational, Ignorance, Fear, belief, Blindly accepted, Abject, Notion, Magic. Idolatry Ignorance of the laws of nature


Wow, Mark there is so much to discuss there but lets focus on why the definition of superstition contain such pejorative words.

Well its the last term isn't it, 'ignorance of the laws of nature' Laws of nature are often today used to mean laws of science but that is not correct. Laws of nature equate to natural law which is natural philosophy, which attempts to explain human experience by the use of rational argument.
Natural philosophy has in modern times become or been superseded by Natural science or science is a much more modern concept that attempts to explain human experience by observational experimentation.
However natural laws were originally rooted and originated from the basic view that God created the universe and the philosophy tried to explain nature with respect to that initial statement. So the old natural philosophers like Newton certainly could not have been called superstitious since they were not ignorant of the laws of nature and not irrational or abject or fearful or any of the other words used to define a superstitious person.

There's so much more to write but I've got to go out so I'll leave that there, however I will leave you with this to ponder.

What of Love, What has science to say of love? Nothing - it cannot since love is as unquantifiable and untestable as God. God is love and science says God does not exist and by the same criteria the scientific method also excludes love and yet all good things come from love and nothing good comes from things done without love.
Regards Dave

 

Hello Dave

In reference to the subject matter of this thread - I am afraid I don't quite share the same vision as you. As pleasantly distracting as it may be, I don't give the same time as you clearly do to ponder what may or may not exist or what that might mean for our origins or destination, rather I devote most of my thinking to the here and now - to this beautiful planet we are fortunate enough to inhabit and to the people and creatures that share the experience with me. Nature is bountiful with wonders that will occupy me for my lifetime - so much so, I really don't see the point in concerning myself with the abstract philosophy of religious thought. Even if there were some evidence of a higher being - I still wouldn't give a great deal of thought or time to what our relationship would be. I certainly would not be moved to worship or idolise or wondering what that entity would think - assuming it even has such a process. Your entity or god is nothing more than the imagination of men. You may believe there is such a being, but you have no proof - only belief. That is the nature of religion. In following that mindset, it is perhaps inevitable and understandable that much of your time is consumed by these questions. You see that as enlightenment - which is your prerogative. I see it as enslavement. I am happy. I am content. I see beauty and magic in what humans can do and achieve - the ability to turn tragedy into triumph, the nobility to love and to help; the maturity to live a good life by one's own rules - not those of an imaginary friend; and the acceptance of our immediate and distant environment and the understanding of our place within.

You don't really need God, Jesus, Allah, Nessie or even Elvis to get to that place. Honest.

All the best
Mark

 

Wrong. The King is the king, end of. Thank you, very much.

 

Knew that would get you on the perch! Keep an eye out for postie....:santa:

 

Mark, that's fair enough and those values are a good thing for this world. I would say that for someone who's not got a lot of time for the subject, you do take every opportunity to ask questions, which is good, but odd seeing as you are fairly sure of getting robust and searching answers, from me at least. Nb and it was you who quickly took the thread from a light hearted look at an ironic quote to the major subject that you're not interested in pondering over.
I'm very happy that you did because I'm am always ready and willing to discuss and defend with some apologetics. It's a basic Christian calling.

Just to finish off from my hurriedly finished post yesterday:
Regarding Superstition - Did you see my point? When the word and meaning of superstition was first coined it meant 'Irrational and ignorant belief in thing outside the laws of nature' and the laws of nature were considered to be created by God and so someone who was superstitious believed in the power of things other than God, like magic and witchcraft or Marigold Therapy etc. Today's science excludes God from its consideration, preferring to believe that Nothing created the universe and life and every manifestation of life and living. So taking into consideration the original intent of the word superstitious it would appear that those who consider creation by some means other than God are indeed superstitious.

Nothing created something is untenable in natural science, all the laws of physics abhor this proposal. No scientific experiment has ever produced something from nothing or even nothing from something. And yet, science persists in holding onto that basic axiom.

So, as a Christian I believe that something created something but as a scientist (and humanist) you believe that Nothing created something! I have to ask, what statement fits better with current scientific laws or laws of nature? And that begs the question 'which is the superstitious argument' Nothing creates something (like magic) or Something creates Something (like science predicts).

It doesn't matter how many theories you quote, none of them come even close to explaining how nothing produces something and every time someone thinks they've cracked it, up pops some new data that totally destroys the theory. Like Dark matter, accelerating expanding universe, dark energy, impossibly giant quasars and the end of time to name but a few.

So, my conclusion is that believing in a creator God, with all the evidence of design and intent and agent with a big book of why? and robust historical evidence to back it up, is far more rational than believing in the power of Nothing.

Lastly, Regarding Love

Your humanist views contain much love and yet love has no basis in science, it can't exist by the rules of the scientific method and yet you and I and everyone one knows of its existence and power. Love drives your humanistic ideals and yet by your basic axiom of Nothing created everything the concept of love has no authority any more than hate or apathy does.
What is it that is special about love? You know it is special, it is the ideal you aspire to, but why? Did this special, powerful, enthralling force just come from nowhere, from Nothing? Could the human race even survive without love? I say No!

But I believe that God is love, not just a loving being but actually Love itself and all love comes from God. He created the universe because of love for us, this is the WHY? - so that we could experience all that it is to be in the presence of God. We are His created ones that he knew even before we were created. So the reason why Love is so important and necessary for our survival is that we were created in love but then we were corrupted. God wants us to return to Love so thru accepting His son Jesus, God gives us the Holy Spirit which is God's spirit. So that by being obedient to His commands we can become love thru communion via the Holy Spirit and thus return to our original state of eternal love with God like he originally intended.

This then elevates love to the heights that you aspire to and hold as important above all else and way beyond. And yet! You reject God, even the possibility of God, even tho he is all you aspire to and so much more and the only rational consideration for creation, the how (that science doesn't know but insists is Nothing) and the why (that science can't even consider), anything else is just superstition.

Hey Mark, if you can reply, great, if not - its been a blast and if I don't get something in the post too I'll be bitter for a while but will forgive you

Best regards Dave

 

Dave

The "christian" cult is merely a couple of thousand years old - a blink of an eye in the history of this planet - and yet you assume that your mysterious god has ruled supreme since the beginning of time (whenever that was). Before humans, dinosaurs inhabited this planet. Did your god create them too? Did they worship him (it is a him, isn't it? or don't you know?) and was there a Jesusaur that showed them the righteous way before the big asteroid came one fateful day? What of distant planets that hold life? Does your christian god look after them too? Do the same rules apply there too? Does Jesus have to go through the same routine in every inhabited planet in the multiverse? Is your christian god the same as Allah. Is Jesus and Mohammed the same person? Are there two gods, or three, or four? Is the pope god's spokesman on Earth? Are homosexuals good christians or is that impossible? Sorry Dave, I quite enjoy pondering the unknown, including the metaphysical concepts of eternal consciousness, but imaginary man-made religious cults - including christianity and islam - I have little time for. They are futile, restrictive, divisive and destructive. Climb the ladder, Dave and open your eyes. The view is rather different from up here....

 

I know we are in the breakroom, and I know we have to have a humour, but I have serious issues with any debate on evolution. For God's sake guys (guys being asexual in my lingo, and exceuse the pun), how is it, that a scientific discussion room is able to debate whether evolution is. OK I know I am biased, I have spent most of my adult life researching prehuman fossils. But guys, move on! You will not be taken seriously in the scientific world when you relate to this sort of discussion. Please, evolution is, the debate is over. As to the mechanisms of evolution, well that is still open. And please Ben Hurr, don't reply, I really cannot be arsed to deal with your facile and obstructive arguments. Rob PS: you may note that I have never criticised anyones beliefs.

 

Rob Kidd wrote

and then

Au contraire mon frere!

To start with it depends what you mean by criticize

'To find fault in an unfavourable way' - is exactly what you are doing

'To critique - to evaluate or discuss a premise to highlight its strengths and weaknesses' I agree this is what your not doing but I think you intended the first meaning. Therefore your last statement contradicts your first statement, which is not logical.

Your original statement says:
I'm right, you don't agree with me, ipso facto you and all your beliefs are wrong, so give it up, Rob that's not a very robust argument unless you can at first show that you are unquestionably correct and unquestionably correct about the right thing.

First we were not discussing evolution in itself so I assume you are proposing some equivalence relationship between evolution and creation and therefore since you 'know for sure' that evolution is unquestionable then by its equivalence so is creation. While you may believe that, the problem is it is not a logical conclusion its a logical fallacy.

There are many scientists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists even palaeontologists who are also Christians, there are also many eminent scientists who are not Christian but hold the belief that there is, and because of the available evidence must be, some intelligent creator. Paul Davies is one whpo comes to mind. Read his books and you would be forgiven to think that he was Christian but he will vehemently deny this on occasions just to put the reader right. However he and many like him do publish much that shows 'evidence' and philosophical reasoning that some type of creator must be responsible for creating the universe and everything in it. How then with no evidence for the axiom of Nothing and with much contra opinion indicating a creator can you come to make the statement that claims you are unquestionably correct.

I respect you as a scientist Rob, you're light years ahead of me in those terms. I'm not criticizing you understand but I wonder why though, you chose not to use logical argument when as an accomplished scientific writer you mus be quite capable of it. I think because your dedication to what you do and what you know about what you do, you are passionate and this leads you to choose to use emotive argument, which is fine in some scenarios but if you want to be taken seriously on a science based forum wouldn't it be better to use a logically coherent argument?

Feel criticised yet?

There are many logical and rational reasons to consider God as the creator and this point of view is agreed with by many rational and intelligent people some of whom are also top scientists in their field John Lennox is one of them who regularly debates people like Hawking and Dawkins.

If you go here: https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sa=...8598,d.d2k&fp=6d6c707f3dcf3e&biw=1440&bih=799

you'll find plenty more highly qualified men in their field who similarly do not agree with your view and are still debating in public and are still highly regarded as scientists. So when you say "move on! You will not be taken seriously in the scientific world when you relate to this sort of discussion" Well sorry but clearly you are wrong and clearly yes we will.

So what are you saying here - 'evolution happened we just don't know how'? That doesn't seem right. Go Here: Mechanisms of Evolution http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gu...ution.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8637.html maybe as an expert in your field you have some deeper meaning to Mechanism in terms of evolution that I don't understand. I think that science is very good at discovering or describing mechanism.

The problem is that while modern science can often describe a mechanism it can ultimately find or describe no agent. This is the basic reason for such varying points of view or conflicting axiom. You can view creation with agent or creation with no agent. You choose the latter and I choose the former. Seems like a fairly good basis for a highly rational discussion and an eminently important reason for debate at the highest level even Podiatry Arena.

Regards Dave

 

Hi Rob

I'm with you here. The problem is, that you are dealing with faith, and science being a rational way of observing 'life, the universe and everything' cannot deal with the irrational precepts and concepts of faith. That is why those who hold religious beliefs - and it matters not which particular religion - will always argue on the basis of those beliefs until the facts are proven beyond a shadow of doubt. For instance the flat earthers, the sun (and the universe) moving round the earth and latterly those who still believe that aliens from Venus are amongst us.

I have now taken the stance of letting those who believe in superstition do so whilst I bend my thoughts towards other, more rewarding, avenues.:bang:

All the best

Bill

PS evolution is!

 

"Religion is the biggest trick the Devil ever pulled"

Revelation X: The "Bob" Apocryphon.

 

I have been to each of the websites you quote, and each support my view. But then, I am not looking for support, evolution is not debate-able, at least by rationale people. Mechanisms, well that will go on for some time; but even in our current situation, I feel that we are able to explain well. Guys, I am surprised at you. Science first, please

 

Hi Bill, Please let us not ever mix faith with science. I can point you to two Professors of antomy who also hold holy orders - and wo-betide you if you do not say grace in their house before dinner. Yet tomorrow, you wil find them publishing in Nature, about evolutionary biology. the issue is about being rational; there is nothing rational about creationism. To me, and most rational punters in this field, your religion is like you sexuality: it is nothing to do wth with me. And keep it that way. But science, well that is in the public arena

 

Rob

For the avoidance of doubt, both feet are firmly in the evolution camp. I regard creationism in the same realm as santa claus and the cookie monster, and in that I consider it valid to question the beliefs in those who do. Religion, primarily those that worship to an imaginary deity, has handicapped humankind in its emotional and intellectual development. What progress if only we were able to believe in ourselves in the same way for a change. And that doesn't seem possible in these sad times with Islamic fundamentalists and evangelical Christians at each other's throats.

I wonder what would happen if we were suddenly visited by a friendly advanced alien spacecraft and they came to educate us in the ways of the universe. How would we cope if they told us that our notion of a god and a creator was abject nonsense?

We can but dream I guess!

 

Ok guy's you win I'm definitely not a visionary.

Dave

 

Blind Men and the Elephant
poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the ElephantIs very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
” ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Steven

 

There seems to be a reluctance to use logical reasoning and just rely on emotive argument that really only appeals to prejudice.

This poem for instance

Even tho these six wise men were physically blind they were not so blind that they could not see the benefit of taking time to go and explore the elephant they had heard of.

Because they did take the time they did indeed find the elephant. The poem tacitly implies that the elephant does in fact exist.

So now while it is impossible for each wise man to see the whole of the elephant they have got hold of some part of it, which gives them some insight into what the elephant might be like. They certainly know that the elephant exists and they certainly know that they have hold of some of it.

Now what they do with that knowledge is up to them but the writer explains his frustration that they tend not to share and pool their knowledge but instead become denominalationalist and claim the part of the elephant they have hold of as the whole and belonging to them.

This poem is a complaint against religion and not against the possibility of God and indeed the poem acknowledges the reality of God as something we can all get hold of even though we cannot see all of Him and emplores us to come together as one family and enjoy the whole of God through exploration, experience and common knowledge.

regrads Dave

 

Dave, what I want to do is "answer interleaved" , but I am not sure I can do that here. Let me try to address your issues one by one.

1) To you first comment. The easiest way to deal with this is to look at the hypothesis in the scientific context. Evolution is a science, and is to be tested by proposing hypotheses, which are then to be tested. Religion is about faith. First you cannot test, but more, you are not allowed to test. We are in different vector spaces. The analogy I use is to try to pay your 'lecky bill with cigarettes; cannot compute.

2) No, I am not suggesting an alternative mechanism to Creation - I have never gone there, and never criticise anyones religous beliefs. It is worth noting that mainstream Christian churchs have no issues - Catholic, Anglican etc. It is only minor churches that are an issue. It is the non-thinkers.

"................There are many scientists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists even palaeontologists who are also Christians, there are also many eminent scientists who are not Christian but hold the belief that there is, and because of the available evidence must be, some intelligent creator. Paul Davies is one whpo comes to mind. Read his books and you would be forgiven to think that he was Christian but he will vehemently deny this on occasions just to put the reader right. However he and many like him do publish much that shows 'evidence' and philosophical reasoning that some type of creator must be responsible for creating the universe and everything in it. How then with no evidence for the axiom of Nothing and with much contra opinion indicating a creator can you come to make the statement that claims you are unquestionably correct."

3) the first part of this is entirely correct - there are many scientists etc who hold religous beliefs. One of my dearest friends, also Professor of Anthropology at Penn, is a devote Bhudist. However, she is also the worlds expert on the evolution of melonin in skin.
I am not prepared to debate further re: creator: my views are my views, like my sexuality - has nothing to do with anyone else, apart from my partner.


You go on, and sadly you are wrong. Yes, there are many """ highly qualified men in their field"""" who disagree with you. Sorry Friend, dig deep, and you will find this not to be true. Most ("~all) the so-called scientists on the creation side are self appointed, have PhD's from their own college, etc etc. There is NO scientific evidence for creation; there is plenty for evollution.

To put it bluntly, you provide evidence for creation, publish in a proper journal, you may stand by to get a Nobel prize. I will be there to watch you receive.......................................................


Rob

 

Rob: here's a little treat for you ( there is some swearing where the poet uses it to express frustration so if your offended by F word don't go there)

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2011/04/08/the-epic-skeptical-beat-poem-is-let-loose/

Thanks for your considered repy:

No.1 You're spot on there, but I'll get back later.

Dave

 

Well, I wasn’t going to contribute to this thread. As interesting it potentially can be, I just don’t have the time (i.e. running a business, training – of which I now realise are far more productive endeavours than forum “debating”). Saw this thread in its early stages (first few posts); thought... been there done that, from various angles within various threads (i.e. threads discussing metaphysics, specific evolution, human ancestry, history of bipedalism, biomechanics). In the past there have been insufficient answers to some questions (i.e. violating empirical science with unsupported historical conjecture)... & no answers from the remaining questions (i.e. pertaining to the crux of evolution). I just don’t have time to go round in circles asking the same relevant questions pertaining to the evidence behind a naturalistic religious form of neo-mythology, to then have... well, ironically (to use one of Rob’s phrases)... mere "facile" arguments (whoops – sorry – they were hardly arguments)... more like whinges riposted... because lack of logic, rationality & evidence were unable to form an argument.

Hey, speaking of which...

Congratulations Rob – the above did it. What’s the problem (lack of evidence eating you up)? Like I said in another thread where you made other uncalled-for superfluous pot shots... “you continue to stir the pot on this issue Rob, I will continue to add the ingredients”. Instead of whining about the issue (i.e. your distaste for Creationists) – provide some credible answers for Pete’s sake (with evidence... of a scientific nature) to back up your naturalistic religion! Give me the evidence – the so called science (of which you misrepresent/violate) to back up your faith. Like I’ve asked before on this forum – convert this agnostic (of which I see myself) to the other side. Oh Rob – please don’t tell me what to do (i.e. with... “Ben-Hurr don’t reply” [sic]); who has given you the right in stating I can’t forward an opinion (particularly after you have made specific reference too myself). On the contrary, I wish you would reply... reply with some evidence, logic & rationality for a change... in a civil manner.

No Rob, there is no humour on this issue – it really is quite sad. Evolution: historical biased assumptions (violating empirical science), placed on an academic pedestal, with alarming agendas; misrepresenting science, tarnishing research, stagnating science enlightenment... is not a humorous issue - hence it should be debated as the environment stands. However, science has a broad realm, so whether this issue of ‘Origins’ (either from an undirected naturalism perspective or from purposeful intelligence) should be discussed is worth pondering on within the fringes of science... albeit, both certainly fit within the realm of philosophy/metaphysics discussions... of which with a science overlap at times.

Yep, too right you are. However, I was brought up atheist/agnostic as a child (didn’t have a Bible in the house), later questioned evolution... & had the balls to continue to go where the evidence leads (despite peers & status quo), became a theist... then later an agnostic (hence I question - personal reasons – hence no one’s business). I try to be as objective as possible on this issue... limiting bias persuasion from either (any) side of the ‘Origin’ fences. However, I struggle to understand the lack of objectivity & open mindedness to the plausibility that there may be an intelligent source to our existence as well as behind the form & function of the diversity of lifeforms within this intricate biosphere, galaxy & universe. We humans entertain thoughts of other intelligent beings within the realms of science fiction & spend millions of dollars on the likes of the SETI project where excitement is gained from just a 72 sec. radio signal (“Wow! Signal”)... yet fail to see the evidence of a possible fingerprint pertaining to an intelligent source (complex beyond our relative feeble understanding)... when studying the physiology of our own bodies (i.e. mRNAs, RNAs, DNA etc...). With this in mind, why wouldn't any rational, contemplative, thinking human being be fascinated in searching this possibility in light of the mounting evidence (whilst not be subject to academic suicide/discrimination & ridicule).

Yep, you’re right Rob - there’s that bias again (i.e. “prehuman fossils”). Rob, you have been researching primate fossils – that’s it... you have been delving in comparative anatomy between primates (extinct or present) & humans... of which there are similarities (which stands to reason – pun intended) but with significant differences & subsequently with no evidence to use... “prehuman”... unless you’re bias that is to a world view – entering research with bankrupt historical presumptions (i.e. famed candidate in the form of Australopithecus afarensis was an evidential habitual arboreal/knuckle walking primate – now extinct – not “prehuman”!). It’s rather odd when you actually spend the time to think about such issues objectively – i.e. an archaeologist finds a fragmented piece of pottery & concludes human design; another archaeologist working in another field finds a fragmented foot... & concludes undirected naturalistic causes... in fear it might violate an established narrow minded belief system... or religion - as Dr Michael Ruse (evolutionary philosopher of science who specializes in the philosophy of biology) states... “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, & is true of evolution still today”.

I’ve recently had a discussion on another thread regarding biasness & underlying agendas within some research topics (i.e. the infamous running footwear/foot strike/injuries topics)... researchers being labelled bias (&/or with underlying agendas) tarnishing research objectives/conclusions due to lack of evidence. How about we apply this same level of academic/research scrutiny across the whole board of the science realm – not just to the ones that suit us – sound fair/reasonable?

Rob’s kidding you (scare mongering per chance?)... whoops no, he’s partially correct... there has been academic discrimination when scientists have had research retracted, not published, tenure ship revoked etc... when evolution has been brought into question. You see, this glorified conjecture (naturalism/evolution) is not allowed to have competition (this point alone should raise a red flag from an academic/science perspective)... only one viewpoint is allowed on the issues surrounding ‘Origins’ & subsequent speciation/natural selection. [Please note: speciation/natural selection is not evolution]

Sorry Rob, the debate of ‘Origins’ is not over. Whilst questions continue to remain insufficiently answered or not answered at all, problems will not go away - science & philosophy will continue to investigate i.e. the “mechanisms of evolution”. Hang on, isn’t the “mechanisms of evolution” one of the (if not the) prime pillars of this belief system... after all, it’s the crux of the issue isn’t it? Yet Rob’s stating there is no debate (stating... “evolution is”) whilst also stating the “mechanisms of evolution” is “still open”. The likes of Dr Dawkins (who out of anybody on this planet should provide answers) state that the likes of i.e. “mutations” & “natural selection” are the “driving mechanisms” for evolution. Yet he nor anybody else cannot supply any evidence (oh yes, please let’s leave the thousands of generations of research bacteria/E.coli in the confines of the petri dish) where the likes of i.e. “mutations”, “gene duplication” & “natural selection” have provided the needed billions of bits/bytes of information/coding/letters required for the extent/magnitude, diversity of lifeforms in the history of this planet (i.e. those present today & extinct)... not to mention in characteristic purposeful fashion, with symbiotic & irreducibly complex relationships ... & God forbid... invoking some intelligence (i.e. engineering) in the process!

Haven’t you? I suppose that’s subjective... of which you have already stated your bias on the discussion.

Now, I’ve just skimmed over the other contributing posts in this thread by way of familiarisation with positions/views taken – too much to address – including that last post of yours Dr Kidd............. for now.

 

Interesting thread that will continue to go in a circle as it should. There is no right or wrong answer. Every person is programmed with their beliefs and to change their view point is like convincing Kevin Kirby to throw out his plaster splints and use foam impression boxes for casting!

I respect David's knowledge in biomechanics and feel that he has experienced for himself the presence of the ineffable, the divine and thus his passion in his religion and steadfast stance on creation.

I am not religious but respect the paths those have chosen. I am spiritual and have a certain knowingness that within all of us is an eternal essence emanating from the same source.

I believe that Souce is not just love but rather unconditional love that is always there for the asking. You need not do anything for that love and it is completely nonjudgmental. The road to heaven is not built from pavers of guilt, shame, fear, pride, arrogance, anger, fear, et. No, it's built on the deep and unconditional love that makes up our essence when the flesh is stripped away.

I do believe this essence pervades all matter on Earth and the cosmos. This essence is not separate from us but rather a part of all of us. This Higher Power was the agent behind the Big Bang theory, the genesis of creation. First came creation and evolution followed.

I do not believe in the creation story of the bible. The bible is not about God, but rather ancient man's understanding of God and the world he lived in. Born and raised Jewish, we were always taught to not take the bible literally but to learn from the inspired wisdom and to reinterpret the bible for the present day.

The word of God is the inspired word from man, emanating from the spirit of man, in the verbal or written form. The word of God carries the energy of the divine essence but attached to it is man's ego just as the rose is surrounded by thorns.

Critical thinkers see the thorns a mile away for they have keen discernment. Yet, these same people may never see or smell the rose no matter how close they are. Few people, including myself, can see the appropriate amount of the rose and its thorns and it remains a lifetime qwest for many of us.

That is my vision and my inspired word, for the Creator never stopped talking to us. As Dr. Sarbes wrote, we only need to listen.

Steven

 

Steve (Lab Guy) :good:

I would tho encourage you to reconsider your decision to cut God and truth out of your faith and replace them with interpretation and intuition. I sure Abraham never said "Ah God, yes he's ok for today (while he's useful for me) but tomorrow, who knows? Make up your own mind"

Regards Dave

 

Steve

Reading that again it sounds like I'm being judgemental or arrogant but I assure you I was just trying to be encouraging.

Regards Dave

 

An enlightened observer might deduce two things from this or any debate around religion - first that human beings are naturally curious animals with a tendency to seek answers to problems they don't understand and second, in the absence of evidence, there is an established pattern of assigning beliefs into facts! Cogito ergo sum!

 

All this is great to debate and thank you for the opportunity to do so but . Really all this debate is nothing more than a game of ping pong, back and forth gaining points but ultimately of no real consequence. (kind of) Like in that Storm video I referenced earlier - the sceptical beat poem if you watched it, ten minutes later you wont of changed your mind one bit. But here's a thing:

4 years or so ago I would have been entirely on your side, evolution, big bang, scientific method rule OK - no question. However one week God came and made Himself known to me in an unmistakeable way. This is knowledge by experience not philosophy i.e. pure reason or by religious doctrine. This experience has been repeated millions even billions of times throughout out the earth and throughout time. This leaves one with no doubt about the existence of God so how can I not believe it just because some learned people say its not rational. But there's an irony, 'its not rational to believe in knowledge gained by personal experience' eh??? Just because someone else finds this unbelievable and does not accept that perfectly sane and reasonable people do everyday have this life changing experience of the reality of God it does not diminish by one jot the actual reality of of my belief in the experience of God. That being so I must then also accept the reality of the bible as a truthful introduction into the nature, character and requirements of God. My continued relationship with God increases my experience and intimacy that does not diminish with time as might happen if the original experience was some kind of one of phenomena but rather becomes richer and deeper and eventually manifests as true love of a God that I would never want to be separated from NB I only had this realisation during this debate while considering the appeal of just giving in and accepting the scientific way and falling in line with most of my peer here on PA. That fleeting consideration was swept away with the overwhelming fear of leaving God out of my life, this is the fear of loosing ultimate everlasting love and hope. This is why I take the time to discuss with you the logical reasons and emotional reasons for considering the possibility of God. I can never change your mind with debate but maybe I can put you in a better place to be able accept God if one day he should decide to make himself known to you. Not that I should be so arrogant as to assume there is anything more I can do that God cannot on His own but there is always a relationship between me and God that demands some contribution from me.

Regards Dave Smith

 

Dave
Have you considered the possibility that your enlightenment was nothing more than a short term psychological episode potentiated by fluctuation of your neurotransmitters or some or another chemical imbalance?

 

750 million(approx) earthlings do not have access to clean drinking water. Do you think some of our evolved/created visionary/non-visionary energies could be directed there?