Login

Join for Free!
118478 members


God vs Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby James » Sun May 13, 2007 12:08 pm

Worst thread ever.
User avatar
James
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: England

Postby kotoreru » Sun May 13, 2007 3:18 pm

_at_ Mith: ;)

_at_ James: Constructive.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Postby James » Mon May 14, 2007 3:56 pm

Hopefully not
User avatar
James
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: England


Postby robertkernodle » Mon May 14, 2007 7:59 pm

.
worst thread ever


Worst close-minded dismissal ever, James. Whenever somebody takes time to imply that a thread is not worth anybody else's time, then I know it's worth it.

In the few forums that I've been in, the most consistently high-response threads (without exception) involve threads with the word "God" in them. This includes technology, science, art.

Now to narrowstaircase:

As I hinted, it's best not to go with absolute first reactions OR to go with them comically,... because words are pretty malleable things.

I've been mispelling "Godel" (this is the correct spelling). I was getting it confused with Goethe (did I spell that right?) and the fact that I cannot indicate the double-period mark (forgot the correct name of it) over the letter "o".

You asked what I think about applying Godel's ideas to areas outside mathematics. I'm NOT an expert, but I've read cautionary notes that strict applications outside math should be treated as metaphors, since strict application might lead to outright misapplication. But the place I read this seemed to contradict itself. So, I don't know.

I'm a creative thinker, getting my ideas from places I tend to forget.

I'm a childhood math-science fan turned dancer/artist/philosopher in later life. Lots of university courses all over the place. Lots of self study. I've been a fitness guru/competitor. Into yoga. Okay, enough on that - I won't tell you my sign - (I promise, forum members 8)) .
robertkernodle
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm

Postby James » Mon May 14, 2007 10:43 pm

But this is an evolution section of a biology site. This topic has been covered so many times, check out our search function. Its not even relevant for this forum, let alone the evolution/darwinism section. This thread should at least be moved into the off topic section. Its a science forum. There used to be a forum rule about no religious posts/topics, and I don't know why that was revoked.
User avatar
James
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: England

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 15, 2007 2:24 am

I think this thread has been interesting so far, and somewhat intelligent as well. It's a nice change from the usual angry violent slug fest.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby dr. dugmore » Tue May 15, 2007 7:18 am

alextemplet wrote:I think this thread has been interesting so far, and somewhat intelligent as well. It's a nice change from the usual angry violent slug fest.


i agree, im keepin, this topic alive!!!!



god : 1
darwin:0
lol
The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.
Charles Darwin
User avatar
dr. dugmore
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 10:18 am
Location: australia mate!!!!! bloody oath!! >lol<

Postby narrowstaircase » Tue May 15, 2007 9:02 am

robertkernodle wrote:.
As I hinted, it's best not to go with absolute first reactions OR to go with them comically,... because words are pretty malleable things.


what do you mean by that?

robertkernodle wrote:You asked what I think about applying Godel's ideas to areas outside mathematics. I'm NOT an expert, but I've read cautionary notes that strict applications outside math should be treated as metaphors, since strict application might lead to outright misapplication. But the place I read this seemed to contradict itself. So, I don't know.


i think the functioning of the left side of the brain can be understood by his work and doesnt need a translation into metaphor. but thats just my opinion. it sounds very much like it as far as ive read.

robertkernodle wrote:I'm a creative thinker, getting my ideas from places I tend to forget..


thats called plagarism :lol:

robertkernodle wrote:I'm a childhood math-science fan turned dancer/artist/philosopher in later life. Lots of university courses all over the place. Lots of self study. I've been a fitness guru/competitor. Into yoga. Okay, enough on that - I won't tell you my sign - (I promise, forum members 8)) .


oh please tell me what youve studied and read!! and how old are you? i need to know this thanks :!:
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby robertkernodle » Tue May 15, 2007 7:55 pm

.
Einstein plagerized Minkowski, then. :)

Ph.D. candidates plagerize all their cited sources.

"Plagerize" is a bit strong, I think. "Synthesize" might serve us better here, since this is NOT a strictly-juried scholarly publication.

If you have a specific question about a specific idea that you think I have, then ask about it specifically, and I will attempt (dreadfully, perhaps) to recall how it came about.

As for telling you my age, .... well,... I am ..... TIMELESS. :D

As to your question about what I meant by my comical reference to language,.... well,... I am just suggesting that we reamain a bit open to its use, not getting all locked up over a particular phrase or word.

This is a place of dialogue, so my experience tells me to be flexible to allow for its flow. David Bohm would have agreed.

Robert K.
robertkernodle
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm

Postby robertkernodle » Tue May 15, 2007 8:10 pm

.
Yes, James,

This is a biology site. This is an evolution subcategory of a biology site. The topic headline, however, poses a conflict between the concept of evolution and the concept of God. Thus, we seem to be on topic, as I see it. Off YOUR preferred path, perhaps,... but still on topic.

Underlying philosophy plays a role in our biology, as well.

I think that we have to ask, "Why is the subject of God raised so many times in so many supposedly highly intelligent discussion forums?" Perhaps this in itself points to the idea that feelings about a God are somehow biologically programmed into us at the genetic level,... orchestrated by your own seemingly strictly evolutionary mechanism.

And new people are coming into the website all the time,... so what is old to you is new to the new.

You criticize the topic here,... yet, ... YOU KEEP ON READING THE POSTS.

Speaks to a higher power, ... wouldn't ya say? :wink:

RK
robertkernodle
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm

Postby James » Tue May 15, 2007 9:37 pm

I have read very few of the posts in this topic. The title said it all to me. However, I really respect the immense biological importance in your discussion on plagiarism, your age and the topic of your own marvellous vocabulary and literary skills. Why we have fewer biologists on this site nowadays baffles me.
User avatar
James
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: England

Postby narrowstaircase » Wed May 16, 2007 5:59 am

to robertkernodle

concerning your twin posts:

this talk of inbetweens and resonance peaks, is it a metaphor? or are you really talking about the physicality of the universe and then linking that to an idea of god? it seems far too physically orientated.

the inbetweens and resonance peaks when interpreted literally appears to be what i know of as the intergration of matter. where smaller units of matter come together to form a new whole. then those new units of matter come together to form another new whole and so on. the universe experiments in new combinations of these parts each time a new level is created. when we extrapolate this downwards we see an eternity, this 'substrate of being' as youve defined it. this eternal march downwards into the indivisible that can never be reached is what youve termed god. once again, this emphasis on existence, on physicality, on being, is insufficient as a new paradigm and also escapist. i will explain why later.

when you say:

From a human perspective, observational peaks seem locked in and absolutely bounded,... and we call these experiences "laws". They ARE laws. They are OUR laws,... NOT the laws of an eternally unchanging NATURE or the laws of an eternally fixed SCIENCE.


i think you are dismissing our capacity to see the truth. i wouldnt say they are 'our' laws, so much as they are the laws that we observe in our part of the universe and in our spec of time along the course of eternity (quite politically correct). from that perspective i can not say whether the laws of the universe have changed through eternity or not. we just dont know (but you seem to know this as true?). the only way i can interpret this idea of new laws is only in relation to new levels on the heirarchy of matter. or in your terms, new peaks require new laws to interact. but they dont replace eachother. so the laws of interaction are different for atoms, are different for molecules, are different for organisms. but whole systems of laws utterly replacing another i cant comment on. that would be a guess.

in your wave analogy there is also an emphasis on form, or physicality. there is also emphasis on knowledge and intelligence as it relates to this eternal spectrum of matter. i think you have missed the point. i would like to emphasise understanding here. how does understanding relate to our universe? the human brain has a unique ability to observe and reflect in the mind, patterns. patterns can be local and eternal. patterns highlight the understandable in the eternal. patterns are the complete self-grasping of the eternal. what you have done thus far is undermine our knowledge of patterns, which we term laws for the association of matter, in favour of 'creativity', or should i say chaos.

in this dismissal of laws and our ability to recognise them you go even further than fundamentalists do in disassociating human experience from god or truth. when i first read these posts i was suddently stricken with worry. how could we be searching, for how ever long we have been, for god, only to be told he is unnatainable? how could we search for meaning, for direction, only to be told the universe is 'creative' (chaotic) and that is all the meaning inherant in it? it was a worrying feeling which i now understand the cause of. your idea is very much a case of explaining god by making him unexplainable.

the only time you acknowledge something beyond physical:

BEING just is - the basis of personhood - the basis of mind - the basis of consciousness - the basis of higher organization of itself.


what you did there is create new labels, new definitions, new categories, yet no new understanding. nevermind how personality, consciousness and conscience came to exist within a biological framework. just remember that 'being' is the basis of them. what is 'being'? oh that is that ungraspable, unintelligible, unknowable, eternal thing between resonance peaks... it doesnt make sense. it doesnt make anything understandable.

i do however find it surprising that you include (twice) within your post the words, higher organisation. i have to ask you what this means to you because what it is to me is actually a pattern! self organisation. the second path to the second law of thermodynamics. negative entropy. but what is it to you?

here again is the emphasis on explaining something nonphysical, using a physical example:

I can explain myself as a creator of art. Or I can explain every neuromuscular firing that enables the actions that lead to specific creations. The latter technical description does not invalidate the former qualitative description,... any more than evolution invalidates God.


was it the actions that lead to the creation? id like to think it came from much deeper. though i do agree on one aspect of your post. evolution and god are different perspectives of the same thing.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron