God vs Evolution

[narrowstaircase]

.
"Far too physically oriented", you say. I ask, "Why does this raise a discord in you?

it doesnt do justice to all of mans experience.

About your idea of laws: Just as you believe that I cannot know that laws change, I believe that you cannot know that laws are even laws. You only can surmise this through limited experience, then extrapolate this over an eternity that you will never encompass. This is the only truth that I believe we can determine locally in an indeterminate infinity.

This indeterminate infinity is what enables evolution, which is just another word for motion and change of substantial form. Evolution never stops. Time is never reversable. No seeming repetition is an exact repetition.

evolution is what you say it is on a physical level. though i can see a direction and constant pattern. the arrangement of units (cells) come together in different ways to create new and different wholes (organisms). this is where creativity bursts forth. but hasnt it always been this way? atoms come together, molecules come together so forth to multicelled organisms, all the way from that undifinable substrate of the universe. that is the pattern im talking about. always towards stable, more complex arrangements of matter. what i believe, is that the relationship of the parts is more important than their existance. without acknowledging this relationship the wholes become irrelevent. in my mind, if you dismiss the relationship of the parts then the existance of that very substance you fervently crouch over as a mechanistic 'objective' observer becomes an illusion. the relationship is the matter. if you make the law (relationship of the matter) an illusion, then the matter itself becomes an illusion.

Substance is the attitude that must guide knowing and meaning.

i disagree. the way the substance interacts guides knowing and meaning in my opinion. in your example you can obtain meaning from a picture, since it is a depiction of only existance, of only being. this cant happen because we need time to experience the changes occurring. we need a movie which depicts the interactions of the parts. which laws of physical and biological science attempt to reflect.

[kotoreru]

I told my friend that religion and God is not true but as long as he is happy in believing in God then that is not a problem[as long as he doesn't fight with science].

Religion is like a drug which a person who has a disease should take.If others take it it is bad.Evolution has better proof than God .

Wow, that's some pretty offensive stuff. Said in a very off-hand way. I really think you should exercise some discretion with those views... even on a 'Science' forum.

Science never has proof, of anything. All we can do is supply the evidence such that particular beliefs are dis-proven.

[cracked_doc]

there is a theory

What is the theory plzz?

[mehdi71000]

I think it’s amazing how a human is assembled molecule by molecule. And there is no protein in any organism that modifies DNA. so how does a cell evolve to be a human. I read some ware that when earth was not populated by any living organism, by chance of lightning’s molecules combined by chemical reaction and formed a cell. But my teacher told me if you take a jar and put lairs of different beans neatly in it and shake it for 10 million years you will never get the combination you started with. Just like if you put a drop of ink in a glass of water. If you shake it for millions of year’s you’ll never get the ink back.
And some say evolution is a result of selective breeding were the strong and best survive. If so if you have 400 Citroens and you race them every day till one after one wares out you will not be left with a BMW only a strong Citroen witch is not a good thing :->.
There are many questions in why human beings are created. I’m a Muslim and I know Islam has been changed so people have different views of things and its becoming like a university physics course. In Islam how ever stated that you cannot change Quran. And in Quran it says our souls have chosen there own destinies in life. And we are part of a experiment. and there is no eternal hell for no body. How ever bad you’ve been you simply have hell witch it stated the fuel is stones and human souls. And you spend your time in there according to your sins and after that you’ll go to heaven. witch is you have 7 stages according to your good deeds. So we are part of an experiment and we do get our wage after wards and since we have feiling and im sure you know how it feels to be robed or being bullied the bad will pay for causing you pain . Please note god created satin. Why won’t he destroy him? I think satin is like a filter in an experiment. Maybe god needed some thing to pull away us from god to see how we would react with out god . But I think what ever your beliefs it’s good to live in faith. It’s healthy too .and people who truly do bad things they do get punished in this world to. And if a creator created this world and every thing in it has to be very smart. Its good aswell to ask god for guidance and help. God is god what ever your religion or non religion. You must have a creator. And I like this topic very much its very deep and when ever I think about it I always realise life from a different angle. and please can some one tell me were i can get some GFP on a vector.

[JDavidE]

Seemingly, no one has noticed that Jeremiah, who originally posed the question, having put the cat amongst the pigeons has quietly slipped away, his mischief done. There are twelve pages devoted to this pointless debate and no further interest by Jeremiah.

When fundamentalists (in any sphere of debate, not just religious belief) feel threatened, challenged or emasculated, the tendency is to resort to violence. Jeremiah simply planted a rhetorical car bomb.

Do you suppose we can just sweep up the mess and go back to debating the merits of Darwinism? His book was not about the origin of life; it was about the Origin of the Species.

[narrowstaircase]

What is the theory plzz?

david ---> - a,- d ---> + e, + l ----> devil

'el' sounds like ill. and 'ad' sound like add. they add ill, in other words they are sick. they are soul sick... they have no souls.....

ps.

[narrowstaircase]

Do you suppose we can just sweep up the mess and go back to debating the merits of Darwinism? His book was not about the origin of life; it was about the Origin of the Species.

i think the OP was more focused on the origin of the human species, not the origin of life, and the lack of meaning implicit in the scientific paradigm. since science doesnt acknowledge meaning theres nowhere to go with this. evolution does explain the mechanics behind speciation, but if you are looking for meaning in it you will have to get it where you find it i think.

[cracked_doc]

hahahahahaha...thats a good theory but the "Davids wont be too happy bout it

[robertkernodle]

.

Relationship is the matter

And, matter is in the relationship. We do not disagree; we just have our respective focal points slightly out of sync.

Relationship cannot exist without a substrate. But neither can a substrate exist that is not in relationships.

Creation, evolution, being requires a polarity in constant symbiogenisis, yet with NO absolute divide.

Being is substance AND motion, as I have said, simultaneously, indivisibly.

The way we can conceive of this is via a fluid substrate with the motion of a fluid substrate, which allows great degrees of freedom for evolution. Some folks might even call this duality "GOD". I do not.

Taoism (in my opinion) might be a broader spiritual point of view to accomodate our passion for the ineffable infinite, of which evolution is a valid description.

The point I think that needs to be made here is that all believers in God are not exactly the same quality of belief. All aetheists (if we so use the term) are not exactly the same quality of belief.

There are fervent scientists, schooled in the strictest math who believe in God. There are ignorant people who would believe anything any scientist would say, rather than believe anything about God (which makes science their God).

Robert K.

[kotoreru]

Why would strict mathematicians not believe in God?

[alextemplet]

I just broke into the forum after a long break so I am not ready to read every post but as james said the topic says it all.I don't know why humans are so curious about this topic may be because religion is so close to their lives they would never give up defending it.I told my friend that religion and God is not true but as long as he is happy in believing in God then that is not a problem[as long as he doesn't fight with science].But always these religious guys have a upper hand in attracting people to their side because if you believe in God you belief in you more than ever and hence you can achieve more.Religion is like a drug which a person who has a disease should take.If others take it it is bad.Evolution has better proof than God .I still can't understand how you can deny what you see and believe in something you have never seen.

I think you might want to re-check some of your assumptions. Religion a drug? I suppose truth is a pretty powerful narcotic, then. I would not believe in God if I did not have the evidence of what I have seen. You are wrong to so casually dismiss religious belief as the dementia of some diseased mind. If only you could see what I have seen.

The question I have is, why must evolution and religious be opposed to each other in the first place?

[narrowstaircase]

And, matter is in the relationship. We do not disagree; we just have our respective focal points slightly out of sync.

Relationship cannot exist without a substrate. But neither can a substrate exist that is not in relationships.

Creation, evolution, being requires a polarity in constant symbiogenisis, yet with NO absolute divide.

Being is substance AND motion, as I have said, simultaneously, indivisibly.

The way we can conceive of this is via a fluid substrate with the motion of a fluid substrate, which allows great degrees of freedom for evolution. Some folks might even call this duality "GOD". I do not.

Taoism (in my opinion) might be a broader spiritual point of view to accomodate our passion for the ineffable infinite, of which evolution is a valid description.

The point I think that needs to be made here is that all believers in God are not exactly the same quality of belief. All aetheists (if we so use the term) are not exactly the same quality of belief.

There are fervent scientists, schooled in the strictest math who believe in God. There are ignorant people who would believe anything any scientist would say, rather than believe anything about God (which makes science their God).

Robert K.

the point i was making is that if you see a star on the other side of the universe we can extrapolate that it came to exist via the same laws, or relationship of it constituent parts, as the stars on this side of the universe, because the matter is indevisisble from the string of relationships that led to it existing. it appears in your posts that you dont think that but think that laws are malleable and dont define whats really going on and at best are subjective fractured interpretation of a localised event. this pov is unfounded if it truly is your pov. which is why i said, that the relationship of the parts that make the whole, is as important as the matter itself.

"being is substance and motion; simultaneously, indivisibly" are still catchphrases and dont prove any point. being is matter and the relationship of matter?? its hard to see what you are saying.

the way you conceive of it is through fluid 'substrate' and 'motion'. this idea of yours is chaos theory.

but the main point that i got from these posts is that you think the 'substrate' of the universe, and the impossibility of ever actually knowing what it is, is the thing that inspired the idea of god. i disagree, and that can be the end of it.