The Darwin Spin Off

[Ted McGregor]

18 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Since when is this true. Many things we can prove today, were not provable in the past.  Did those things not exist until we were able to prove them?

They do as long as that which is assumed without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence and the evident remains by evidence instead of assumption.

I mean it' s possibly not wrong to assume something, but it' s not proof.

Edited March 12, 2021 by TDD123
Proof

[Mollymews]

Nalates, i think that you are way over-complicating your thinking. Cluttering your mind when there is no need too

a judeo-christian, meaning a person who believes that the Christ is the Son of the God of Abraham, inherits as part of this belief the story of Genesis

the story of Genesis describes the order of creation which largely parallels what we know/understand of the evolution of Earth thru our own (human) observations and measurements. We could nitpick that some things in the Genesis story are out of order, but is pretty close overall

we could also read the story literally in relation to time as we human beings understand time to be. Literally meaning that we read a Genesis day to mean a human day. Which is not necessarily true, and doesn't have to be true when we consider this within the judeo-christian belief system that God is everlasting. And is absolutely not true based on our own measurements of Earth as these biblical days relate to time measured in rotations of the Earth planet

it seems to me that you are questioning the tools that we (human beings) have at our disposal. And that's a valid question. What is not valid is to use the questioning of tools to invalidate what we can see with our own eyes with a clear and uncluttered mind

what you are arguing is "intelligent design". That carbon-based life is not a product of random interactions. That there is a design element in this

a thing. That a system generates random interactions doesn't make the system itself random - a pseudorandom generator is such a system. And when we examine pseudorandom generators then we soon see that in their construction there are bounds, parameters and rules. Parameters and rules which determine the breath and scope of the interactions within. And from these we can derive the laws that govern the system, like thermodynamics for example

when we think about this with an uncluttered mind then we can see a way to resolve a belief in God with evolution

on the existence of God, we can simplify this down to a single thought. Genesis:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

the judeo-christian belief of this paragraph is that God is omnipotent. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth out of nothing, and here is how God went about it."

the non-omnipotence view is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth out of the materials that were available to God at the time (earth and water), and here is how God went about it."

the thing is that whether God is omnipotent or not, doesn't change the story of creation. It only changes the status of the creator. It doesn't either, change the construction of earth and carbon-based life - whether that be on the long timeline (evolution) or the short timeline (literal biblical reading)

as Maddy mentioned a long time ago when we discussed this on a previous incarnation of this forum: Whether the system is a universe-scale truerandom generator or a universe-scale pseudorandom generator doesn't change the effect on us (the life forms of earth) given the width and scope of the interactions that we can see and measure with the tools at our current disposal. And further that no matter the source of design, 'random' is generated by additive and subtractive actions and interactions

which was my own lightbulb moment. Able to reconcile my personal belief in atua with what I observe and can measure of the world that surrounds me of which I am a part

of the two, truerandom and pseudorandom, I am personally more inclined toward pseudorandom. Pseudorandom systems are bounded, they have parameters and rules. Truerandom systems do not. Inclined because atua, which is a personal leap of faith.

and this leap of faith doesn't negate what I see with my own eyes. And what I see doesn't negate or diminish atua. That others may not have made the same leap as me, doesn't change the story of creation. It only changes their view of the status of atua. And in some cases their view of me, and when so then oh! well and umm! can I get medium fries with that and can I get a chocolate milkshake instead of fizzy drink please

 

[Gabriele Graves]

I have always thought that the explanation of how things got started without a design and from nothing required much more of a leap of faith that the rather obvious point of view that there was a design somehow and that we just don't comprehend it.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Ted McGregor]

9 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I have always thought that the explanation of how things got started without a design and from nothing required much more of a leap of faith ...

... no..not a leap of faith ..  it' s actually (a) science. ^.^

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by TDD123

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I have always thought that the explanation of how things got started without a design and from nothing required much more of a leap of faith that the rather obvious point of view that there was a design somehow and that we just don't comprehend it.

Even though the design itself would have had to get started without a design and from nothing?

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

... no..not a leap of faith ..  it' s actually (a) science. ^.^

You mean theoretical "science".  😛

[Ted McGregor]

Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

You mean theoretical "science".  😛

It' s still science and not a faith ( until you prove otherwise ) ..

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Even though the design itself would have had to get started without a design and from nothing?

No, it means that some being(s) external to our existence were the architects.

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

It' s still science and not a faith ( until you prove otherwise ) ..

You say "po-ta-toe", etc... 😃

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

No, it means that some being(s) external to our existence were the architects.

Doesn't that rely on the existence of something that wasn't designed or created? And if it's not necessary for a creator to be designed or created, why would it be necessary for "creation" to be designed or created?

[Gabriele Graves]

4 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Doesn't that rely on the existence of something that wasn't designed or created? And if it's not necessary for a creator to be designed or created, why would it be necessary for "creation" to be designed or created?

No, it just relies on something else that was designed or created but exists outside this existence.  More fundamentally it means we cannot see outside of this existence to see how things work out there.  There could be entirely different principles at work that we cannot even comprehend at this point.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Ted McGregor]

6 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You say "po-ta-toe", etc... 😃

Nope, Aardappel ..

 

[Ted McGregor]

11 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

 There could be entirely different principles at work that we cannot even comprehend at this point.

Which we might comprehend better if we' d find out what' s on the other side of a black hole for instance.

It might not require this constant primal unmoving cause old theologies are trying to instill on us since people are able to write.

Edited March 12, 2021 by TDD123

[Theresa Tennyson]

 

6 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

No, it just relies on something else that was designed or created but exists outside this existence.  More fundamentally it means we cannot see outside of this existence to see how things work out there.  There could be entirely different principles at work that we cannot even comprehend at this point.

At some point, there has to be something that either exists infinitely without being created or created itself.

[BelindaN]

I dont have time to slog through all this thread. And I don't have any answers either. So maybe I should stop there.

But I do have thought threads.

The everything from nothing big bang makes no sense in the context of known science.

There's more to the observable universe than the observable universe, which appears chaotic but in a single lifetime is quite stable.

Time and gravity seem to be fundamentals. How did those rules appear?

Life may travel around the universe like dandelion seeds, creating life when conditions are suitable.

There may or may not be a God. But there are natural rules. Maybe reality has always existed. We will never know the truth of that I suspect.

Darwin observed the obvious, which is how science creates a benchmark in time. It's obvious that remote places like Easter Island and Australasia will develop unique species in isolation, and the consequences of humans then introducing european fauna shows what can happen to indigenous species. 

But I only think Darwin got the obvious, and I don't blindly believe his version of life, simply because the obvious today has changed.

So there you have it. No answers.

Unless this whole thing is a simulation.

[mika Mesmeriser]

Short interlude......(Insert Prim for Kiss)

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by mika Mesmeriser

[Gabriele Graves]

37 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

At some point, there has to be something that either exists infinitely without being created or created itself.

Does there?  Or is it a case of

[Caroline Takeda]

There is one little detail I miss in this discussion.

The science of evolution evolved since the days of Darwin. We know by now that "the survival of the fittest" is only a part of it, but by no means all of it. Just to throw in one important element, simbiosis  is also a huge part of it.

I thought at first, this is going to be a scientific discussion, but learned it was about the old (little boring) evolution versus creation debate.

One thing is very clear to me:

Evolution is not a hypothesis anymore, not even a theory, it is a proven fact. Weather or not evolution had an architect or a "concert conductor", I don't know, nobody knows for sure.

I do not dismiss the possibility, but I am almost certain he/she/it would have nothing to do with organizations or beliefs we call religions today.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Caroline Takeda

[Caroline Takeda]

Maybe one day we get another letter from it (Genesis 2.0)

Could start like this:
 

Hello Folks,

It's been a while we talked. But I feel it is about time to clarify a few things.

I initiated and orchestrated what you guys call evolution.

Ok folks, some thousand years ago, I told you that I did all that in a couple of days. That's bull***** of course, it took me a frigging long time to get all this where it is today. You caught me out on that.

But lemme tall ya something mates. You are just the beta version as yet. The problem is, I am running out of time, as my lighting system (you call them suns or stars) has a few bugs. Those stars tend to explode every now and then and yours is about due (no worries, I am working on the issue).

But could you do me favor until then?

Could you please stop *****in it up yourselves?
As you know by now, it took me Millions of years to get there!

Thanks in advance

Jehova (You can call me Bob)

P.S: Was fun at the time, but I got bored of them Dinos.


 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Caroline Takeda

[RunawayBunny]

1 hour ago, Caroline Takeda said:

I do not dismiss the possibility, but I am almost certain he/she/it would have nothing to do with organizations or beliefs we call religions today.

In middle asia it is taboo you are not allowed to talk about religions (even in ancient times no one allowed to criticize it) but also there is many evidence exist our initial religions invented possibly copied by Sumerians later renamed and altered with different variations, eventually evolved as law. Even today subject complicated law and religion most of time mixed up.

Long story short, religions have nothing to do with god, evolution or creation. It was a big lie.. served as law but abused by many.

This video about history of writing and evolution of account keeping, fake history writing but it will give you idea what about I am talking

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by RunawayBunny
So many typos and grammar errors ! I kinda fixed all :)

[Theresa Tennyson]

47 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Does there?

 

Yes.

Prove me wrong.

[Gabriele Graves]

5 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Yes.

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.  I'll leave that with you.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Ceka Cianci]

8 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Evolution does and cannot completely disprove an existence of a God creator.   And, if it can, how so?   What Darwin (and others before him btw) showed is that natural selection selects the survival of the fittest not artificial selection such as "good breeding" as was believed in England for quite a long time.   Artifical selection is breeding and breeding pure breeds and breeding was thought to be the only way to bring about survival of the fittest.  

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

the continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

I don't really care if it proves it or disproves it.. It's a belief.. I'm not trying to prove it or disprove it.

I don't really care if someone believes in a god or not, it's their life.. As long as they don't get all preachy on me from either side, more power to them..

The question i was answering was, if someone has been lied to so often, why wouldn't they question everything..

I have some experience with what it's like to become an unbeliever.. It really sucks and leaves you lost and searching..

After all that, there isn't much I don't question.. it took years to get out of that spin..

So that's why i said what i said..

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.  I leave that with you.

1) If something isn't either infinite (i.e. non-created) or self-created, something else created it.

2) If something was created by something else, what created that something else?

Edited March 12, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Nalates Urriah]

23 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

It's also an open question as to how many of the people of the cultures that originated the religions we know actually took the teachings to be literal truth. It would be interesting to see if at some point in the far future whether scholars think we believed that Luke Skywalker was a real person.

Meanwhile, we have the unique opportunity of watching a new religion evolve in real time right now - that religion being known as QAnon.

If you are commenting purely on a numbers thing then it is an open question. Otherwise, it isn’t really a question of whether they believed it literal or not. They did. We have First Century historians that wrote about people dying for their belief plus Roman records relate their actions regarding the Christians.

Rome had numerous polytheistic religions immitating Greek mythology. In the list was the emperor. The Jews and Christians being a monotheistic religion refused to worship the emperor. Thus recorded 300+/- years of Roman persecution. Which should tip you off to how strongly they believed.

No one dies for a belief they think mythical.

You going to name QAnon and not include Blue Anon? Dang. Bias is slipping in everywhere…

23 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

A lot of people think Christianity took off right away..  It was actually like 400 to 500 years later.. So nobody was around to really  get any first hand information.. hehehe

Not sure where you got that idea. It is wrong.

Consider. The Roman emperor Nero (54-68 AD) blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. They had to be well enough known throughout the empire for him to pull that off.

Constantine (306-337 AD) made Christianity the national religion of Rome.

By 40 AD Christians had become well established in Rome. So much so Emperor Claudius banished all Christians from Rome in 49 AD. That was Rome not Jerusalem, 4,ooo kilometers away. So, they were a big enough annoyance to the polytheists in Rome something had to be done.

This is basic history. So whoever you got your info from, mark them as a bad source.

23 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Prokofy did supply a definition of what God is:

"St. Anselm, who wrote that God is that "than which no greater can be conceived."

The quote by Natales is still there underneath the quote by MollyMews:

"These are scientists that are loath to admit a mistake and there is a prime agenda to avoid having a god one has to answer to." 

That sentence you refer to I still in the OP and has been since the OP was written. Get it straight.

That sentence of mine is not supplying a definition of god. If that were a definition then judges would be gods.