Fear in the God Fearing

[nativeastral]

Namaste tao,

no.. though since my surgery i've been out of work and i would be keen to get a paying gig!!

metta,

~v

set yourself up as an online counsel..you'd make a mint!

 

[citizenzen]

science may seem objective but it has an agenda, a naturalistic one...

Or we could do it your way...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Tao,

as an aside...

At the other end, like with Hoyle, you see such amazing and vast richness and complexity that 'appears' to rest on implausible chance's built upon implausible chance.

i found a first edition copy of Hoyle's "The Nature of the Universe" at a small antique book store in a tiny college town in Maine.

it's quite interesting to see how the ideas that he's put forth have changed in such a relatively short time frame.

metta,

~v

 

[Tao_Equus]

Namaste tao,

no.. though since my surgery i've been out of work and i would be keen to get a paying gig!!

metta,

~v

Sorry to hear you even required surgery I hope everything went well and whatever the problem was is fixed.

From what I know of you from your posts here you are vastly over-qualified for a position of power But good luck on that front too.

 

[nativeastral]

Or we could do it your way...

my way or the high way..explication has never been my strong suit
its a miracle l'm alive and kicking!
and still asking questions and looking for answers [just for fun]

 

[farhan]

I am no scientist but I have worked with and have thus a deep working knowledge of evolution. There is nothing alive that cannot be demonstrated to have evolved to be the way it is. And there are many things that are not alive that can also be seen to evolve in a predictable way given the right conditions. Evolution is fact. Not theory. The theory describes the meat and bones of Darwins ideas, the parts. The whole, the statement that "evolution is fact", is just that, rock solid fact.
Now if you were really interested in the truth you would not only read the idiots like Harun or the crackpots of the fossil museum but solid peer reviewed science too. But you do not. Indeed as I have already stated, and state again in the dim hope you might actually hear it, you have demonstrated very clearly that you do not even have a basic understanding of what evolution theory states. Until such times that you do, if ever, your thinking will remain naive and full of basic errors that are visible to all.
I have a double advantage over you here. I know what you believe as well, I would argue even better, than you yourself do. I have looked at the creationist arguments in detail, understood the premises and conclusions and rejected them as nonsense. I have looked at both sides not as someone trying to prove or disprove the existence of a creator but as someone examining the observational data. Creationists have one agenda and one agenda alone, to fit the data to their religious views. An evolutionary scientists makes an observation and tries to explain it using empirical observational testing. He/she may try out 100s of theories before finding one that explains all the observations and is content to be wrong many times for the ultimate aim of demonstrating a single fact. There are now so many of these single facts in the field of evolutionary science that to deny them, and the holistic merit of the theory itself, is akin to denying the existence of water molecules and oceans. But if you continue to make idols of idiots you will never know that. Sadly, it is your loss, not mine. Evolution theory is very beautiful and, as Luna stated, there are very many believers that see evolution as fact and their holy books as non-literal when it comes to explaining the natural world. It is your bad luck to have been born in a geographical region where feudal lords still demand literalism from cradle to grave. Stockholm syndrome does not just affect high profile hostages it effects whole populations held tied fast to politico-religious paradigms.
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You dont understand science. The article you are quoting is stupid, it compares gravity with evolution. Gravity is an experienced fact, we see it happening everyday, millions have died because of it. Jump off a clif you too will have a taste. There is no way you can experience evolution, other than by CG.

Science is based on empirical evidence, thats the experienced part. There are conclusions from those observations, mostly dealing with "how to use it" questions, thats the deductive part. There are theories about that phenomenon, thats speculative part.

What is the evidence of evolution? There is a thing called micro-evolution. Nature has been doing it for a long time. We humans have also been doing it for some millenniums. Thats how nice varieties of wheat, rice & horses have been "formed". There is a second evidence, a particular kind of animals existing in a particular layer of earth.

So what is the speculative part? Well since micro-evolution works, & since more sophisticated organisms exist in more superficial layers, so they must have evolved. And the science "fiction" part.....since they have evolve, so there is no God.

Is this science? yes it is. Is this a fact? no. Can it happen? ofcourse it can. Has it really happened? you cant be sure unless you are a "evolution thumping conservative fundamentalist". And either way, God cant be refuted. Personally I dont see it a religion related matter anyways.

There is a long list of weird stuff in scientific world, where rock solid facts were found out to be "too porous". Newtonian physics was rock sold, but it didnt explain a lot of stuff, like mercury's orbit. Relative physics explained that. Einstein also "proved empirically" that light bends. A few nukes proved matter & energy are convertible. And yet it doesnt explain a lot of stuff. Like satellite orbits changing for no good reason. Relativity is porous too, despite rock solid hard evidence being at its back. In its rock-solid-ness, evolution is not even in the same league as evolution.

So be a scientist, not a blind fundamentalist, open your mind.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You dont understand science. The article you are quoting is stupid, it compares gravity with evolution. Gravity is an experienced fact, we see it happening everyday, millions have died because of it. Jump off a clif you too will have a taste. There is no way you can experience evolution, other than by CG.

Science is based on empirical evidence, thats the experienced part. There are conclusions from those observations, mostly dealing with "how to use it" questions, thats the deductive part. There are theories about that phenomenon, thats speculative part.

What is the evidence of evolution? There is a thing called micro-evolution. Nature has been doing it for a long time. We humans have also been doing it for some millenniums. Thats how nice varieties of wheat, rice & horses have been "formed". There is a second evidence, a particular kind of animals existing in a particular layer of earth.

So what is the speculative part? Well since micro-evolution works, & since more sophisticated organisms exist in more superficial layers, so they must have evolved. And the science "fiction" part.....since they have evolve, so there is no God.

Is this science? yes it is. Is this a fact? no. Can it happen? ofcourse it can. Has it really happened? you cant be sure unless you are a "evolution thumping conservative fundamentalist". And either way, God cant be refuted. Personally I dont see it a religion related matter anyways.

There is a long list of weird stuff in scientific world, where rock solid facts were found out to be "too porous". Newtonian physics was rock sold, but it didnt explain a lot of stuff, like mercury's orbit. Relative physics explained that. Einstein also "proved empirically" that light bends. A few nukes proved matter & energy are convertible. And yet it doesnt explain a lot of stuff. Like satellite orbits changing for no good reason. Relativity is porous too, despite rock solid hard evidence being at its back. In its rock-solid-ness, evolution is not even in the same league as evolution.

So be a scientist, not a blind fundamentalist, open your mind.

Well since you are such an occasional interloper here I must cut you some slack. My first thought was to tell you to go stick your head back up yer ass where it belongs. That might be construed as rude though...so I refrain.

If you cannot understand the logic of the comparison between evolution and gravity in that article then I suggest you return to it until you do. It really is very simple, a child could follow it...so stick with it.

If you were to read me more often you would see that I am no blind follower of science. I realise its limitations and can see its evolution as you allude to in the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian explanations for gravity. I do not and have never believed any science to be a 'done deal'. Evolution, however, is a fact not just a theory. I note you do not actually refute that.

We both know why you like to think I have a closed mind. Reducing me to your level is the only methodology you know. Better luck next time.

 

[iBrian]

Apologies for the missing last reply - Vaj accidentally clicked on "edit" instead of "quote" in farhan's post, and only realised after composing his own reply. Hence Vaj's decision to delete that post as otherwise it would have been Vaj replying as farhan.

 

[nativeastral]

on the curing gays thread dan dennett was mentioned; found this video but have only watched the evolution bit and he still seems weak.

MeaningofLife.tv

 

[citizenzen]

on the curing gays thread dan dennett was mentioned; found this video but have only watched the evolution bit and he still seems weak.

Funny. I would have said that about the pencil-necked geek who was interviewing him.

It's our tendency to esteem the person who mirrors our own philosophy (and denigrate the person who doesn't, just like I did ). So it's not surprising that you and I see it so differently.

 

[nativeastral]

you obviously are affected by looks, l was just listening to the line of argument and dans oh ums

 

[citizenzen]

you obviously are affected by looks, l was just listening to the line of argument and dans oh ums

Whatever, dude.

I get distracted by looks, you get distracted by speech. Like I said in my previous post, in the end we esteem the person who mirrors our beliefs and denigrate those who don't. No big surprise there.

 

[citizenzen]

What I would ask that pencil-necked geek (there I go again ) is, if as he contends, evolution is progressing in some kind of upward trend (therefor supporting his contention of a designer), why are the most abundant organisms still so simple after billions of years? Shouldn't these organisms have evolved into a more complex state by now?

Evolution is not a process that inexorably moves toward complexity. While some organism do become more complex, most remain simple and virtually unchanged after billions of years.

Could your thin-necked friend (or you, however thick your neck may be ) explain why that is?

Why is the creator, or "designer", so fond of slime?

 

[nativeastral]

l think the interviewer is a materialist, like dennett, or so he admitted at the beginning of the talk watched the free will bit later and he came across a bit more reasonable.

 

[citizenzen]

l think the interviewer is a materialist, like dennett, or so he admitted at the beginning of the talk watched the free will bit later and he came across a bit more reasonable.

I thought I heard him say that too.

But you haven't answered my last post NA. What do you think about "slime" and how does that fit in with design and the notion that evolution leads towards complexity, intelligence and the divine?

 

[nativeastral]

Why is the creator, or "designer", so fond of slime?

why use anthropomorphic or emotive language in decribing what happens to be and why are you putting on to me tht that is what l believe? and if you are a buddhist how does karma and reincarnation fit into your mindless chance?

 

[citizenzen]

why use anthropomorphic or emotive language in decribing what happens to be and why are you putting on to me tht that is what l believe?

Well, you did link us to the discussion about the subject, so I thought you might have a thought or two on it.

and if you are a buddhist how does karma and reincarnation fit into your mindless chance?

Many people misunderstand what karma is. It is not a method of cosmic payback. Karma is simply what is. As for reincarnation, that is a concept that I don't think about. A Buddhist keeps their mind on the present moment and acts accordingly. Preoccupation with the past or the future is an unnecessary distraction.

 

[iBrian]

What do you think about "slime" and how does that fit in with design and the notion that evolution leads towards complexity, intelligence and the divine?

Okay, I'll briefly pick this one up with a personal belief.

Life evolves like a river - it flows into every niche and cranny available to it, but ultimately, it still strives towards a general direction (complexity).

Why does life do this thing? Why does life flow and become more complex?

This in itself is a mystery that others will observe but dare not seek to answer - others yet will answer that this is Divine Will, and in doing so, open themselves to accusations of intellectual dishonesty because their explanation is, to some, no explanation at all.

Yet life shows an awareness of itself - convergent evolution shows that nature appears to have a pre-programmed tendency to create not just complex structures, but the same forms of complex structures at every opportunity - the evolution of the eye among vertebrates (ie, mammals) and invertebrate (ie, cephalopods) shows an underlying set of mechanics involved in the flow towards complexity.

Species of plant exist solely to feed one species of insect, through the size of their flowers or the taste of their fruit. How do they know?

A reductionist evolutionary theory would suggest that many plants have randomly evolved, and died out, because they did not evolve the right shape flower or the right shape fruit, because the insects they required did not exist.

Yet observation does not support this - observation suggests there are myriads of instances where co-operation between entirely unrelated species is required for their continuance.

Observation does not suggest that plants are randomly mutating into new species - macro-evolution - in the search for new species of insect, and then dying out en-masse. Instead, observation suggests there is a principle awareness, perhaps not least through environmental triggers, that suggests new lines of evolutionary development.

Perhaps this explanation will not suffice, but this is intended not as one, as much as an illustration of a point - Nature itself often behaves from a macroscopic point of view as a self-aware entity - aware of the limits and boundaries through which it can develop, but also aware of the various mechanisms within itself that different species must compete both for and against within.

If a "slime" fills an evolutionary niche, and there is little or no driving factors to force it to adapt to a more complex form, then there is no need to be. Where it occurs, all life begins! We were all, every living thing, once a "slime" of sorts in our far distant evolutionary past. Our existence is proof enough that slime does not always wish to be slime!

Why do such features essential for the creation of increasingly complex and - conscious - entities, continue to show themselves across different living types?

Why does Nature create social communities across many species? Why does Nature create social communities across vastly differing species? Why does the insect show social behaviour, and yet also the ape?

Clearly in the ape we can see its advantage, the seemingly more complex behaviours tested and tried - sometimes less successfully - at different stages of the evolutionary process?

Why, if the ultimate question be asked, is it impossible to observe Nature, without describing Nature with the same motivations of a sentient force? Nature fills, Nature abhors, Nature found...

When we therefore address Nature in this manner, we are recognising that a fundamental principle of conscious experience is at work in the universe, and in doing so, cannot fail to invoke our concept of God - a single infinite and universal force - at work behind the very process of life itself.

 

[iBrian]

(Hm, didn't come out too well, but I haven't tried channelling for many years).

 

[nativeastral]

thats probably along my lines of thinking, going back to what l said earlier of biology's reluctance to postulate any 'intent' compared to say physicists; l posted that vid cos the thread had taken that evolutionary road and that guy has interviewed many many folk so was taking more of an overview/objective stance whereas dennett has a theory to advance.

cz
you may not prostrate yourself to gain 'merit' or serve any sangha for the same purpose but many/most buddhists do because they think they will in some form or another come back so in this sense not materialist ie 'this is not it'.

personally l prefer the mystery myself but just like speculating with others; l am in 2 minds [!] about determinism/free will but think they are compatible just haven't formulated it enough yet but l do think there are forces still undetected by us [scientifically therefore not believed to be extant] and that it is a mistake to have faith in a subject prone to change with each passing theory or paradigm any more than stating divine will/personal responsibility; they are just 2 ways of describing the same thing - that we have evolved into a complexity for some sort of purpose, otherwise why are we having this discussion?!