...while real in the presence of sort-of philosophical drivers, is, nonetheless, a philosophy of ignorance."
An extremely interesting and enlightening look at the history of science and the gradual phasing out of religiosity in it, featuring the incredible Neil deGrasse Tyson. I've saved you the sorrow of sitting through the first 19 seconds, wherein the video's uploader just shoved in a disgustingly obnoxious intro, so you're welcome.
It's ok. The truth will come out eventually.
Sooner rather than later.
Yeah, and Intelligent Design will finally be gone for good, to be replaced with knowledge and reason.
Only if the knowledge is complete and reliable.
And is possible to be reliable while contradicting your predetermined beliefs? Or does that automatically make it false?
Considering the "knowledge" is based on factual evidence and not on ancient book of myths and superstitions, it should be reliable. It will be complete given time. Until then, the question is whether or not one clings to books of myths and superstitions as those books are on the decline as far as verifiable or credible knowledge is concerned.
I don't need to refer to an ancient book to know or understand what I believe in. Those who use religious dogma and myth to explain why they believe we were made not evolved have little understanding of either.
Hate to burst your bubble, but your religious beliefs are based entirely on those very myths and superstitions.
Hate to burst your bubble but your evolutionary beliefs are based on the writings of a man who disagreed with is bible bashing father.
That's pretty silly and has absolutely no basis in fact. Evolution, on the other hand is based on facts and evidence.
Your ridiculous explanation would have the entire scientific community believing that evolution is a fact because they too disagree with Darwin's "bible bashing father". Hilarious.
Many people before Darwin had doubts about their origin but it was he that come up with some fantastic idea about us all coming from nothing.
There are no real answers in evolution only more questions, which is pretty hilarious when scientists keep coming up with other fantastic non provable ideas to explain the gaping holes. The only thing they haven't been tempted to explain is macro-evolution which even the most intelligent of them steers clear from. No answers to the fundamental question shows me personally that they haven't worked it out because they can't.
Oh and not the whole scientific community believes evolution has the answers, most believe there is far more work to do.
Unfortunately, Darwin never discussed where everything ultimately came from and in fact clearly stated more than once that his theory had nothing to do with the subject.
Which makes one wonder why you would say such a silly thing as "...it was he that come up with some fantastic idea about us all coming from nothing" when you claim to be well versed in the theory of evolution. Another red herring? Another attempt to discredit via lies? Or are as ignorant of the theory as the statement makes it sound like?
Without doubt i am ignorant.
I thought Darwin was the exponent of common decent, in actual fact i am sure he mentioned it in his first edition of his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.", and i thought common decent was all about tracing back to a common ancestor. Mind you i will say he never said where he thought that common ancestor or the original DNA came from which of course is exactly the same as scientists today.
Maybe i am just thick or something, not understanding that everything happend by a seris of DNA mutations or millions upon millions of random acts.
Oh. Then you understand that Darwin did not say we came from "nothing", but from prior species. A dinosaur is not "nothing", you know, and even an amoeba isn't either.
Maybe you are, if you can't understand how those millions or billions of random mutations, coupled with decidedly NONramdom tests for survivability can change a species.
Of course he didn't say we came from nothing, i said it because scientists still can't explain how the first DNA cell was formed.
DNA is not a cell. DNA is a material found in most cells and which is organized on chromosomes.
My apologies then. I took your statement "but it was he that come up with some fantastic idea about us all coming from nothing" to mean that Darwin came up with the idea that we all came from nothing. I did not understand that it actually meant that scientists do not know the exact method the first DNA strand was assembled.
Darwin did not specify Ancestor #1. He could not. The basics of modern genetics and genetic materials (such as DNA, RNA, chromosomes, genomes, etc.) were unknown to Darwin.
You are seriously telling me that Darwin wouldn't have known about the work of Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), the father of Genetics
But he indicated that all living things come from a common ancestor, scientist are now telling us that common ancestor would have been the first DNA.
And as early as 1870 scientists accepted evolution as fact. (even without the DNA evidence)
Mendel had no knowledge of DNA.
Mendel's work was rejected during his own lifetime lifetime and not part of Darwin's scientific worldview. Darwin was entirely unaware of Mendel's work and writings.
Mendel's work was rediscovered and popularized after 1900.
The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953.
It's very sad to see the damage religions have caused to the minds of humans. It forces them to lie about stuff they don't understand and will never take the time to understand because they believe it jeopardizes their beliefs. How very, very sad.
Its very sad to see those who have been bamboozled by science and its supporters, they have become robotic in their answers especially when they have no answer to the basic questions of how the original DNA was formed.
Science has explained how the basic structures of DNA were formed. It is called evolutionary science.
Refusing to accept science because one has been conditioned to believe OR has determined to believe that science exists in conflict with religion is most unfortunate.
My sense, after participating in this discussion, is that a great deal of lack of information and misinformation informs those who reject science for myth AND that a great deal of insistence that to be Christian means to reject evolutionary science informs the discussion. Oddly enough, the original Christian Church---the Roman Catholic Church, not only embraces and accepts evolution but also embraces and accepts cosmological evolution and the so-called Big Bang Theory and an inflationary universe.
And that saddens me. We are, as a culture, failing to educate people in terms of 21st century knowledge and failing to disabuse people of the notion that knowledge AND meaning of and in life is an either/or proposition: Either religion OR science.
The Catholic Church has more to do with a dictatorship modelled around the the teachings of Christ, where those teachings are in opposition to their control they just throw them out. The Catholic Church has nothing to so with true Christianity and if as you say you have studied religion that should come as no surprise.
I would also like you to point me in the direction of the information on how DNA was formed. From what I have research even biologist can't agree on it.
I do know that there will be those who without finding out my beliefs will castigate me for them and then call me unintelligent for asking questions which they themselves don't know the answer to. But I will continue to question why there are so many gaps in the evolutionary theory as do scientists themselves. There is no definitive absolute when it comes to evolution, and there are many different theories non of them proven as fact.
Agreement does not make fact. Agreement does not validate. The absence of total knowledge is not a marker of the absence of fact. The absence of total knowledge is not a marker of fraud. Absolutism is not the stuff of critical thinking---particularly the critical thinking of science. Absolutism is not the stuff of fact and truth.
If agreement and total knowledge and absolutism are required to demonstrate authority or to demonstrate the efficacy of something, then clearly science and religion are in the SAME boat as neither science NOR religion agree on everything, have total knowledge of everything, or are absolute about anything.
Your comment about the Catholic Church is nothing more than opinion. Catholicism exists within a milieu of literally dozens of Christian faiths---all of which claim validity in terms of their own theology and all of which are believed to be true and valid Christian faiths to their adherents. The Catholic Church, like ALL churches, stands in opposition to beliefs it does not subscribe to and discards teachings---including those of Christ, which it does not endorse.
Some religions dictate that evolution is not a fact. Some do not.
Some religions require that their adherents deny evolution and reject evolutionary science. Some do not.
Some religions insist that Christianity requires a rejection of science---particularly evolutionary and cosmological science. Some do not.
But, to suggest that any given religion "has nothing to [do] with true Christianity" because its values are inconsistent with those of your church is to engage in sectarianism and nothing more.
Again you are asserting religion into the unknown rather than trying to find the answer.
My sense is that some religions are well-aware of the fact that science has the power (and has had the power in the past and will have it in the future) to dispel myth and to disabuse people of superstitions which require them to abandon even the most rudimentary of critical thought.
I also sense that some religions---particularly those that demand belief by their adherents that science/factual knowledge and religion are mutually exclusive, do so as part of a larger project of engaging their adherents in the so-called "culture war"; a "war" that some religions believe can be won IF science and secularism and skepticism can be reconstituted as demonic bogey man.
You clearly did not watch the video. Neil deGrasse Tyson demonstrated many times that even the brightest of the bright resort (to their downfall) to religion in the face of the unknown rather than trying to understand the unknown. Even Newton did this when he couldn't find the math to explain how our solar system stays in tact. A few years later someone came along with the math that explains it because he didn't resort to religion. As he said we shouldn't be studying why 90% of the elite scientist don't believe in God we should be studying why the 10% still do.
How would DeGrassreTyson know anything about a god, he was born into a scientific family of atheist.
His speeches or sermons as you could call them are all to the scientific fraternity. It is quite obvious that he understands little about belief unless its his own.
Everyone understands peoples beliefs in gods. It's not like trying to understand relativity. However he does seem to understand thought stops and turns to God when we can't or won't continue looking for answers. All you need to do is look at history. Do we really want the people looking for the cure for cancer giving up and saying "we can't understand this because God's done it"?
No, I would want those trying to find the cure to say "Cancer sucks and we should use the best of our God given ability to find a cure and help other people."
That's works for me as well. Whatever it takes, but haven't you seen people writing in these forums saying "God's work is beyond our comprehension and alway will be"? They refuse to study the science of evolution for example because they feel it conflicts with their notion of God or they think because they can't understand it nobody can.
I have seen those, but I cannot speak for them. I feel that it is not living up to one's potential if one just gives up and says it was not the will of God/fate/the sun god etc...
If our abilities were God given, why does cancer still exist? In fact, why does any disease exist? Our "God given" abilities are divinely provided, by definition, hence there should be no disease, no sickness or ailments of any kind.
Do you know who Neil deGrasse Tyson is? Are you at all familiar with him and his work? Do you know that he is a champion of science for the public and writes books designed to make science accessible to the public?
Do you know that Tyson, like Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") or Brian Greene (string theorist) or Alan Alda (actor and advocate of science education) or Morgan Freeman (actor and producer of several science films such as "Through the Wormhole"), is making a meaningful effort to popularize science for the public---particularly for young people?
Science is fine, there is nothing wrong with science. DeGrasse Tyson is another scientist that writes books, great. But there are many more scientists that write books and some of them don't agree with DeGrasse Tyson.
Not all biologists believe we evolved from apes but I suppose their science doesn't count.
Yes, there are about 10% of elite scientists who stopped looking for answers and assume we will never find the answer. Which group do you want doing cancer research?
Except for the fact that some believers still reject it. In fact, they reject one of the most successful and important theories in the history of science; evolution.
Evolution is obvious.
It's your current theory that is wrong.
Of course you know I'm going to say it is designed by God.
That was my next question. For some unknown reason he designed humans and then the guinea worm to inflict misery on the poor?
That is what many of the scientifically illiterate believe, but they only make up around 3% of the population.
That would be the theory you've never understood.
Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn't actually say anything--scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn't mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth -- not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.
ATM, your quaint close-mindedness is totally endearing. It's like watching a toddler stumbling around before he learns to walk.
Obviously, you have nothing to add but personal insults, yet again.
Define "complete". Define "reliable". Complete suggests things are done and all is known. Complete is anathema to science. Reliable is a qualtitative term, and as such, not quantifiable and not scientific.
The question for science to move from hypothesis to theory rests on whether or not others can replicate work and arrive at the same conclusions.
So results of testing don't have to be reliable then, they just have to show the test shows what the tester wants it to show, as indeed carbon dating does.
The history of science is a history of what Thomas Kuhn called shifts in the "dominant [scientific] paradigm. These shifts allow, for example, for the history of science to include conflicting paradigms such as "intelligent design" and the Big Bang Theory.
And these shifts when understood and embraced by not only the scientific community, but the larger public, become the stuff of scientific revolutions. Among these: these shifts which eventually became revolutions: movement from geocentrism to heliocentrism; movement from a biblical understanding of creation to evolution; movement from static universe to an expanding universe.
. . . from classical physics to quantum physics, which looks indistinguishable from magic (quantum entanglement) and from quantum physics to digital physics (which suggests that all the meta-data underlying the universe is calculated in some layer beyond time and space and rendered in what we call reality).
Arthur C. Clarke said it best:
“Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”
Absolutely. Or to look at it differently, is science only now catching up to what people have already intuitively believed through history. As Shakespeare put it, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Although we cannot accept "knowledge" that does not have a rigorous scientific basis, should we be so quick to dismiss it as useless when science is discovering phenomena that appear to match descriptions of what we would historically call "magic" and "miracles"?
That would make Steven Frayne the greatest scientist ever.
What a marvelous notion. When man knows everything he will have no need for God. I like that. I think it is very accurate. I think that if someone really has a problem with that thought they must be very insecure.
While I marvel at things natural I do not need God to explain them. While I am in awe of life and all the wonderful things included herein I do not need God to explain them.
I only need God for those matters beyond my comprehension. I sure am glad we do not know everything and no one ever will. Maybe as a society we will in the conglomerate. But no man will ever know everything.
That would be a problem, not a solution.
Why not? Are you opposed to knowledge?
Oh no not at all. Somethings are just impossible for us at this time. Somethings we just do not know. That pesky time/space continuum and things in peoples brains and the deepest parts of space and the ocean.
If I already knew who was going to win the Allstar game tonight what fun would that be?
Well, had not religion ruled our world for so many centuries, we might be visiting other planets by now and have a huge volume of knowledge. Unfortunately, religion poisons everything.
But don't you see where this started and the point Tyson could not get around. Money and knowledge we will never have enough or all of it. So there will always be that kind of frontier where man cannot go beyond. That is where a notion of God starts and logic is lost. The unknown will always be there and in that space Intelligent design is just as noble as science.
But if the "frontier" is only imaginary and does not actually exist? Is it still "noble"?
Sorry, but your religion does not go beyond the mythical, it is not some glorious frontier where logic is lost and the dogma is noble. It is merely the ramblings of men, who most likely had mental disorders.
Are you saying wilderness that Galaxies unknown to us, that the beginning of life is explained or it is imaginary. Things that exist but we do not know of are not imaginary --- deepest part of the oceans, the god particle.
ATM I never mentioned religion -- that is your anti crusade. My thoughts do not come from religion they come from faith. Many of my thoughts come from faith in science and empiricism and many from belief in spirituality and God.
You two know you cannot explain everything. So why not let us explain it ---- NO NOT RELIGION but People.
I have seen very little in your posts to indicate anything scientific, but plenty of faith based myths.
So what? Why is that a problem for you?
I am sorry. Name one myth I ascribed to. You cannot.
Are not gods myths that persist over time and place and serve as explanations for what is not known or not understood?
gods yes. A spiritual father no. That is personal. Time means nothing to the Spirit or the soul. God is an explanation of what is that we cannot explain and in so being it is understood.
You do not understand the great makings of the cosmos and life. Neither do I. But I believe and in that it is understood. You do not believe and in that it is not understood.
I cannot understand why that idiot next door loves his wife. Yuk. But that does not make it not so. Perhaps there is science I do not know. That is cool. But you do -- explain it to me, please. Perhaps there is spiritual that you do not know,,,, should you not act the same?
So Gods are myths, but your spiritual father (God) is not? Is your Spiritual father fact for you and do you use him to explain the things we do not understand YET? This is the trap that Neil deGrasse Tyson was warning us against in the video. The same trap that has led to the scientific downfall of Islam and Christianity in the middle ages. It's taken 500 years to crawl out of that whole because of the mindset of the religious. "God done it".
The reliable excuse (something I think deGrasse Tyson rightly chalks up to intellectual laziness) is "god done it". After all, isn't "god done it" much easier that reading and mastering the often difficult literature of science or grasping and mastering the equally difficult mathematics that underwrites science fact?
Mumbo jumbo is not an explanation or justification, it's just so much nonsense.
Your analogy fails because we know your religion and what it entails.
No, they are actually dumbed-down explanations for the masses, of concepts of science that are very well known by a few.
Good and on point janesix --- if once you can hold the train of thought? You do not know what was in Ceasar's mind when he fell for Cleopatra. Likewise you do not know all the animals in the sea. And most important here is that you do not know the beginning of life as we understand it. Big Bang? come on that is faith. From Monkeys to man --- again a leap. God Particle, String theory.... do not even claim you understand them. You would be more hypocritical than a Crusader.
Here is some dumbed down science: What race am I and what do you base it on. You do not have a clue. But the data is there, you are just ignorant. That does not make you bad. Beginning of the cosmos and my belief in what caused it does not make me wrong. Because you ain't got nothing better.
You have no clue.
I would laugh but I feel sorry for you.
Much of what I have read in this forum says to me that we are, as the critics of American education argue, not teaching science in our schools and that we are failing American students by not teaching science in the k-12 and college/university environments.
Other than string theory, yes. But, you don't understand those things because you refuse to take the time to do so. Of course, your religious beliefs prohibit the understanding of facts and evidence and teaches you to reject or deny them in favor of mythical fantasies.
You know there is absolutely NOTHING precluding everyone having scientific knowledge. There is a wealth of literature available everywhere---books and journals, the worldwide web, television, radio, social networking, hubpages, where one can acquire knowledge---real knowledge, facts, science, written by real scientists specifically for the general public.
In fact, you can go on Facebook and friend several people and organizations devoted to science for the public, for the non-scientist.
Yes, the earth is flat and the sun moves from one side of it to the other.
Unknown does not mean unknowable. You clearly indicate that there are things that man can never know - the response is intended to reject that notion as well as the idea that made up "things" such as gods, other universes and the supernatural are somehow "noble" to think about.
As far as when god starts being the place where logic (and reason) ends, well, that's just silly. When made up but unsupported explanations are accepted as truth it isn't "noble" somehow - it's just silly.
I do not think Claudius Ptolemy was silly. And he knew knowledge would expand just like you and I do. Not where logic and reason end, where scientific knowledge ends.
Where does the energy for love and spiritualism come from. Scientifically we no there is an increase of energy in the body, but we do not know how it is produced. To say that it is a force like love would not be scientific but very logical and rational. And the leap that God is Love is just as sound as love is chemicals and neurons but we do not know really.
Only the incredulous defeatist would stand by such a statement. It is the type of mindset that has oppressed and denied those who sought to seek answers to how everything works.
Sorry, but as long as anything in our universe has a question or lack of understanding, there will be science at work to find an answer and an understanding. And, it will do so despite insidious intervention.
So what? Is there a huge problem with that? Can you not bear life without knowing those answers?
Why is it those who understand science, facts and evidence the least are the ones who reject it the most simply because answers to questions they have never even taken the time to understand elude them?
It would appear to show more that faith and beliefs prohibit the believer from being honest with themselves, first and foremost.
Please, do not turn the meaning of such words as "energy" and "force" into some esoteric jargon from spiritualism. Those words already have very definite meanings.
We know very well where the energy of the body comes from; chemical reactions. The body is a chemical factory, producing energy from reactions.
We also know there is no "force" in love. Force is "Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement" (online dictionary, and reasonably correct in the world of physics) and there is no gross physical movement or action in "love".
We also know there are certain chemical reactions in the brain (serotonin release to start with) associated with the emotion of love. No particular "energy" or "force" as you use the words. Only a little chemical and neurological activity.
Much the same with "spiritualism". It is but a construct of the human brain, nothing more. An emotional response to stimuli - not real to anyone but the brain tissue producing the concept. No more than a method of reasoning, just as the scientific method is.
There are more than one definition to these words. I was using the spiritual sense obviously. I understand there is a scientific sense also. How can you deny that someone makes perfect sense when they say: "your love gives me energy". It does not have to be measured in watts or voltage. We here the concept all the time. Is everyone just wrong?
Sorry, but there are no definitions of anything spiritual in force and energy.
From your own post: "Scientifically we no there is an increase of energy in the body". Now you say there IS an increase in energy, referring to the same statement.
Just as you say, there are multiple definitions of the term "energy". You specifically indicated the scientific usage, then promptly turned around and said it was a different usage. Such manipulation of semantics merely to make a point is beneath you and contributes nothing to the discussion.
If you want to discuss feelings, a sense of well being or happiness, a willingness to carry out physical activity, then don't say that we scientifically understand there is no increase in "energy" (which directly relates to those terms in a different usage than science uses).
I see your point. But now I see you at least got mine.
Partially. I am no biologist, but believe that an increase in serotonin in the brain tissue will result in those symptoms of "feelings, a sense of well being or happiness, a willingness to carry out physical activity". I have no idea at the micro level of how it works, however.
Whether true or not, there is no reason to ascribe those feelings to an intelligent creature from another universe, reaching into ours to directly affect the chemical makeup of our nervous system during periods of feeling love. This is where we very much differ and is the root of our controversy. I find that the chemistry of the brain is due to natural causes, with reasons rooted most firmly in our bodies. You will give the reason as God, without having any idea or care as to what is happening within us or why it is happening.
This is insufficient (IMO) to accept any supernatural cause. If we want to know why there is more "energy" during periods of love we need to look into the chemistry of the brain, not simply postulate an invisible creature outside our universe that is tampering with that chemistry. Faith may (and does) give an answer, but not an answer that necessarily has anything to do with reality and certainly not an answer that can be checked or tested. It is thus of no practical value and can in fact be detrimental if it is accepted as truth and any searches for what is really happening dies out. We never find out what is going on in our own brain that way.
That is not to say that such an answer has no value to you however. It may sustain or reaffirm your faith. It may make you happy to think God is giving you energy. It may cause to you love even more strongly, feeling it is God's will. All of these and more can be good things and of great value to the faithful. They are just of no value to a nonbeliever that does not "see" God around every corner and does not accept that there is such a creature.
Of course we know how energy is produced. Food. Next?
No it's not. Love and it's chemical reaction and how it relates to evolution is understood. You should study it rather than assuming we don't understand it and it can't be understood.
Larry and Rad Man. I have studied a lot of science. Saying I am assuming and "You will give the reason as God, without having any idea or care as to what is happening within us or why it is happening." from Larry. Is just wrong. I am discussing it with you. Should I just not do that?
Uhh - can I answer here to the quote from my post (not Larry's)?
First, let me apologize if I have given the impression that I find you ignorant of science. I don't - from various posts I have assembled an image of someone with roughly equivalent science to my own. In differing fields, probably, but a decent amount of scientific training and knowledge.
Second, I apologize again if I've misread your intended meaning. I took your words to indicate that you see the hand of God in the increased energy of someone in love and if I misunderstood I do apologize.
And third, I've confused myself with this thread and the one you started on learning from each other. My thrust was to point out the differences in thought process between the faithful and the atheist. The difference in required proof for knowledge, and the resulting conclusion that the faithful assign supernatural causes to events or things without caring if it is true or not. It is the faithful equivalent of the science "I don't know" as far as I can see.
Darwin posited evolution of species over time and from common ancestors. Never did Darwin claim or make any case for spontaneous generation of life. What specific ideas---real ideas from the scientific literature of evolutionary biology, rather than the imagined ideas of those who know little or nothing about the science of evolution are "fantastic"?
I disagree that Intelligent design is a myth. Intelligent design is a well researched theory as much as the evolution theory. There are certain clarifications required before that.
1) When we talk about creation and Intelligent design, we are not talking about the Biblical god who created the universe, earth, heaven and hell. That is pure myth, dogmatic and has no evidence whatsoever. However, world history and far more ancient texts from far older civilizations have verifiable proof (albeit, the proof is "available" majority in texts). The creation "proof" and "debunking the myth" comes from scientists, atheists and religious people taking Bible and Christianity as the basis for everything, which unfortunately a myopic view. It is like saying, "Bible says this, but there is no evidence. Hence there is no god" or "Bible says this and it is the only truth". Are any of those scientists aware that there were Vedic, Egyptian and Sumerian cultures which were far more culturally and technologically advanced even before Rome was born? How many people even know that the major part of Bible was borrowed from these same ancient cultures that existed for at least 7000-9000 years?
2) While evolution is an undeniable fact and was scientifically proven by Darwin (there were earlier proponents of evolution), evolution of humans from apes was never proposed by him whatsoever. It is a well documented historical fact that though he proved evolution and natural selection, he did NOT apply it to human beings. It was done by his close associate (sorry, I don't remember the name. I guess it was Wallace who extrapolated it to humans). It is said that this extrapolation was never approved by Darwin. Secondly, there is no evidence till date about the "missing link" between apes and humans. Every "evidence" that came up has been successfully debunked. That just makes apes close relatives to humans and the theory of evolution of humans from apes just another theory, a theory as good as "Intelligent design".
5) We often say that ancient people were cave dwellers, hunters and gatherers. If we consider that, humans of those ages should have very low IQ (if we go by mainstream science). They should have documented what they saw, with just the ability of a copy cat and a bit of imagination. They shouldn't be highly creative as to create elaborate stories which ran for thousands of pages. Doesn't it mean that the evidences in scriptures, stones or cave paintings show exactly what they saw or "thought" what they saw? Are we saying that hundreds of cultures had a conference at a distant past (more than 10,000 years ago) at the center of the earth and decided how to write similar stories with minor differences? Absolutely ridiculous!!
4) When one considers evolution, it is well known that evolution happens over millions of years and cannot happen within a few thousand years. Also, intelligent design is neither purely "creation" nor "evolution". Unfortunately Intelligent design has been reduced to religious books as "creation" than a scientific theory. There is scientific evidence which states that out of the 24 pairs of chromosomes which may have come from apes, only 23 are native and one pair was external (one pair of chromosome not created in the body. Evolution cannot add something new, but can only modify the existing DNA or chromosome). Ever wonder where this 24th pair came from, if it wasn't created inside the body?
4) History may have been garbled up and much evidence may have been destroyed over 7,000-10,000 years due to floods, wars and what not? But, a myth or a legend comes from true facts that are just messed up over ages (in this case, thousands of years). Asking for "hard evidence" in that case would border foolishness. Lack of "available evidence" doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the first place. That may hold up in the legal system, but not science and research. However, if you want "evidence", one must naturally go to historic documents, which were nothing but scriptures (if one can quote from scientific journal, one has equal right to quote from ancient scriptures). Ever wonder why more than 200 non-connected cultures across the world have similar deluge stories and similar gods who created us? Yet, we have the audacity and arrogance to call them mumbo-jumbo even without doing a proper research about these cultures, myths and their scriptures.
5) There is nothing "divine" or "godly" about intelligent design. It is pure science. Ever heard of cloning or stem cell regeneration? If humans can do it to sheep and lab rats, are we absolutely sure that we won't be able to actually create a new life form (sounds to me like we are gods if we do that. And there may be temples, mosques and churches to worship us). Is there a guarantee that we were not lab mice for an extra-terrestrial civilization? So, is intelligent design a myth even then? And before someone says there are no extra-terrestrials, you may want to read on "Drake's equation" which is the basis for SETI and NASA's workings (or even Dr. Stephen H Dole).
So who exactly is the intelligent designer then? Are you subscribing to so-called "Ancient Alien" theory?
Well, at least you're honest about it. Most Creationists stutter endlessly and look shocked and horrified when you substitute God for aliens in Intelligent Design.
Thanks. That is because all the Creationists take Bible and the Talmud as their basis. The Bible itself was blatantly copied from other texts. It was also a simple mish-mash of other scriptures. There was no originality in the Bible except for the life of Jesus (there are now questions being raised whether someone named Jesus existed at all). It was a concocted story which is wrong and illogical on so many levels. At least, one would expect the Church to make it a believable story. Unfortunately, it wasn''t. When that happens, there is no thought that goes into it. Naturally, when a scientific research is done, it falls on its face. All they can think about are two words: Blasphemy and evil, when someone starts questioning it.
Ah, then perhaps you have a theory as to where the "Ancient Aliens" came from? Did they evolve or were they created by other aliens?
the Egyptian, Dogon (African tribe), Sumerian and the Indian cultures all point towards the Orion's belt, specifically star systems of Sirius A and B (which are now receiving special attention by astronomers especially after the shocking discovery of the Dogon tribe as well as the pyramids of Giza which resemble the Orion's belt), Pleiades and few other star systems. All these are star systems close to our solar system and galaxy. The Vedas talk about the exact 7 major star systems that make up the Orion constellation (they called them 7 great sages. How did the ancients know about these star systems at least 7,000-8,000 years ago when the first telescope was invented only during the 15th century?). The same stars are also available in Sumerian texts probably as old as Vedic texts. Of course, the names are quite different. This is just the beginning.
The notable thing is that the ancient civilizations didn''t document them as scientific journals or data, but more in terms of stories, rituals and traditions. For example, the hieroglyphics inside the pyramids of Giza and some of the Hindu rituals and traditions which are alive even today.
1) These ancient civilizations either didn't have the necessity of writing them (did they rely on mental power and thought writing hinders mental power?) or they simply didn't have writing material till the discovery of papyrus. The only way of passing historical data then would be to pass them down as stories and traditions simply because stories and rituals are easier to remember and practice, while dates and facts may be easily forgotten. People may forget the source of data, but stories and traditions will be remembered forever which themselves preserve the data.
2) The history and stories carved on stones last for thousands of years or even for eternity while what is written on paper can be easily destroyed (see the cave paintings preserved after thousands of years). So, when the hieroglyphics were drawn on the walls of Giza, the idea may have been exactly the same. To save the documents for posterity.
Now, did aliens evolve or were they created by someone else? It is probably as good as a question as the origins of universe itself
Sorry, but none of that is evidence of anything regarding ancient aliens.
The answer to this question is obvious.
If aliens created us and some other aliens created them, and so on and so on... then, we have turtles upon turtles upon turtles all the way down, and we continue wondering where that first turtle appeared.
So, if the first turtle evolved as opposed to being created by another turtle, then we can easily conclude that we too evolved.
That is just one way of looking it. A theory is called a theory because it isn't proved beyond shadow of doubt. The theory of intelligent design never claimed that evolution didn't happen. That is why I said that it was neither purely creation nor was it purely evolution. It just says that humans evolved but it was accelerated and it was directed in a particular direction by non-earthly beings.
"So, if the first turtle...". I agree. And that holds true for intelligent design as well (if one alien race created another and they created another and so on). Unless either of the theories are proved beyond a shadow of doubt, both are equally weighed theories having their own evidences, and neither becomes a law till then.
No, a theory is called a theory because it has undergone many tests and found to be correct based on the results. It can then make valid predictions of other phenomena.
There is zero evidence for that acceleration. None whatsoever. Hence Intelligent Design is not a theory, by definition. It is nothing more than an assertion based on incredulity.
You seem to be missing the point. Somewhere along the line, those aliens must have originated from somewhere, hence they must have evolved, and if they evolved, then there is no reason to suspect we didn't evolve. Understand?
I just love the Alien notion. It really makes clear evolution has to occur and it still does not answer what created them? The only concept of man that does not require a beginning and an end, is that hard to handle notion of omnipresent and or alpha/omega. Per science everything must have a "life", a beginning and end. Or at least a transformation into other matter. But that still cannot explain where those aliens began.
Untrue, at least as I understand current thinking.
While I grew up with the notion of a cyclical universe (never beginning and never ending, just cycling through eternity) it seems that we currently think our universe will last forever. It began with the big bang, but will "end" (poor terminology) as it winds down to maximum entropy. Everything still here, just dead and cold.
Yes I see your point. Very practical. But if you conclude that my son's love will end for me on my death or his, then you are applying science to what science cannot explain.
Bones is a great TV show. She is a scientist that is finding this notion called love that has no boundaries. Yep, it scares the hell out her. Me too!
I like your walk because then it is all black and white and I am done when done. But that would be too simplistic. Life and love are more complicated than a petre dish.
Once again, you are applying God to what you do not understand.
Life and love can be explained by science.
Explain then my love of over a decade to my wife with scientific terms then. Tell me it is all chemical reactions that last ten years.
Well, not physical science. The behavioral sciences might help you out there. Especially anthropology and sociology. The "science" concerning love isn't only about biological. It would've been more accurate for Rad Man to say that most things can be proven to have a non-mystical meaning i.e. a material explanation. No one's saying that love isn't complicated or beautiful. But it has a purpose and there's not reason for it be seen metaphysically. Certainly without these feelings and bonds, it would be hard to keep families together. Our societies thrive on familial and romantic interactions. Many people seem to think that meaning is only found through religious explanations. But I disagree.
Love is certainly not just a human emotion. It's necessary for our survival. I'm certainly not going to waste my time explaining love to you, but I can tell you it's well understood. BTW, I'm on year 23.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 … 73196.html
They are chemical reactions in your body.
However, the problem here is that you keep offering up all of these fallacies that in some way are supposed to help your argument. They don't, they destroy your argument.
The structures and mechanisms that are the human brain and mind evolved over time---including in terms of having the capacity to love and to have deep and lasting connection and affection for others. It is likely that proto-humans who were able to love, connect, and show affection were able to bond into groups and in the grouping enhance survival.
The fact that we love and can sustain love over time negates neither the structures or mechanics of our beings OR our evolution.
I knew rad man could not explain love scientifically.
A thousand words stay in tune. Let go of the science and facts and feel. Be one with love and you will take back that love can be explained scientifically.
However if you cannot and not see love in such glory. Good for you. I can and you cannot, too bad for you.
I will be open to love when it's appropriate. You seem to be under the false assumption that people who don't see love in a religious way are missing out. But you'd be wrong because there are plenty of people who experience it deeply who aren't religious. Knowing love from a material perspective doesn't make it any less important or beautiful. I certainly won't go into it blindly. "Science and facts" are important because going into any situations based on "just feeling" makes you gullible and susceptible to unnecessary hurt and problems.
I am not understanding...
There is no need to let go of facts and science to feel or to love.
Embracing science and having emotion are not mutually-exclusive. This reminds me of the negative and stereotyped view of the scientist and his/her life: Alone, empty; no emotions, no feelings; never loved/never been loved; reclusive and devoted to his/her facts and calculations; no passions.
If the universe is finite what is beyond it?
Uh, most likely evolution created them, that's the point entirely.
Myths and superstitions are not hard to handle at all.
are you sure? My answer to both this and your previous question is, "how many books have you read and how much research have you done apart from what mainstream books?"
It doesn't take a genius to call a "hole" a hole. But it does take a hunger and thirst for knowledge and digging out the truth, and a passion for research to determine "if a hole is just a whole or is there something deeper where the hole goes".
That's right, everything we know has a beginning and an ending, except for the notion of God. A notion invented by humans to explain what they don't understand.
really?? Did we have the concept of "god" before humans existed? or was it just a term used for someone humans didn't know, but witnessed who were far more powerful than us humans in different ways?
Evolved from what? What was the starting point and how did it exist?
Honestly, this whole argument really relies on whether or not someone believes that something can exist without being created. Many people who do not believe in gods/deities believe that it can. Deists/theists also believe that it can, actually (many believe God exists in an infinite reality and self-exists outside of time). I honestly couldn't say. It might be vanity for both sides trying to say that it definitely was or definitely wasn't created. My rational side says that it's impossible to prove, and so I do not declare to the following opinion to be fact.
I do believe that it is possible that the Universe itself may be "intelligent," if you will, but I wouldn't give it any anthropomorphic properties. It self exists, as theists believe God does. It is all matter, energy. From it everything exists, and natural processes happen as they happen. (Natural selection, evolution, etc.) I see it as being similar to the Tao, actually. A little bit of Tao, a little bit like Brahman, but no supernatural/metaphysical deification.
I know there can be no facts to back it up. And honestly, this whole conversation is moot.
by Ron Karn5 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by janesix4 years ago
It just means evolution was designed by god
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by marinealways246 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?
by kirstenblog3 years ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by marinealways246 years ago
I would like to have a debate on whether or not you believe we are or aren't inelligent design.I didn't post this in religion because I want logical explanations for why you believe what you write. If you write...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.