Time is a construct of human consciousness, so talking about "cause" and "effect" at the material level is sort of like fish sitting around speculating about which silver ripple is "pushing" which other silver ripple in a mechanical fashion, or whether there's a gigantic garfish in the sky pushing them around on a whim.
Until the fish get up out of the water they can't fully see or understand the interplay of forces which shape the water's surface, and they are limited by their physiology from getting up out of the water for more than a fleeting moment.
Likewise for humans, the realm in which things get caused is independent of time. It might appear that A causes B and B then causes C, but the underlying structure might actually be that A, B and C are all part of a single phenomenon, even though A, B and C are separated in the human experience of space and time. We can visit that realm, but only for brief visits.
So we don't "come from" anywhere, because we just are, and time (which is required for "come from" and "going to") is an illusion, along with the other 10 dimensions of the 11-dimensional space-time experience.
I doubt, therefore I am ...
P.S. That said, if we go inside the internally consistent material Universe and apply scientific method, we find some evidence for a process of evolution, by no means fully developed, in many cases not testing alternatives to the hypothesis of random mutation, and not much in the way of well-designed experiments to test for "intelligent design", so very little positive data on that alternative.
Quantum physicists might disagree. Time is one of the mathematically necessary dimensions.
As to where we came from, I think any belief is, to some extent, a matter of faith...in something, as we are unable to know this scientifically, yet.
I cannot say this is a definitive reconciliation of 2 competing beliefs, but this is Gerald Schroeder's (a former MIT physics professor) attempt to reconcile the 15 billion yrs. vs. the Biblical timeline. It's interesting.
http://www.aishaudio.com/stream_popup.p … =schroeder
That's what I said - there are 11 mathematically necessary dimensions, of which time is one, and they are completely internally consistent, and our human consciousness is immersed in them as a fish is in the ocean.
That doesn't mean that they have any "real" existence if you remove human consciousness from the picture. Mathematics simply describes what human consciousness perceives, it doesn't prove that it has any independent existence.
Invoking mathematics to prove the existence of the Universe is analogous to invoking the Bible to prove the existence of God. Mathematics is more internally consistent than the Bible, but it is subject to the same "circular logic" flaw.
You are right, I should have kept reading or read more carefully...please accept my apologies, you did say that. Oops.
Evolution is a fact. Although, it does not explain where we came from, which instead is the topic of abiogenesis.
There are a number of hypotheses attempting to explain abiogenesis, but there is still very much to learn and understand.
This is of course not some personal philosophy as that would tend to suggest guesswork and would bring with it anything one could imagine.
Actually, evolution is a theory, backed up with some facts Check out this "University" though:
Scary. The Institute for Creation Research
Ok, let's get technical, evolution is a fact AND a theory. Microbiology, for example, would not exist as a discipline if evolution was not a fact.
Good point - nice link by the way - I couldn't have said it better myself in less than 6,000 words. I have bookmarked that site for when I have more time.
And to a certain extent it depends on your definitions of both the word "fact" and "theory"
I have yet to work out what Creationism is - it's not a fact, it's not a theory - by any definition of the words. So what is it ?
I often use the word 'assertion' to describe claims of that nature.
It can't be a theory since it is untestable, by definition.
Well, there is one way to test it, but I'm not sure I'm ready to do that
I think there is still quite a bit of confusion around the usage and meaning of the word "theory".
In ordinary, everyday parlance a "theory" usually means an idea, a hunch, an assertion which may or may not be true but which has yet to be proven.
In science, the word has a slightly different meaning. A theory is normally the *outcome* of a series of tests, hypotheses and (often quite stringent) verifications against available data. Once the test or hypothesis has passed this verification test, it then becomes a scientific theory and can be re-tested, challenged, contradicted, approved, championed or ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community.
So Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is NOT a guess or an assertion - ie not a "theory" in the common sense of the word - but a scientific model with the same standing and authority as the atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, etc.
It also provides a perfectly serious, plausible and coherent account of how life developed on this earth without any need or necessity for any form of supernatural involvement or intervention.
So it gets my vote every time!
I agree. I should have used a better word.
And yes, I will take it over this "theory" any day
Mark, wherever did you get that from?
LOL - I can't remember. I host it myself. Help yourself.
Yep, I knew you guys would give me some interesting responses. Nothing from the other side yet.
That's a difficult question I don't really have an opinion currently. Yes, I was taught we are the product of evolution - but I was taught a bunch of other things that turned out to be blatant lies... And I did not have a chance to review this question myself yet...
How about a theory of anti-evolution. Is it the alligator or crocodile that has been around since before the dinosaurs, maybe because it has not evolved?
They have both been around for about 200 million years. It's sobering to think that, after surviving all that time, they were almost hunted to extinction during the first half of the 20th century.
They haven't evolved because they haven't needed to. Of all living creatures, they are probably the ones most perfectly suited to their environments.
And cockroaches - I don't know their history, but when we finally screw the planet up - my money's on it being their turn next
LOL did you join just to post this ridiculous post?
Just one assumption that you made ruins all your building - you talk about life as we know it on Earth. Nobody proved - and never will be able to prove - that this is the only possible form of life
Well I already like him/her/it/whatever
At least it's not about the TRUTH
And of course, yet another who joined just for the argument's.
True - but in a much more stylish fashion than the Morons over in the other thread. I have a feeling hubpages is going to become a refuge for religious warmongers pretty soon - I am just about done. And here is a great smiley that gamergirl found me
I'm not going to attempt to quote you, Sue, simply point this out.
Take a normal, 6-sided die.
Roll it 100 times, and write down the numbers.
Do you know what the chances are that you would roll exactly that sequence of numbers?
One in six billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion.
That's six with 77 zeros after it to one.
How unlikely is that? It couldn't possibly have been a random event, something as unlikely as that.
Congratulations, you have just created something so unlikely that the only possible explanation is that you must be God.
All over that one
And what is going on at the moment - is it a full moon or something?
Unfortunately, that is a fallacious argument, as it would be assumed that each one of those scenarios must occur before the only possible one could occur.
Then, one also has to assume that only one scenario takes place a time, iow, sequentially, when in fact billions of scenarios are occurring simultaneously.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1153 … t=Abstract
I would also like to comment that by using a 6-sided die, you MUST assign a parameter to each individual side in order for the stats to be relevant. Without those parameters, one can simply use a 20-sided die, or 100-sided die, thus increasing the odds dramatically.
But of course, that's not how it works at all.
The idea is to create a scenario, for example, the forming of a certain group of proteins. In this respect, only a coin is required as there are only two possibilities, either the proteins form or they do not.
By defaulting to this position, you are in fact claiming that any of the above scenarios are not just highly improbable, but are in fact impossible, hence you can simply state from the get-go: "God did it."
(Q), you have completely misunderstood my post to the extent that you think I am arguing something 180 degrees from what I actually said.
My point is about probability.
Referring to the probability of something occurring is only meaningful BEFORE the event occurs.
After something has occurred, it has occurred. How unlikely it was beforehand is irrelevant.
Therefore, saying "the evolution of life is really unlikely" is irrelevant.
Life exists. How unlikely it was before it existed is irrelevant.
That this very unlikely event occurred doesn't prove the existence of supernatural forces any more than the die experiment does (with any type of die, the more sides it has, the fewer tosses it will take you to reach a level of improbability equal to the evolution of life).
When I said "the only possible explanation is that you must be God", I was pointing out the stupidity of the argument from improbability, not agreeing with it.
Isn't it obvious, Mark?
In our depraved and ignorant ways, we have finally drawn the attention of the Great Green Arkleseizure, who is sending his prophets to give us one last chance to return to the fold before the Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief ...
Holy crap....I assume I can say this as it is a religious thread
I just had the displeasure of seeing the other forum thread. Thank you to everyone here for debating in a civilized manner. Hope it continues this way.
And Mark you should not depart. I need my comic relief and reminders that there once was a great dynasty headed by a wonderful savior: Captain James T. Kirk.
As for my own thoughts on evolution versus creation. Well, to be honest I don't normally think about it. We are here, the universe is the way it is and it's a full time job just dealing with that. However, reading some of the religious threads lately I became intrigued as to what other people believe or focus on in regards to this issue.
Inspirepub I am enjoying your posts immensely. Very interesting point of view!
And the full moon isn't till the 21st. I can't imagine what's going to happen then.
Wishful thinking...although, one can hope.
Guess I spoke too soon.
Let's keep it amicable, shall we. A good intellectual, non-emotional debate is worth more than an argument any day. I want to hear both sides thoughts sans personal attacks.
Hmmmmm, yes, it IS more improbable. Throw the die a few more times until the likelihood is the same. Get back to me when you're done ...
A logically flawed argument that is made in a larger way is still logically flawed.
Using improbability to argue for the existence of something outside normal causality is logically flawed.
I'm sure their academic pedigrees are impeccable.
Impeccable, and irrelevant.
I don't think so. Any of them who studied basic probability theory will agree with me, but that's not because I'm better than them, it's because it's a fact of the Universe, much like pi being 3.14159...etc...
I'm sure at least some of them would have learned this fact well before I did, because to be Nobel Laureates they would most likely be older than I.
I am not making a case for evolution. In fact, I believe I expressed a level of criticism over the experimental design of some studies purporting to "prove" evolution.
I have yet to see convincing evidence of my own existence, actually. There is nothing to suggest this material world is anything more than an internally-consistent illusion.
You can't "prove" the non-existence of something experimentally. That's the way God made the Universe. Deal with it.
You mean "She", don't you?
I'm not the one showing fear, here ...
I am secure enough in my personal experience of spirituality to feel no compelling need to thrust my point of view upon others with rhetoric, insults and domination.
P.S. You can let go, you know, Sue. God is perfectly capable of defending Her own existence in Her own way. This sort of carry-on only makes you feel small and separate. Let go, let God ... it really will be OK. And you will have peace. You deserve peace - you have a sweet soul.
Cool, a disappearing thread avenger. I was just starting to become disheartened. Thank you.
Thanks for the sentiment RFox, but I can only take so many people ramming the same thing down my throat over and over again until I agree with their views.
If a man makes a mistake and there is no woman present to witness the mistake, has a mistake actually been made?
I'll get mi coat.
Everyone knows that men don't make mistakes when there are no women around
So you're a creationist, then Mark?
Because evolution couldn't possibly produce such a paragon ...
I always wondered how an eye evolved, because before it evolved into an eye, it wouldn't be able to see, and while it was evolving and couldn't see, then it would be useless and if it was useless, why was it selected?
I believe there are various heat/light-sensitive bits of various animals (and plants, for that matter), which are useful in their own right, and that camera-style eyes (like we have) have evolved completely independently in different parts of the biological family tree because they are so useful (for example the very human-looking eyes you see on squid, which are camera eyes, but are constructed quite differently from human eyes on the inside because they evolved from a different starting point).
From "Denton vs Squid", an excellent and detailed discussion of eyes and evolution/creationism.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 … squid.html
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye!!
Look if God had designed my brain, he could have done a better job. There's a design flaw if there ever was one.
Something entirely else, as far as I am concerned. This kind of debate/argument/sharing of knowledge always come back around to personal psychology hanging out obtrusively. Someone is either upset that someone else doesn't love enough to let them believe what they believe by saying something cynical or unkind. And another's ego has to be right, out of fear of whatever. We all have stuff to work on.
Good ole Buddhic/Jesus harmony is the key, be kind regardless of what another pokes you in the eye with...be humble and stand strong within yourself to believe what you believe...you don't have to prove anything to anyone...but most important, be open to new knowledge, change is a good thing. If we didn't have something to learn and change, we wouldn't be here.
And usually it is the ego based emotions, or the dry/heartless intellectual positions that need to change...harmony means being balanced between mind and heart/soul.
What gets me the most is that people don't see/feel the hurtful energy that they can put behind their words, and take responsibility for it, it does accumulate and create ill health, either within ones-self or in who it is aimed at, or just goes out there to pollute the Universe we all share.
This is why we now have a sarcasm smilie
Silly me, I thought it was dripping off the page loudly enough that I didn't need the smilie.
I am slowly learning that subtlety doesn't work very well here
I have studied most of the major religions of the world and most of them get some of the ideals of life and living it the right way, partly, but only partly. If you put them all together they would come to a decent way to live, but as to where we came from, that question clearly has to stay out of religion.
I have a "theory" about where it all started on planet earth and so wrote a movie script about it called, "Power Over Others," and that we are actually the biological experiment of a highly advanced civilization, with a destiny we can't even imagine. You can read more about it at: http://www.myspace.com/poweroverothersscreenplay and read the movie script if it interests you.
Isn't the ongoing evolution -vs- creationism debate now more of a cultural one than a scientific one?
Do not 99.999999% of the world's professional scientists now accept evolution as a scientific fact (based on the accumulated weight of evidence at its disposal), and it's only in a few intellectually-challenged evangelical backwaters than anyone bothers to question it at all?
Even the Catholic Church accepts it, for God's sake!
Weeeell, those "intellectually-challenged evangelical backwaters" include many school districts in the United States of America, where schools are run by School Boards, and the only qualification one needs to get on a school board is the ability to have intercourse without contraception.
Many schools are PROHIBITED from teaching evolution as fact, and there is currently debate in many districts about making it mandatory to teach "intelligent design" as a credible alternative to evolution, if evolution is allowed to be taught.
Don't y'all go quotin' 'em Papist Catt-licks at me, boi! We's God-fearen Baptists in these here parts, and we don' hol' no truck wit anythin' that faggot in Rome says is OK. We knows what's raaaaaaht, son, 'cause de preacher tells us ev'r Sundy. Gaaaaahd made the worl', son, and only the Ant-iye-Kee-riyst would say any different.
Praise the Lord.
P.S. Mark? Do you think I need the smilie, or is that unsubtle enough?
Gadzooks, old girl! A palpable hit, I do declare!
Ah'm a thinkin' that'll do it.
a virus. no thats not what I really think, but hey, you never know, we could be some one elses sick disease. Imagine that. lol.
I came from my mom and dad-sorry I cant stop.
we came from star dust...wait does that mean we are alien invadors?
we came from water- maybe we use to be merfolk-the fish man, that grew legs, and then lost its gills, oh wait that the allegator theory isn't it? I saw something on the science channel about something like that.
Or maybe plants.
Nuclear fusion- we get so heated over nothing at all anyways, that theory works too.
Monkies, I mean apes, shute they all look about the same to me.
We could even be like lab rats in a test facility.
or we came from a drawing on a folded piece of paper and thats why we are split down the middle, I mean two eyes, two nostrils, etc. and the enevitable evolution vs. creation.
or we can be like elements of space gas or dust and because they are so big, we are like an accumulation of the same sorta thing, but we only think that we are special because we can calculate how big or small something is. Or that we are the only "things" that have the ability to proccess thoughts.
I think I like God better, the phenominom, that whatever it is, the process in which the big band even was concieved. the proccess in which made nuclear fusion possible and whatever happened before that. Defining it is the most redundant and ill question to even debate.
You arent ever going to find out, after death maybe, but whos to say?
Ha hA I am new to the site, but Sake forbid we have a bunch of wholly rollies expressing how bad we are for questioning unevidentiary plots. Mildew is the cause of water settling. I, a non christian, non religious uses the everyday facts, I have definitely come to the conclusion that christianity trys to bribe me to do good. You mean to tell me I live X amount of years on this earth and in my final days I'm told to let go and let god so he can accept me into the gates of heaven where the streets are paved in gold, and the streets lights made of diamonds. I dito my fellow hubbers regardless of what I have choosen to believe it is not my obligation to transform christian dependents to something more accurate But one things for certain I wont be chasing monetary grooves even in the after life.
I have never believed in evolution, but am not a creationist, just have no opinion. I like all the theories as speculation, including alien lineage. Saw on the Discovery channel the other night, that they are trying to recreate dinosaurs from birds, which are now accepted to have 'evolved' from dinosaurs. And they say they have discovered that the genetic makeup for dinosaurs still exists in birds, but it is simply not 'turned on', and thus it may be possible to recreate a dinosaur in
the future. If this is true it might mean that what is called Evolution is really Adaption.
or, history repeating itself. Dude, what if...billions of years ago, we did the same, thing, created dinorsaures, and then the dinosaurs ate everything up, and then their poop was so toxic, I mean full of methane, that it caused the hole earth to be detroyed when a meteor hit.
I hadn't planned on even replying here, but after reading so many of the previous posts I must do it. For your information, I am one of those backwoods hillbillies who don't know anything at all. I am an idiot when it comes to most intellectual conversations. With that being said, studying all religions means nothing at all. You can study a book and learn about things but until you experience them for yourself you really don't know anything.
Why do you believe scientists whose sole purpose is to find something so they can get more money for research and/or win a Nobel Prize? In order for a person to really make an informed decision that evolution is indeed a fact, one must first experience evolution.
For those who mock giving it to God and getting a ticket into heaven, there is a hell waiting for those who refuse God. Jesus died for your sins as well as mine. He offers you a gift of life and it;s your free moral choice to accept it or reject it.
Thank you for your post and opinion Sir Dent. I'm enjoying the variety of viewpoints!
And birds into dinosaurs? Did Jurassic Park teach us nothing?
Umm, you did not answer the original question, though. I see only a weak attempt to scare me into christianity - or is it my ESL?
If this is not an attempt to scare those who refuse your God, than I'm the Pope
No, I am not an evolutionist. But I can't call myself creationist either - at least not in the sense you assume. I would rather think that evolution is the way God created all living species in this World, including human beings - but this is not a finished worldview...
No, I don't know what empirical evidence is - but I might know what its Russian counterpart means, though
And rules are pretty simple - respect others and their opinions. Nobody has monopoly to THE TRUTH, and everybody can make mistakes - including yourself. And - specific to religious forum - don't try to convert others into your religion
The part above that is bold is what I respond to first. I mentioned that because the post I replied to only told half the truth. A half truth is a lie. I merely brought everything to light.
1. based on observation and experiment
2. derived solely from experience
3. based on practical medical experience
1. sign or proof
2. proof of guilt
3. statements of witnesses
Now you can know what empirical evidence is. Eye witness accounts are used in court cases all the time. Testimony from those who saw what happened. I respect opinions, but the point of debate is point/counterpoint.
As I said earlier, I am not an intellectual. I am not a good debater. I will give it a shot though in hopes that truth might be found.
Well, you did not quote the post you were replying to - and everybody took this as an isolated statement
Thanks for the explanation of empirical evidence - I'm pretty much sure I understand what you are talking about now. And I am pretty much sure no modern living being was an eye witness to the creation process So we can't have a testimony from those who saw what happened.
I don't think this particular thread is a debate. I tend to think about it as a discussion or a conversation or an attempt to share those tiny pieces of the big puzzle - which does not really require point/counterpoint method...
All this time I thought that empirical evidence was something that was tangable.
Well, given this definition of empirical:
1. based on observation and experiment
2. derived solely from experience
3. based on practical medical experience
I could say that I have solid empirical evidence that that chocolate is a force for good in this world, and doing one's taxes is evil, because that is my experience. Eating chocolate makes me feel good, and doing my taxes makes me feel bad.
Somehow, I think the "experiment" in defn 1 and the "medical experience" in defn 3 need a counterpart in #2 - because "experience" can be pretty darn subjective if you don't inject some rigor into the conclusion-drawing process ...
I think that if you accept there is a God, then evolution is part of it. But toying around with ideas about life, is fun, but if you take it too seriously, then you will lose track of the world around you. Discovering God is also discovering how God did it. I really dont think that scientist are not doing it because they want to make money. Its becuse it is facinating, just like Jesus is facinating to you and those who study Him. I really dont think that evolution is not a proccess in which God intended. Think about it. While Jesus died for our sins, learning about life is not a sin. You dont think Jesus knew about the evolutionary proccess?
That's right, Sir Dent.
All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin, Who made the sharks, He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all.
Who else but the great Monty Python ...
It is because of the evilness and wickedness of man that diseases have taken over. Disobedience to God's Word has caused man to fall deeper and deeper into the pits of hell.
Now tell me this; What does your post have to do with evolution or creationism? All I see in it is a poor attempt to insult me.
Is this thread for discussion or for insults?
How on earth did you find this insulting? This is a quote from one of the TRUE religions - Monty Python, Amen.
if you think repeating the same old fire and brimstone garbage the Churches have been repeating since they discovered it was an excellent way of scaring the ignorant into giving them all their money, rather than adding some intelligent discourse to the conversation, I have a feeling you are not going to have a good time on this discussion thread.
I am not attempting to scare anyone. If it scares you to hear about hell that is your problem not mine.
It seems you want to discuss evolution and creationism as long as evolutionists are the only ones discussing.
Does anyone here know what empirical evidence is? Is it allowed in this discussion? What are the rules of engagement here?
Well, there are no rules of engagement - this is a discussion, but you are not really giving a full explanation of the word empirical there.
And you entered this discussion with a warning that, "there is a hell waiting for those who refuse God" - which is not really condusive to rational discussion, and pretty much made it clear you were more interested in spreading your dogma than having a discussion.
Quite apart from that, it didn't really address the original question.
by Jesse James 12 years ago
I understand we have free will. That's great. But is believing in an Almighty creator any harder than believing animals morphed into humans? I myself have never seen any animal morph over time. Nobody has. If they say they have then they are lying. And for all you science nuts, remember every...
by EmVeeT 10 years ago
I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my beliefs to be as substantial, if not moreso, than those of anyone who came to check...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago
Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?It seems there are still arguments about whether the world was 'created' or whether it 'evolved.' What do you believe? Can you also accept the alternative view?
by Julie Grimes 12 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
by Emile R 11 years ago
The longer I wander through this forum, the more I think that religion is standing in the way of progress spiritually on a global scale. It's my opinion that the major religions have built a wall of doctrine that makes it difficult for the dogmatic adherents to find the exact thing they claim they...
by toobsucker 11 years ago
Darwinian evolution (atheistic evolution) requires 100% of all biological systems to be subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change, yet the conserved elements are not subject to any of the evolutionary mechanisms. A theory that predicts 100% system change must demonstrate 100% of...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|