BREAKING: Why you should seriously re-think Evolution / Big-Bang / Naturalism Religion

The burden of proof you are placing on me automatically implies that your position of a purely naturally created universe is correct by default, of which you have no evidence for whatsoever.

We have two competing faiths.

And it takes a thousand times more faith to believe this all came together through explosions and wet rocks, than to believe God created it.

We are hard-wired with the awareness of God. Stop running from it.

why "BREAKING"???

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

That's the thing. In my mind I find it perfectly possible that, through emergence and infinite permutations of different combinations of basic elements, we could arrive at DNA and then proceed down evolution. I stared in amazement at a horse shoe crab this weekend (they're trippy as SH*T!!!!). They're in the same class as spiders and lobster in the current model, and I can't see any flaw with that considering they save have like 10 legs and gills. I could visualize it losing the gills and having the void replaced with a silk sack and spinerette(sp?), the numerous eyes remaining, and losing the bulky defensive shell after it's migration onto land in preference of the ability to climb using the spines it has on it's 'toes??'. The two smaller legs near its mouth could probably become smaller and turn towards its mouth becoming mandibles, idk? A horse shoe crab, from the top, looks REALLY similar to a troglodyte, so I could see a troglodyte developing appendages underneath it's upper body. I can see a troglodyte developing from lesser and lesser organisms. What boggles me at that point is how long it would have taken and how old is the earth exactly???

We don't even have an idea of exactly how the earth formed or the dinosaurs went extinct! We don't even know what happened to the Mayans, and they where here way more recently!

Maybe astrological events have carried bits of DNA with them through space. Maybe aliens have been dumping crap on this planet.

Without a theory, though, you also have no idea what to test for. Analogy here maybe...

In a dark room, how does one find bearing? How do you know what direction to venture in, unless you have a light to guide you, a feel of rushing air, a beacon or idea of what way to head? Theories exist for the same reason we have records of our history; to try and give us some bearing. But even history is one sided, overwritten often by the victors. The only way to change our world's already hardened idea of what is or isn't a more plausible scenario is to plant the seeds of your knowledge/research/evidence. There's so many people on the earth right now that no matter how hard you try, the possibility of convincing any meaningful group of individuals remains staggeringly low!

Leaders tend to target the young crowd because we are the most impressionable and easier to sway from our chosen opinion, due to lack of experience or years of solidified believing.

Science has moved away from spirit. IMO it would be much more cost effective and meaningful to focus most of our resources on fixing current issues rather than continuing to beat a dead horse. In the end does the proof or falsification of evolution matter, especially since we have so much evidence of its occurrence at the micro-level? Instead of focusing on finding out whether it is or isn't, we should (and hopefully are) moving on to the pressing matters like hunger, drought, homeless problems... We're focusing so much on the past that we're becoming blind to the future...

I believe in the creator merely by observing music theory and Kheplar's experiments in nesting platonic solids within one another to closely approximate the orbits of celestial bodies. Random shapes from musical theory within each other guessed the orbits of planets?!?!? It makes me want to crap myself because I find it way to coincidental that humans all have the innate knowledge of rhythm and harmony and that knowledge is expressed physically. I can't find an emergence scenario for that...

I did not ever say that God does not exist nor did I say we came from a completely natural origin. What I did say is that you have no evidence of your claims that God does exist.

The point being, I am not claiming to know the truth about the origin of the universe, what was there before the big bang etc, you however are trying to prove the origin of the universe by saying "God did it" without any evidence to support your claim.

I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist, however just because one cannot disprove one being's existence, does not mean the being does indeed exist.

You are trying to say I believe we came from nothing, where I am only saying we have no proof that we came from a supreme being, so jumping onboard saying "we came from God" puts on trial where your claims will be scrutinized and evidence will have to be presented. Unless of course it is 100% faith that you base your claims on, and there is no real evidence.

What science will never accept is the primitive fairy tales of desert superstitious tribes who continue living in the stone age to this day due to their moronic beliefs.

The fact remains that it is irrelevant if there was a creator or not, we are in this earth now on our own and we shape our own destiny. There is no proof of any of the supernatural BS the Bible or any other religious book talks about, and even if a God like being created the entire universe and embedded the code for all things to develop from the prime matter that sprang out of his creation, that doesn't make superstitious beliefs about war lord gods who chooses primitive tribes to rule the world because he likes them better any more true.


Those "beliefs" continue to be human constructs nonetheless, useless ones at that, and thus should be shunned.

Well it's not my desire to "prove" God to you so you can stop complaining. This thread was made to expose religions like Evolution that are based on predetermined conclusions, and being taught as science.

Believe whatever you want, though it seems from your post that you are offended by even considering God. You might want to ask yourself why you really feel that way.

Your interpretations aside, Thank you for admitting Academia will not accept a supernatural cause, hence we should assume that all data which points to it will be ignored or discarded.

And these are the people teaching about the origins of the universe.

He and others feel that way because God has become synonymous with the Jewish biblical God which is a primitive archetype which disgusts most rational people.

No one can feasibly prove that a universal creator doesn't exist, but anyone can prove that the Biblical God is a primitive human construct like all the other gods of all the other primitive cultures were.

Well they might come to the conclusion that whatever force caused the big bang was intelligent in nature and thus it could be considered an universal creating entity, or an Universal God if you will. They would be willing to admit that given the right evidence.

That however would NOT mean they would, because of such discovery, conclude that the Biblical stories or its conception of God were any true.

get my point?

Last Edited by Manu-K on 07/07/2012 09:41 PM

And until then, they will continue to be deceitful and teach people that the Universe and Life must originate from a natural cause with no evidence, and when it is admitted that they will not accept data to the contrary.



Yes, I get that you have a serious problem with the God of the Bible because of the way you live your life. You're trying to convince yourself He is not real, not me.

Calling Al,come in Al.


[link to www.youtube.com]

'SssevvvennN'

They won't admit any data to the contrary because so far it doesn't seem plausible, the hard data doesn't support this, and they are not willing to accept "faith based belief".

And regarding my opinion of the Jewish God, it's not any different to my opinion of Allah, and even the more sophisticated Eastern religions have silly stuff in there and I am just not willing to believe in whatever stupid shit to sleep better at night.

You are the one who is not willing to rationally conclude that the most logical explanation for the primitive Middle Eastern God you worship is merely that primitive cultures developed these beliefs in order to explain what they had no way to explain any otherwise and also mixed their primitive set of laws into their religions so that people would be more prone to obeying them. You don't want to accept this logical explanation because you're afraid of being left without any explanation for mysterious phenomena. Your ego probably couldn't tolerate saying "I have no fucking clue", which is the truth.

And also let me add that I, like many scientists themselves, do believe in some form of universal conscious mind which gave the universe it's orderly state, but I am not willing to conform with fairy tales to explain this being, I will only accept hard data, maybe I wont see the hard data in my lifetime, but hopefully future generations will unlock the secrets of the reality of existence.

Last Edited by Manu-K on 07/07/2012 09:59 PM

So, was Frederick Nietzsche right? If we assume that by G_d he meant faith in any theory, then he was basically always right... right?

Lol

Can we all at least agree that the bible isn't evidence of G_d? That in and of itself would make me want to 5 star this if I had such privilege.

Not saying that it wasn't written out of the proper intent, but it seems more feasible to be a means to control or be used as a tool towards a goal rather than to be used as the be all end all. I find it interesting to see a hardened believer's reaction when I inform them of the Nicean Counsel and point out the differences between the various editions of the book printed.

Also faith is an innate human concept. Even nihilists believe in nothing. I do think that once we move past bashing others due to religion or sexual orientation or any of those other stupid things that people hate on we'll be able to further our race far more than ever previously thought. And more interesting, less dumb discussions like this could take place in real life.

Yes they are. The entire foundation of Evolution is based on the belief that it just could not be any other way. You've even agreed to this.

It really gets comedic when we get into Abiogenesis. Talk about a religion.

OP -- that's the entire point.

Science is described as the act of looking for answers. It is not described as the act of giving up before you've even tried.

Imagine you went to an auto mechanic, and his first response was "I have no idea, I'm not even going to bother opening the hood -- why don't you just buy a new car?"

No...you go to a DEALERSHIP to get recommended a new car. You go to a mechanic, you have an expectation that they will try to fix it.

The supernatural explanation is the non-explanation. It doesn't DO anything. A scientific theory has predictive power, it can be falsified, it suggests new experiments, it describes data as yet unseen that lies within its purview. A supernatural explanation does none of these things. It can no be expanded, or tested, or used to predict new results or to guide experiments.

That's the definition of supernatural.

If you want to claim that a god created it, and you have evidence for that god, then that god becomes a NATURAL event, not a supernatural. And at that point we don't accept "yeah, the god did it" as the explanation; since the god is natural, the god is subject to naturalistic explanation. So we can characterize the god, and describe the god, and make predictions about the god.

But this only happens when there is positive evidence for a god, and evidence that has structure so that it can be composed into laws and theories. Which is, again, the exact opposite of saying "we have no functional explanation, therefor, a god must have done it."

A god is a negative explanation because "a demon," "an alien," "a boy in Michigan with very strange dreams," "the Keebler Elves," are all of equal explanatory power. You can't falsify any of them. You can't make predictions with any of them. You can't even offer a logical reason to chose one over another!

Well I was gonna make a reply but you said it all already....

Last Edited by Manu-K on 07/07/2012 10:16 PM

I don't think it is illogical to say there could be a higher type of universal consciousness which created the patterns for the known universe to develop in the way it did, but that doesn't mean every primitive fairy tale suddenly becomes plausible or acceptable as a possibility worthy of scientific research.

Are we going to debate if Zeus and the Greek pantheon were true too? They're no different than Yahweh and all that bunch.

Someone else already posted on this idea. If academia admits they're wrong, there runs the chance of a mass exodus from their own 'faith'. They have no option other than to keep kicking that can down the road lest they possibly lose all support (sorry to quote you without quotes, sir).

But realistically they would only suffer minor losses. Most can see the usefulness in at least some of the fields of academia, even if some of these are spouting somewhat paradoxical ideas.

Though, if 100% proof where to emerge that disproved evolutionary theory, it is safe to say that those who are looked up to in positions of power would not willingly relinquish their thrones and followers.

So the real question should be, how the hell do we get people to admit that they are in the wrong? I believe this is currently happening in the financial institutions worldwide (Barclay, JP Morgan, the like).

I know they're wrong from starters, but I like more the path they're walking and have more hope it will lead to the truth than I do about believing into something which I know is flawed from the beginning and is just human mental construct.

Might I interest you in Goëdelian Shinto? Our precept is that the universe is complex enough to appear intelligent as a form of Emergent Behavior. But it makes no difference to the universe if you venerate it or attempt to reject it -- it will be there just the same.

(Tongue at least slightly in cheek)

You mean like when the Steady State Universe was threatened? How about when Gradualism fought a rear-guard action against Catastrophism (before eventually reaching a new synergy.) What about when first Inflation, then Dark Matter, then Dark Energy were pushed upon a cosmological and theoretical physics community that didn't want them? What about when the Bohr atom was overturned? What about when the slit experiment first threw everyone into the quagmire of particle/wave duality?

What about when evo devo and epigenetics and lateral gene transfer tore into an evolutionary theory dominated by Natural Selection?

Sure...it has been said, with some truth in it, that the best way to get a new idea into science is to introduce it, then wait for all the old scientists to die. But even that joke admits that, yes, paradigms change. Otherwise we'd still be doing physics with a little ball surrounded by electrons in classic orbits, and there wouldn't be a quark in sight.



Think of it this way. Who pays for science? DARPA and other government investments, industry investments in basic science, and the great bulk is directly from industry. Now, Chilton Metals doesn't want to pay a guy for five years to tell them that D6AC is the best alloy steel anyone will ever make, and no-one will ever solve the Chromium problem. They want him to develop them a way of controlling stress microfractures in cold rolling and make them an alloy that will give them a better market share.

There's no money, and there's no name, in showing that everything we know, we know, and everything we don't know, we never will. The money is in showing something new. And the fame...a lot of THAT is showing the other guy was wrong!

They don't give out prizes for "confirmed the mass of the electron yet again." They give prizes for "Showed a trend in error in measuring electron mass that goes back twenty years."

(Real story. No time for it now, though.)





By doing better science than the other guy. You'll never get respect by standing around going "I dunno what you are doing but you are doing it wrong." You get respect from scientists from saying, "Here, on pg 32, you completely bollixed your statistical methods and you entirely forgot Winston's demonstration that renormalization violates the n-axial integrity of the quantum Hamiltonian. Here's that paper, by the by."

By the by, that last part was complete Star Trek-level gibberish. Sounded good tho, right?

You don't seem to understand, nomuse. I'm not arguing against scientific discovery.

I'm saying if the Academic Institution runs up against a barrier, such as ORIGINS, it has no choice but to proceed as if the Naturalistic answer is the correct one. This is why Evolution ceases to be science, and turns to a Religion. Sure there can be major revisions to the doctrine, but in general a natural cause for life MUST be the correct answer for those who believe in it.

Slice it any way you want, Nomuse, it is not Science when you begin your research with a conclusion.

Now I know you are extremely devoted to the naturalist faith and you would go kicking and screaming swearing science can prove everything has a natural cause, so I don't expect you to concede one inch. You obviously hate the idea of God, and would never accept data that points to Him.

Certainly the evidence for God is all around us. Our conscience, awareness, reason, and logic alone when compared to all other lifeforms on this Earth is amazing evidence for intelligent design. There is a giant blinking sign out front of your face blinking "You were created by an intelligent God." and you have your head in the sand ignoring it at all costs.



What are you talking about? "Humans created by God" has many predictions. 1) We have a sense of morality 2) We have a tendency to worship the divine 3) We have a longing for salvation 4) There will be an inverse correlation to the success of science and the research of Origins...

And here's your religion coming in. None of that data counts because it points to the Supernatural.

And a Naturalistic "theory" of how the Universe and Life began can NOT be falsified. Just think about it for a minute. Even if entire schools of thought are shown to be erroneous, all it means for the Naturalist is that we have to start from the drawing board and figure out the "corrected" natural process.

You don't want to find God, so you refuse to look for him.

I have very simply described your Faith here.

+1

"God" (I prefer "Supreme Being") is the only thing that actually exists. Everything IS the Supreme Being.

A: If there is evidence of "God" then using it to explain reality would be a natural explanation.

B: There is no widely accepted scientific theory that claims we evolved from wet rocks.

You fail at facing reality.

It's all just theories. I even have my own theory of assisted evolution.

The problem with science is that it leaves no room for the 'God element' in it's hypothesis.

Science is only right until it's proven wrong.