« 回到论坛
版主：
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
 作者 |
 发布
|
 |
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 5, 2009 - 04:35 PM
|
|
siddiq92 wrote:
I appreciate Marissa's timely exerpt. Hope the atheists refer it. Please don't write off all biblical stories. Part of it correctly reflect the true facts albeit allegorically.
Of course. Most allegories, especially those in scriptures, reflect the truth, as do many parables, etc.
Also, I would not "write off all bible stories." However, I have learned that some bible stories are myths, and some do not accurately reflect factual truth.
I, like Adamson, and like most of the founding fathers of the United State of America, am a Deist. I believe in God, the "Great Spirit-Parent" (as Adamson puts it), but our belief in the existence of God is based on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of superstition and myths.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
James An
连接： Oct 26, 2006
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 22
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 01:01 AM
|
|
siddiq92 wrote:
Mathematical illusion of infinity being used in Complex analyses & Engineering applications such as CAD and Industrial automation is akin to optical illusion being used in making fool-proof holograms. But illusion remains an illusion, and never becomes a reality.
The metaphor between transfinite quantities and holograms is simply not sound. Transfinite quantities and math singularities are about as illusory as numbers, and yet you clearly place real value in numbers and not in the others. What makes infinities illusory? Or what does it lack to be what you would deem real?
siddiq92 wrote:
The implication of Euler's equation is clear. Every thing, in this Universe, is related...
That's not an implication of Euler's identity. That's an inductive argument that also isn't sound, as you're arguing: Euler's equation implies everything is related. Euler's equation is simply a relation between e, pi, i, 1, and 0. In essence, you are saying:
Because e, pi, i, 1, and 0 are related (in a math equation), everything in the universe is also related (in what way?). Can I make a similar claim that because 5 distinct things are not related, that everything in the Universe is -- therefore -- also not related? Surely, we can find 5 things that are not related. The challenge is that while the identity has a math equality relationship, you don't define the relationship of "everything". Do you mean to say that everything in the Universe is mathematically related in an equation as well?
siddiq92 wrote:
Regarding your argument about the various values of numbers... don't you see that these have amazingly distinct and finte arrangements in mass, space and off-course, finite existence. Does that not speak summarily about the finiteness of Nature itself?
You're mixing arguments. You said that "Everyone knows that a baby can have only one biological father" as if to imply the singularity of the Universe. I made a similar argument about things that had multiples. Does that mean we can say something about the multiplicity of Universes? No. Characteristics of the universe have little to do with whether we have single fathers or whether ladybugs have 7 spots.
And no, just because counting fingers and planets yield finite tallies doesn't imply the finiteness of Nature. That's an argument from ignorance. Just because I don't know something doesn't make it false. (It also doesn't make it true.) Yet, I concede that our well-accepted cosmological models suggest that the Universe is finite in spacetime. How is that relevant to our current debate about evolution (and God and riddles)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
siddiq92 wrote:
Adapatation to the environment is often confused with evolution. That's all I wish to tell you regarding HINI flu virus. Certain genes are activated in a particluar environment and others do not. Then, the question should also point to, what changed in the environment?
The H1N1 flu virus is -- in fact -- an entirely new strain (i.e. new species). That means some of its predecessors evolved to a point of being an entirely different species. This is simply a well-known fact. Just as H1N1 is a new strain, flu virus strains continually evolve which is why vaccines constantly change from year to year. The virii are evolving. It's not a matter of the activation or deactivation of genes. The very genomes of these strains are changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
James An
连接： Oct 26, 2006
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 22
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 01:01 AM
|
|
siddiq92 wrote:
Can you tell me whether the scientists have deciphered all genetic information of the known species? I am afraid the answer is no.
Of course not. But scientists have mapped the genome of a heck of a lot of species. How does the fact that we don't know the genome of all known species somehow discredit evolution? If anything, the knowledge gained from mapping the genome of species that we do have is a testimony to the correctness of the theory of evolution. It doesn't really matter whether or not "God made man in His image" as the knowledge we have still supports evolution.
siddiq92 wrote:
If numbers do not have any meaning, how come we apply them in our daily life?
Numbers -- themselves -- have no meaning. When I say "one", what does that mean? Instead, a number is a math object (an illusion, if you will), but not a real object. A number is used to describe real things. When I say "one", the implication is that I mean one of something. A number followed by a unit (kg, mph, loaves of bread, buckets of water) has a meaning together. Neither the unit or type nor the number have intrinsic meaning themselves. When I say "kilogram", it has no meaning. The meaning is derived from the assumption that I mean "1 kilogram".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
This is how we (or at least I, so correct me if I'm wrong) apply numbers in our daily lives.
siddiq92 wrote:
Pi symbolises the curvature of space and the symmetry inherent in it, as also the finiteness. Don't ask me for the proof. I am working on it. It will take some considerable (offcourse finite time).
I'd be interested in this.
Still, I disagree that the "ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean space" (i.e. Pi or 3.14...) is symbolic of anything, as the constant is specific to Euclidean space and specific to the geometry of circles -- not curvature. In non-Euclidean geometry, the ratio can be vastly different from Pi. In fact, the question of whether or not the Universe is "flat" (i.e. Euclidean) is still in question. If it is not flat (and I don't know whether the arguments/proof/observations lean either way), Pi is largely irrelevant to the global geometry of the Universe, even if it remains relevant to local geometries, like your (mostly) flat table or your (mostly) flat floor.
Still, the curvature of space as a result of gravitational forces (as is the current perspective on gravity via the general theory of relativity) argues that local (or mid-scale in relation to tables and floors) geometries in gravity wells (i.e. near a planet) are also non-Euclidean as space curves and is no longer flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Flat_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_well
Also, I also question whether space is inherently symmetric, as there are many definitions of symmetry. In certain cases, physical theories support symmetry, whereas in other cases, they support an asymmetrical nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetry
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
James An
连接： Oct 26, 2006
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 22
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 01:09 AM
|
|
abbarighton wrote:
I would not "write off all bible stories." However, I have learned that some bible stories are myths, and some do not accurately reflect factual truth.
I can appreciate that you believe some biblical stories (maybe the talking snake or the whale swallowing a person who emerges alive) as mythical. I think the danger emerges when people make decisions about whether certain sections of the Bible is factual truth. Who decides? How is it decided? And how does that affect others?
For example, persecution and discrimination against non-heterosexual is largely due to specific passages in the Bible that some people read literally and accept as factual truth. Many religiously motivated terrorist groups also radically interpret certain holy passages in a variety of texts to be literal to justify their violence. A lot of "bad" has been done in the name of literal readings of religious texts. Honour killings of daughters and wives has been a highlight in Canadian news recently as a Muslim family reels from the death of a daughter and the prime suspect is a family member (her father or brother, I can't remember).
I'm not saying that, because it is dangerous, we mustn't literally interpret sacred writings. I'm simply putting the question out there: how do we decide what is factual truth and what is myth as most sacred texts make no such distinction?
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Siddiq
连接： Jun 13, 2009
邮件 2
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 27
国家：India
Province/State: Orissa
城市: Koraput
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 06:29 AM
|
|
Well said, Marissa. I totally agree with you.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 01:49 PM
|
|
JamesAn wrote:
abbarighton wrote:
I would not "write off all bible stories." However, I have learned that some bible stories are myths, and some do not accurately reflect factual truth.
I can appreciate that you believe some biblical stories (maybe the talking snake or the whale swallowing a person who emerges alive) as mythical. I think the danger emerges when people make decisions about whether certain sections of the Bible is factual truth. Who decides? How is it decided? And how does that affect others? ... I'm simply putting the question out there: how do we decide what is factual truth and what is myth as most sacred texts make no such distinction?
Yes, that is precisely the question that should be asked.
Fortunately, the prophetic tradition of all three of the Abrahamic religions are based on the foresight and wisdom of the prophets, all of whom foresaw and foretold the coming of the modern son of man and prophet.
But how do we know who he is?
Unlike the many false prophets and many proud and militant false shepherds who are leading their blind flocks astray, and even into war, death and destruction, the genuine prophet shows us how the humble, gentle, peaceful and “meek” majority shall inherit the earth.
He points out that wisest prophets foresaw and foretold, and the key things are as follows:
The modern prophet does not cause his voice to be heard in public. Instead, he comes like a thief in the night, delivering his work so that it could be seen in a flash, like “lightening,” by people all over the world.
He is first rejected by his generation and suffers many things. In fact, he is rejected for so long that he would think all his work was done in vain, and for nought.
He is at first and for a long time not recognized as a prophet, but only as one stricken and afflicted, and smitten by God.
He does not speak of himself as anything but a messenger and servant of God, and of the Spirit of truth, who issues the prophesied judgment, guides us unto truth, shows us things to come, and glorifies the Holy One in heaven.
You can read all about it at Prophecies Re: The One to Come.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 01:51 PM
|
|
siddiq92 wrote:
Well said, Marissa. I totally agree with you.
Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Len Rosen
连接： Jan 26, 2009
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 60
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 02:14 PM
|
|
To all who have been participating in this debate,
I am bowing out once and for all. I have appreciated reading the theist arguments presented as well as those presented by humanists. I describe myself as a humanist and atheist. My moral code comes from my upbringing within a society that values relationship over confrontation.
So rather than confront absolutist arguments that are built on a sense of divine truth, I would rather just go and do good things, help other humans, help other species, work to keep this planet healthy, study what has happened in the past and speculate on where we all are going in the future.
Unlike theists I see my life as finite. I would be delighted to be wrong after I pass on but I have no illusions. It has often bothered me that people of faith see in earthly suffering a way to prepare themselves for a better life after death. To me suffering prepares you for nothing. Helping those who suffer however gives me great satisfaction.
Charles Darwin opened our eyes to give us a better understanding of where we fit in this Universe. It has been very difficult for most humans to accept that we are not the penultimate expression of some super being placed on this planet as steward. I fully understand why this concept is so difficult for so many people. After all I too was a child once when the world revolved around me. I just grew up.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 6, 2009 - 06:44 PM
|
|
lenrosen4 wrote:
To all who have been participating in this debate,
I am bowing out once and for all. I have appreciated reading the theist arguments presented as well as those presented by humanists. I describe myself as a humanist and atheist. My moral code comes from my upbringing within a society that values relationship over confrontation.
So rather than confront absolutist arguments that are built on a sense of divine truth, I would rather just go and do good things, help other humans, help other species, work to keep this planet healthy, study what has happened in the past and speculate on where we all are going in the future.
Unlike theists I see my life as finite. I would be delighted to be wrong after I pass on but I have no illusions. It has often bothered me that people of faith see in earthly suffering a way to prepare themselves for a better life after death. To me suffering prepares you for nothing. Helping those who suffer however gives me great satisfaction.
Charles Darwin opened our eyes to give us a better understanding of where we fit in this Universe. It has been very difficult for most humans to accept that we are not the penultimate expression of some super being placed on this planet as steward. I fully understand why this concept is so difficult for so many people. After all I too was a child once when the world revolved around me. I just grew up.
Len, please don't feel you need to confront me, because like Adamson, I am a Deist, who believes in the the existence of God BUT ONLY on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of superstition and myth.
That is why presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe were Deists, and their religious perspective was more close to that of today’s Unitarian Universalists than any other religion.
Moreover, Adamson has written a great article titled Evolution vs Creationism, which agnostics and atheists would like.
Additionally, Adamson uses religious terms and quotes scriptures to TURN THE TABLES on "religious" bigots and hypocrites who do not know what God is.
According to Adamson, God the the eternal Divine Light-Energy-Source of all life and form, the Universal Consciousness, and the primordial "Word" that is made flesh in all of us.
In other words, God is NOT what proud, militant, theocrats think it is. And Adamson's mission is to reconcile agnostics, atheists and religious people of ALL faiths, by explaining the real truth about what God is, and what God is NOT.
God is not some Almighty Superman who could create a man out of thin air or from the dirt, nor is God some ethereal Dictator who brings on naturual disasters many people call "Acts of God." That's simply not true.
I would sincerely urge you to look more into his message, because I promise you, if you do you may very well recognize truths that are self-evident once you've reall seen them.
This post was edited on: 2009-09-06 at 08:30 PM by: abbarighton
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
prieten47
连接： Oct 26, 2006
邮件 24
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 50
国家：Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
城市: Sapporo
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 14, 2009 - 04:19 AM
|
|
abbarighton wrote:
I am a Deist, who believes in the the existence of God BUT ONLY on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of superstition and myth.
There is no evidence for the existence of God to be found in nature or through reason.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
September 15, 2009 - 02:13 PM
|
|
prieten47 wrote:
abbarighton wrote:
I am a Deist, who believes in the the existence of God BUT ONLY on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of superstition and myth.
There is no evidence for the existence of God to be found in nature or through reason.
Forgive me, but that is simply not true.
The phenomena of actually "witnessing" God is very real, and has been experienced and written about by many people throughout history.
The phenomena has even been written about in scientific terms, as has been pointed out by Joseph J. Adamson in his article titled The Highest State of Consicousness.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
jodevizes
连接： Jul 4, 2009
邮件 15
帖子等级
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 25
国家：United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
城市: London
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
October 5, 2009 - 01:47 PM
|
|
Ok If we believe in creationism then god created the world and he created man in his image.
If this is the case, you only have to look around at some of his images like Hitler or Pol Pot or Bush or Stalin to understand that if, there really is a god, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Such a pity that, when god was strewing those imitation fossils that we date as a couple of million years old but that others say are only a few thousands of years old, he didn't put a logo on them saying "Original Gift From God".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Devizes knows a womens website that is rather good.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Len Rosen
连接： Jan 26, 2009
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 60
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
October 5, 2009 - 05:25 PM
|
|
I know I bowed out a few weeks ago but I have continued to monitor the conversations going on here. So here is some fuel for discussion.
Have any of you read "It's a Wonderful Life," not the movie, but the book that describes the explosion of life forms that emerged in the Cambrian period and that today represent a rich fossil record in both China and Western Canada. The Western Canadian fossil deposits are called the Burgess Shales.
Almost all present animal fauna can be traced back to the fossil record that appears in these deposits....from molluscs to chordates. We can see our ancestors in these rocks that date over 500 million years in age.
I bring this up because I have just read a review of Richard Dawkins new book on evolution and no doubt if it is half as good as "The Blind Watchmaker," this should prove to be an excellent explanation of evolution along with the evidence to support the facts.
Deists always ask where are the missing links in the fossil record. Well in the last two weeks we have had a fossil from China that shows the direct link between birds and dinosaurs. And we have had another hominid discovery that pushes back our ancestry to well over 4 million years ago.
Also this month in Discover there is a fascinating article on the multiverse and the potential of collisions between two universes. Scientists in this article talk about evidence in our universe that supports multiverse collisions. I have hypothesized that the Big Bang was just such a collision creating a singular incident for the arrival of our present universe. I know it is hard to imagine many universes. I think it gets easier when you think of universes as a mass soap bubbles that when they collide adhere an alter the shape of the connecting membrane from circular to a flatter plane. If universes are like soap bubbles then the evidence for these changes should be physically there, and apparently they appear to be.
So I conclude with "it's a Wonderful Life." We have so much to question and still so much to learn.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
James An
连接： Oct 26, 2006
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 22
国家：Canada
Province/State: Ontario
城市: Toronto
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
October 6, 2009 - 12:07 AM
|
|
abbarighton wrote:
The phenomena has even been written about in scientific terms, as has been pointed out by Joseph J. Adamson in his article titled The Highest State of Consicousness.
That's not scientific writing. Adamson quotes a handful of celebrity scientists, but the quotations are in the context of admiring the beauty of nature and the mystery of psychology, not proof of God. And even if the scientists believed in God, it's still a belief, albeit one from a famous person.
lenrosen4 wrote:
Have any of you read "It's a Wonderful Life,"...
Do you mean "Wonderful Life: Burgess Shale and the Nature of History" by Gould? I read his "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History" and found it very thought-provoking. I didn't entirely agree with everything he said (like his belief that morals are taught by religion and that science has no place in morality), but I could appreciate his sense of the intrinsic beauty in nature and life. Plus, he write eloquently. It seems that science students these days have little appreciation for writing (even for technical writing, nevermind the inspiring prose of Gould's sort), so it's a breath of fresh air for me to have found Gould's writing.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Marissa Harrington
连接： Aug 28, 2009
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
|
Re: Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design
October 8, 2009 - 04:20 PM
|
|
JamesAn wrote:
abbarighton wrote:
The phenomena has even been written about in scientific terms, as has been pointed out by Joseph J. Adamson in his article titled The Highest State of Consicousness.
That's not scientific writing. Adamson quotes a handful of celebrity scientists, but the quotations are in the context of admiring the beauty of nature and the mystery of psychology, not proof of God. And even if the scientists believed in God, it's still a belief, albeit one from a famous person.
You ignore that Adamson cites the book, The Highest State of Consciousness, edited by John White,which contains articles by many scientists who explain the Cosmic Consciousness experience in scientific terms.
You also ignored or didn't read that Adamson explains that God is not what most people have been led to believe. He says God is the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, the Essence of all life and form, from the smallest nano-particle to the Universe itself. "God" is the Supreme Universal Consciousness, the eternal, primordial "Word" that is made flesh in all of us.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
|
从帖子中显示：
|
|
主页
团体
