Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Can religion tell us more than science?
97 Answers
What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.... The last paragraph from the link below.
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ll_billym. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Notasyoung, religions also believe in an invisible man in the sky, and even worse, in the totally evil concept of hell - and they have no evidence whatsoever for either, so their CVs have been well and truly doctored. What you're talking about is something entirely separate. If anything is ever going to explain your experience, forget religion with all its magic and mumbo jumbo, and think science. Nothing is supernatural - not even 'ghosts' - in my humble opinion. :o)
Like I say naomi I'm not religious and I certainly don't believe that 'God' created the world and the theory of evolution makes more sense to me. I think I remain agnostic, but I have to admit after this experience I did waiver a little ! None of us really know, it's just our own opinion at the end of the day.
Notasyoung, true - none of us know - which is the very reason we shouldn't automatically attribute things we don't understand to something for which we have no evidence - in this case, god. If we don't know, then, if we're totally honest, we must concede that we don't know and keep our options open. Science will get there one day. I have every confidence.
Naomi awaits the onslaught from the religious - who in reality know no more than anyone else. :o)
Naomi awaits the onslaught from the religious - who in reality know no more than anyone else. :o)
Clanard //regardless of the size comparison... it's unimagineable. //
Perhaps for you
Clanard //Once even a basic understanding of Herbrew is achieved, the comparison of curtains "stretching" is accurate. All of the verses offered for consideration have been commented on by cosmologists and philosophers as possibly being parallel//
Many religious people resort to such comparisons in their desperate attempt to reconcile science with their mythological doctrine. It remains a very loose analogy at best. Quite worthless in scientific term.
Perhaps for you
Clanard //Once even a basic understanding of Herbrew is achieved, the comparison of curtains "stretching" is accurate. All of the verses offered for consideration have been commented on by cosmologists and philosophers as possibly being parallel//
Many religious people resort to such comparisons in their desperate attempt to reconcile science with their mythological doctrine. It remains a very loose analogy at best. Quite worthless in scientific term.
Clanad - you seem not to have understood my original point. I'll make it more directly:
1. What reason do you religionists give for assuming that there must be a reason for (the Why?) to the existence of the universe and life?
2. Having told us that, what is that reason?
Quoting the bible gets you nowhere. As a heterogeneous collection of writings by totally unknown people (with the single exception of Paul) it has no particular insights into anything. In very many cases it is demonstrably wrong - for example, when it spouts cosmological nonsense at the beginning of Genesis, or when both of the two mutually contradictory accounts of the birth of Jesus contain historical inaccuracies. To answer the above questions you'll have to dig deeper than that.
1. What reason do you religionists give for assuming that there must be a reason for (the Why?) to the existence of the universe and life?
2. Having told us that, what is that reason?
Quoting the bible gets you nowhere. As a heterogeneous collection of writings by totally unknown people (with the single exception of Paul) it has no particular insights into anything. In very many cases it is demonstrably wrong - for example, when it spouts cosmological nonsense at the beginning of Genesis, or when both of the two mutually contradictory accounts of the birth of Jesus contain historical inaccuracies. To answer the above questions you'll have to dig deeper than that.
Chakka, as usual, a discussion such as this does not result in the impartation and receiving of knowledge or ideas. It usually results in the "anti's" patting each other on the back in in a congratulatory group hug. The same is about to occur here and the "usual suspects" will say, "That just shows that the 'religionists' can't defend their position.
However, on the off chance you would like to engage in a meaningful exchange, I'd offer this: (I understood fully well you're original question)
Science has shown that life on the planet Earth is extremely rare, even considering the possibility of it occurring elsewhere due to the oft cited "enormous" size of the universe. The set of circumstances necessary for any life, let alone advanced life in the abundance that exists here, is so unlikely as to be an impossibility (again, according to science).
Even so, the naturalist will say (as been stated in this thread) that it was a fortunate accident and nothing else. That, of course, is unprovable as well as flying in the face of yet another science, that of statistical probability.
If life is a statitistical impossibility then its occurrence must be a special occasion. Something important. Furthermore, can we agree that man (with all his faults) is the most unique example of that impossible life? It's not unreasonable to ask Why that should be.
Which is what science does not do. Philosophy in any form attempts to do that, and Judaeo/Christianity does that to a greater or lesser degree using, among other things, ancient texts.
You (and others) may disregard those texts but you do so with limited understanding of them, in my opinion. Beso is but one such an example...
Beso says it's all mythological, but on what basis? I suspect the basis is "only" because it doesn't "fit" his/her worldview. The writings and references found within are (like them or not) clearly products of their time and place. To claim otherwise disregards centuries of scholarship by both pro and con factions.
Therefore, "Why" is imperative if life and especially human life is held in high esteem evidenced by the "special" status. Much more esteem than found in the philosophy of "a series fortunate accidents" and their resulting meaninglessness popular in many quarters.
Your own philosophy rests, in great part, on the untrustworthiness of the texts. We've had this discussion before... but each objection you raise has a valid response which are based on the results, again, on centuries of study the culmination of which is an extensive body of work that can't be casually discarded just because you don't "like" the implications.
So, I've attempted to answer the first part of your query... the second is self-evident. The reason is the Judaeo/Christian being called euphemistically "God". To which the standard response is "why not any of the other zillions of man-created gods?" Which question can be answered but probably not in a forum such as this, since the answer, just like this one, becomes lengthy and tedious.
Let me ask one question.... what are the sources of your world view? To what texts do you subscribe, or, as asked before, have you, alone, done all the original and continuing research?
Lastly, you've always given some weight of authority to Paul (nee) Saul. I'm not sure you want to be hoist on that petard since within his writings are numerous refutations to your position...
However, on the off chance you would like to engage in a meaningful exchange, I'd offer this: (I understood fully well you're original question)
Science has shown that life on the planet Earth is extremely rare, even considering the possibility of it occurring elsewhere due to the oft cited "enormous" size of the universe. The set of circumstances necessary for any life, let alone advanced life in the abundance that exists here, is so unlikely as to be an impossibility (again, according to science).
Even so, the naturalist will say (as been stated in this thread) that it was a fortunate accident and nothing else. That, of course, is unprovable as well as flying in the face of yet another science, that of statistical probability.
If life is a statitistical impossibility then its occurrence must be a special occasion. Something important. Furthermore, can we agree that man (with all his faults) is the most unique example of that impossible life? It's not unreasonable to ask Why that should be.
Which is what science does not do. Philosophy in any form attempts to do that, and Judaeo/Christianity does that to a greater or lesser degree using, among other things, ancient texts.
You (and others) may disregard those texts but you do so with limited understanding of them, in my opinion. Beso is but one such an example...
Beso says it's all mythological, but on what basis? I suspect the basis is "only" because it doesn't "fit" his/her worldview. The writings and references found within are (like them or not) clearly products of their time and place. To claim otherwise disregards centuries of scholarship by both pro and con factions.
Therefore, "Why" is imperative if life and especially human life is held in high esteem evidenced by the "special" status. Much more esteem than found in the philosophy of "a series fortunate accidents" and their resulting meaninglessness popular in many quarters.
Your own philosophy rests, in great part, on the untrustworthiness of the texts. We've had this discussion before... but each objection you raise has a valid response which are based on the results, again, on centuries of study the culmination of which is an extensive body of work that can't be casually discarded just because you don't "like" the implications.
So, I've attempted to answer the first part of your query... the second is self-evident. The reason is the Judaeo/Christian being called euphemistically "God". To which the standard response is "why not any of the other zillions of man-created gods?" Which question can be answered but probably not in a forum such as this, since the answer, just like this one, becomes lengthy and tedious.
Let me ask one question.... what are the sources of your world view? To what texts do you subscribe, or, as asked before, have you, alone, done all the original and continuing research?
Lastly, you've always given some weight of authority to Paul (nee) Saul. I'm not sure you want to be hoist on that petard since within his writings are numerous refutations to your position...
Clanrd. Contrary to you claim, science does not hold that life is extremely rare and certainly not that it is an impossibility. Science does not hold a position on this because there is insuficient information to even consider a statistical analysis let alone a statement that "life is statistically impossible".
Astrobiology is a cutting edge field in today's science. The focus of research is an effort to determine some of the parameters that would be involved in a statistical analysis of the probability of lie.
The preliminary data from the Kepler space telescope indicate that small reock plants in the habitable zone around star are actually quite common.
Mechanisms for abiogenisis (the transistion from non-living minerals to living structures) have been proposed. Most importantly the serpentisation of olivine in alkaline hydrothermal vents (white smokers) has been shown to conain the exact chemical mechanism that underpins the energy generation in all known living organisms.
Several other possible locations for the formation of life have been proposed under similar circumstance where oceans exist under thick layers of ice in worlds very different from Earth, including the moons of the outer planets of our own solar system.
Indeed the further the subject is researched the more likey it appears that life is probably quite common.
The "most unique example" [sic] of life and the "special status" of humans is definitely not a scientific judgement but firmly rooted in unsubstantiated religous beliefs.
The main result of objective study of religious texts is that their claims are completely unsubstantiated by any contemporary writings. The consensus position is that the New Testament was written about 80 years after the time in which its stories are set, conveniently just long enough for there to be no living witnesses.
The texts are objectively untrustworthy. Without even venturing to their lack of corroborating texts, they include many self inconsistencies. Biological considerations alone suggest that the claim of human lifetimes approaching 1000 years are ludicrous.
The discarding of outcomes is done by the religious who prefer to support the lame findings of those who claim to have produced valid response to the criticisms. These "valid responses" are becoming increasing ludicrous.
My source of world view comes from a body of scientific work that has withstood rigourous objective analysis and remains consistent in the context of the entire body of scientific work pertaining to all verifiable observation.
I do not need to conduct all the work and analysis myself because a huge contingent of scientists have done that work and come to the concensus in the light of extremely detail and critical analysis of all available information. Indeed such is the extent of this work that it would be quite impossible of any one person to undertake it all alone in a lifetime.
Astrobiology is a cutting edge field in today's science. The focus of research is an effort to determine some of the parameters that would be involved in a statistical analysis of the probability of lie.
The preliminary data from the Kepler space telescope indicate that small reock plants in the habitable zone around star are actually quite common.
Mechanisms for abiogenisis (the transistion from non-living minerals to living structures) have been proposed. Most importantly the serpentisation of olivine in alkaline hydrothermal vents (white smokers) has been shown to conain the exact chemical mechanism that underpins the energy generation in all known living organisms.
Several other possible locations for the formation of life have been proposed under similar circumstance where oceans exist under thick layers of ice in worlds very different from Earth, including the moons of the outer planets of our own solar system.
Indeed the further the subject is researched the more likey it appears that life is probably quite common.
The "most unique example" [sic] of life and the "special status" of humans is definitely not a scientific judgement but firmly rooted in unsubstantiated religous beliefs.
The main result of objective study of religious texts is that their claims are completely unsubstantiated by any contemporary writings. The consensus position is that the New Testament was written about 80 years after the time in which its stories are set, conveniently just long enough for there to be no living witnesses.
The texts are objectively untrustworthy. Without even venturing to their lack of corroborating texts, they include many self inconsistencies. Biological considerations alone suggest that the claim of human lifetimes approaching 1000 years are ludicrous.
The discarding of outcomes is done by the religious who prefer to support the lame findings of those who claim to have produced valid response to the criticisms. These "valid responses" are becoming increasing ludicrous.
My source of world view comes from a body of scientific work that has withstood rigourous objective analysis and remains consistent in the context of the entire body of scientific work pertaining to all verifiable observation.
I do not need to conduct all the work and analysis myself because a huge contingent of scientists have done that work and come to the concensus in the light of extremely detail and critical analysis of all available information. Indeed such is the extent of this work that it would be quite impossible of any one person to undertake it all alone in a lifetime.
Problem is, beso... your statement concerning extremophiles is rife with contention in the scientific community, as I'm sure you're aware. That's not a problem, except that some jump to the conclusion that once more a definitive answer to the origin of life (OoL) has been discovered.
There are 4 major objections to your proposal. As I'm sure you're aware, "...geochemical evidence places the presence of life on Earth at 3.86 billion years ago. The oldest rocks date to 3.9 billion years ago. Prior to this time, Earth existed largely in a molten state, unsuitable for life..." (Source: Karl O. Stetter, et al, “The Lesson of Archaebacteria,” in Early Life on Earth: Nobel Symposium No. 84).
In a concerted effort to push the origin of life further back than the currently accepted 3.86 billions of years "...A thermophilic or hot origin of life would provide some additional time desperately needed for natural process hypotheses. Scientists from Stanford University and NASA’s Ames Center examined this possibility by estimating when (and how long), prior to 3.9 billion years ago, Earth’s surface temperature resided in the vicinity of 100 °C-the temperature thermophiles require.
The most significant event contributing to Earth’s hot, largely molten state came from the impact of an object roughly the size of Mars, just after Earth formed. When it crashed into Earth, the core of the impactor fused with Earth’s core. Lighter elements from the impact spewed into Earth’s orbit and quickly coalesced to form the moon. Immediately after this collision, Earth’s surface temperature was hot enough to vaporize silica (sand). The surface eventually cooled to temperatures conducive for liquid water..." (Source: Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe).
Further, "...The moon-forming impactor stands as only one of a large number of objects striking Earth between 4.5 and 3.9 billion years ago. Each collision returned Earth to high temperatures, melting rock on the surface and subsurface and elevating the surface temperature above the maximum temperature survivable by thermophiles..." (Source: B. A. Cohen et al., “Support for the Lunar Cataclysm Hypothesis from Lunar Meteorite Impact Melt Age,” Science pg. 290 (2000)). The attempt to extend the origin of life beyond 3.9 billions of years hasn't been successful yet and this is but one of four objections rooted in science.
Consult your own Prof. Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia. He's written several good articles on the rarity of human life. (Seen here:
http://www.astrobio.n...rare-cosmic-commodity )
(Contd.)
There are 4 major objections to your proposal. As I'm sure you're aware, "...geochemical evidence places the presence of life on Earth at 3.86 billion years ago. The oldest rocks date to 3.9 billion years ago. Prior to this time, Earth existed largely in a molten state, unsuitable for life..." (Source: Karl O. Stetter, et al, “The Lesson of Archaebacteria,” in Early Life on Earth: Nobel Symposium No. 84).
In a concerted effort to push the origin of life further back than the currently accepted 3.86 billions of years "...A thermophilic or hot origin of life would provide some additional time desperately needed for natural process hypotheses. Scientists from Stanford University and NASA’s Ames Center examined this possibility by estimating when (and how long), prior to 3.9 billion years ago, Earth’s surface temperature resided in the vicinity of 100 °C-the temperature thermophiles require.
The most significant event contributing to Earth’s hot, largely molten state came from the impact of an object roughly the size of Mars, just after Earth formed. When it crashed into Earth, the core of the impactor fused with Earth’s core. Lighter elements from the impact spewed into Earth’s orbit and quickly coalesced to form the moon. Immediately after this collision, Earth’s surface temperature was hot enough to vaporize silica (sand). The surface eventually cooled to temperatures conducive for liquid water..." (Source: Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe).
Further, "...The moon-forming impactor stands as only one of a large number of objects striking Earth between 4.5 and 3.9 billion years ago. Each collision returned Earth to high temperatures, melting rock on the surface and subsurface and elevating the surface temperature above the maximum temperature survivable by thermophiles..." (Source: B. A. Cohen et al., “Support for the Lunar Cataclysm Hypothesis from Lunar Meteorite Impact Melt Age,” Science pg. 290 (2000)). The attempt to extend the origin of life beyond 3.9 billions of years hasn't been successful yet and this is but one of four objections rooted in science.
Consult your own Prof. Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia. He's written several good articles on the rarity of human life. (Seen here:
http://www.astrobio.n...rare-cosmic-commodity )
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
To require copious reams of contemporary documentation for any ancient text is unsupported by scholars who study such things. There are no (or very few) contemporary documents for most of the Egyptian Dynastic Kingdoms, yet they are deemed valuable and accurate in many parts.
My favorite example is that of Vercingoterix... but that's story unto itself and to lengthy for this forum.
Suffice it to say, you along with many others have bought into this old wives tale and it persists.
Your dating of the New Covenant books runs aground on many shoals, but the most conspicuous one is the complete absence of reference to an overwhelming incident that occurred in 70 A.D. of which it's inconceivable that any mention of it would have been omitted had the writings occurred post that date. The destruction of not only Jerusalem but the Herodian Temple (as Yeshua predicted by the way) was of such overwhelming significance (an estimated 800,000 Jews died) that any lack of inclusion is impossible. Yet none of the books contain such reference.
There are a multitude of other rebuttals to positions such as yours. The problem you face, however, is you seem to think these types of criticisms are something new... dare I say only contemporary? Fact is they and the answers to rebut them have been around as long as Christianity. "There's nothing new under the sun", so to speak. When the world is considered, the message of the Christ draws people today as it always has.
The singular point as a take away is that not all scientists agree on much of anything and there are and have been some of the world's finest minds that have examined the claims of Yeshua and have come away convinced of His truth. Sans holding one of those minds, I count myself among them...
Finally, you state "... My source of world view comes from a body of scientific work that has withstood rigorous objective analysis and remains consistent in the context of the entire body of scientific work pertaining to all verifiable observation". That includes of course those parts of the scientific "body" that litter the sides of the road of history, no? (Would you care to add your definition of the term "species" to that consensus of which you speak?) (You omitted an "a" in my nom-de-plume, by the way).
To require copious reams of contemporary documentation for any ancient text is unsupported by scholars who study such things. There are no (or very few) contemporary documents for most of the Egyptian Dynastic Kingdoms, yet they are deemed valuable and accurate in many parts.
My favorite example is that of Vercingoterix... but that's story unto itself and to lengthy for this forum.
Suffice it to say, you along with many others have bought into this old wives tale and it persists.
Your dating of the New Covenant books runs aground on many shoals, but the most conspicuous one is the complete absence of reference to an overwhelming incident that occurred in 70 A.D. of which it's inconceivable that any mention of it would have been omitted had the writings occurred post that date. The destruction of not only Jerusalem but the Herodian Temple (as Yeshua predicted by the way) was of such overwhelming significance (an estimated 800,000 Jews died) that any lack of inclusion is impossible. Yet none of the books contain such reference.
There are a multitude of other rebuttals to positions such as yours. The problem you face, however, is you seem to think these types of criticisms are something new... dare I say only contemporary? Fact is they and the answers to rebut them have been around as long as Christianity. "There's nothing new under the sun", so to speak. When the world is considered, the message of the Christ draws people today as it always has.
The singular point as a take away is that not all scientists agree on much of anything and there are and have been some of the world's finest minds that have examined the claims of Yeshua and have come away convinced of His truth. Sans holding one of those minds, I count myself among them...
Finally, you state "... My source of world view comes from a body of scientific work that has withstood rigorous objective analysis and remains consistent in the context of the entire body of scientific work pertaining to all verifiable observation". That includes of course those parts of the scientific "body" that litter the sides of the road of history, no? (Would you care to add your definition of the term "species" to that consensus of which you speak?) (You omitted an "a" in my nom-de-plume, by the way).
In response to the question framing this thread - as some of the previous answers so eloquently point out, whether intentionally or by default, there's more and then there's . . . better. Ultimately, it is the measure and degree of your own ability to comprehend and understand the 'information' provided that will enable you to make the rational distinction between fluff or substantiation and to distinguish obfuscation from illumination.
In matters regarding certainty, it is not what you think you know but your understanding of the means and process by which you know it that counts.
In matters regarding certainty, it is not what you think you know but your understanding of the means and process by which you know it that counts.
Clanard, what a load of complete twaddle you have posted. You have obviously uncritically swallowed the rubbish fed to you by pseudo-scientific devotees.
Firstly. The age you give for the oldest rocks contradicts the concensus which puts them at 4.28 billion years.
Secondly. The oldest fossils are 3.4 billion years old. There is no accepted time for the start of life on Earth before this because there is no evidence, since fossils generally require hard structures. However it is assumed that soft-bodied life was around for a long time before fossils.
The unspecified "problems" with thermophiles that I am supposed to know about are no doubt supplied by the same ignorant source as you have quoted. Moreover they probably address the concept that modern thermophiles could not evolve into modern ordinary organisms. Of course that is completely irrelevant. However archaic thermophiles could have well evolved into any of the modern species.
The supposed "additional time desperately needed for natural process" is a myth perpetrated by those who are desperately committed to a book of stories made up by arrogant, clueless goat-herders more than two thousand years ago.
However I guess we can reasonably excuse their ignorance. What is ridiculous are those otherwise intelligent modern people who expect assertions based on these stupid old stories to taken seriously. It is bizarre.
Egyptian dynasties have copious archaeological evidence.
Yes, there are a multitude of rebuttals of similar "quality" to the rubbish that you have quoted. They are written by the utterly indoctrinated who are completely incapable of anything approaching an objective perspective.
Firstly. The age you give for the oldest rocks contradicts the concensus which puts them at 4.28 billion years.
Secondly. The oldest fossils are 3.4 billion years old. There is no accepted time for the start of life on Earth before this because there is no evidence, since fossils generally require hard structures. However it is assumed that soft-bodied life was around for a long time before fossils.
The unspecified "problems" with thermophiles that I am supposed to know about are no doubt supplied by the same ignorant source as you have quoted. Moreover they probably address the concept that modern thermophiles could not evolve into modern ordinary organisms. Of course that is completely irrelevant. However archaic thermophiles could have well evolved into any of the modern species.
The supposed "additional time desperately needed for natural process" is a myth perpetrated by those who are desperately committed to a book of stories made up by arrogant, clueless goat-herders more than two thousand years ago.
However I guess we can reasonably excuse their ignorance. What is ridiculous are those otherwise intelligent modern people who expect assertions based on these stupid old stories to taken seriously. It is bizarre.
Egyptian dynasties have copious archaeological evidence.
Yes, there are a multitude of rebuttals of similar "quality" to the rubbish that you have quoted. They are written by the utterly indoctrinated who are completely incapable of anything approaching an objective perspective.
Be So, not having bothered to respond to any of the quoted excerpts from accepted scientists who are naturalists and well respected (Rare Earth is a classic) and resorting to denigrating an opposite argument. It appears our exchange is ended. So be it... with the exception of a quote from the venerable Wikipedia: " Since 2008, the oldest rock on earth has been discovered by McGill University in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt on the coast of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec, and is dated from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old. (Source: Thompson, Andrea (2008). "Oldest rocks on Earth found in northern Canada".)). Using the maximum possible date without qualifying it as the best guess within a range is disengenious at least.
Nice quote, Naomi... you usually produce more insight based on some factual information in your responses though...
Nice quote, Naomi... you usually produce more insight based on some factual information in your responses though...
Clanard. Regardless of the opinions about the age of the oldest rocks and the origin of the Moon in your post was complete twaddle. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the origins of life.
You seem to think you are scoring points by quoting science despite making no connection with the discussion.
I also note you did not address the anomaly about the first evidence of life.
We also have the fact that life was clearly around for thousands of millions of years before the first multicellular organisms arose. Yet your Book has all life appearing in a day. It seems quite bizarre that you would be using the fossil record in your argument.
There is clear evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the DNA of living organisms.
However as is typical of the philosophical cowardice of the devoted, you simply walk away when you come up against someone who knows science and pretend that your perspective has prevailed.
You seem to think you are scoring points by quoting science despite making no connection with the discussion.
I also note you did not address the anomaly about the first evidence of life.
We also have the fact that life was clearly around for thousands of millions of years before the first multicellular organisms arose. Yet your Book has all life appearing in a day. It seems quite bizarre that you would be using the fossil record in your argument.
There is clear evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the DNA of living organisms.
However as is typical of the philosophical cowardice of the devoted, you simply walk away when you come up against someone who knows science and pretend that your perspective has prevailed.
It's futile to argue the history of the earth over a few million years, because where the age of the universe is concerned, a few million years is just the blink of an eye. As far as I'm aware, the building blocks of life aren't unique to the earth - in fact scientists think there's every chance that the universe, with its innumerable planets revolving around a vast myriad of suns, harbours life in abundance. By comparison, our solar system is very young, so it would seem rather silly to assume that life in the universe began here. Taking the enormous timescale into account, there's no reason why civilisations technologically far more advanced than we are now - by billions of years - couldn't have existed when this earth was formed - and there's no reason to assume they do not continue to exist.
The idea that man is somehow exceptional and that the earth alone was chosen by a supernatural God as the only home to his creation is a very limited one. Personally I believe the old texts contain much truth, and since I think they hold a very valuable key to our past, I certainly don't dismiss them. Quite the opposite in fact. However, when we study them we must consider the archaic mentality and the very limited knowledge and experience of the authors, so in order to separate fact from superstition, we must investigate all ancient writings - from all civilisations - with 21st century eyes. To believe any of them contain the absolute truth is not only wishful thinking - it's short-sighted - and it's arrogant in the extreme. We are not special.
Is that a bit better, Clanad? :o)
The idea that man is somehow exceptional and that the earth alone was chosen by a supernatural God as the only home to his creation is a very limited one. Personally I believe the old texts contain much truth, and since I think they hold a very valuable key to our past, I certainly don't dismiss them. Quite the opposite in fact. However, when we study them we must consider the archaic mentality and the very limited knowledge and experience of the authors, so in order to separate fact from superstition, we must investigate all ancient writings - from all civilisations - with 21st century eyes. To believe any of them contain the absolute truth is not only wishful thinking - it's short-sighted - and it's arrogant in the extreme. We are not special.
Is that a bit better, Clanad? :o)
Clanad - dealing first with the last item in your reply to me: I do not give any authority to Paul, Saul of Tarsus, whatsoever: I merely stated the simple fact that he is only biblical author who can be identified. Please read more carefully. Since he is the one who invented Christianity (among other faults of his) I am hardly likely to be a fan.
Next backwards: why do I have to have a source for my 'world view', whatever that is? (You theists don't half complicate things.) I merely ask two questions, neither of which you have answered: why do you think that there has to be a reason for the universe to exist, and what is that reason. Until you have answered the first there is no point in discussing the second, is there? All you have said about the first is that it is not unreasonable to ask the question. I agree. So what is the answer?
Finally, cutting through the rest of your rhetoric, life on the planet Earth is not 'extremely rare'. It is abundant. What you probably mean is that life in the universe is extrememly rare, though we don't know that.
The sort of life we have on this planet, once it came about, flourished because the conditions are right for it. The chances of those conditions being right within a few light years of us is what is statistically unlikely. Across the universe, if you multiply that improbabilty by the countless number of solar systems and planets that there must be it becomes far less improbable, even ignoring the possibilty of there being some completely different form of life, based on silicon, say.
I find it amusing that you doubt my intention to 'engage in a meaningful exchange'. That is all I ever try to do - uphill work with theists.
Next backwards: why do I have to have a source for my 'world view', whatever that is? (You theists don't half complicate things.) I merely ask two questions, neither of which you have answered: why do you think that there has to be a reason for the universe to exist, and what is that reason. Until you have answered the first there is no point in discussing the second, is there? All you have said about the first is that it is not unreasonable to ask the question. I agree. So what is the answer?
Finally, cutting through the rest of your rhetoric, life on the planet Earth is not 'extremely rare'. It is abundant. What you probably mean is that life in the universe is extrememly rare, though we don't know that.
The sort of life we have on this planet, once it came about, flourished because the conditions are right for it. The chances of those conditions being right within a few light years of us is what is statistically unlikely. Across the universe, if you multiply that improbabilty by the countless number of solar systems and planets that there must be it becomes far less improbable, even ignoring the possibilty of there being some completely different form of life, based on silicon, say.
I find it amusing that you doubt my intention to 'engage in a meaningful exchange'. That is all I ever try to do - uphill work with theists.
Chakka, as predicted this thread has degenerated into a name calling contest. However, you've asked valid questions and I haven't been clear in my answers.
The the imperative for a reason the universe exists is the requirement for a repository for a valued-beyond-reason possession, we humans. Both divisions of Scripture clearly indicate the love the Creator has for us... even after we've (collectively and individually) rejected Him. Judaeo/Christianity teaches the relationship Elohim desires to have with his created. Yeshua paid a price he didn't owe for a debt I could not pay. In my mind, to be less than eternally thankful is the height of conceit.
But... I don't hate, denigrate or think less of those who don't. El Shaddai still loves them beyond my ability to understand.
Paul was a close confidant of John Mark and Luke. He also knew James, the brother of Yeshua and certainly knew Peter who said of Paul "...And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave him. Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." I don't think it's reasonable to think that if any of the writers of the Gospels were unknown that fact would have been made abundantly clear.
Lastly, as you know, there are copies of the Gospels dating back to at least 125 AD. All were from different, far flung locations... no chance for collusion. And, with that plethora of examples, not one has ever been located with any other author's name appended. The earliest Church father's all attest to their authorship. Many scholars, far more knowledgable that I accept the fact without doubt.
Seeking brevity, I would offer that only 6% of galaxies are capable of producing a star such as our sun. While that still leaves many others, when the other requirements for star and planet formation capable of supporting any kind of life are added up, it makes life... any life extremely rare in this universe.
Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on attempting to locate radio signals coming from space via SETI... and the entire search is centered on recognizing "design". Yet, when overwhelming "design" is seen in the creation around us, it is rejected and sttributed to "chance"... Go figure.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond...
The the imperative for a reason the universe exists is the requirement for a repository for a valued-beyond-reason possession, we humans. Both divisions of Scripture clearly indicate the love the Creator has for us... even after we've (collectively and individually) rejected Him. Judaeo/Christianity teaches the relationship Elohim desires to have with his created. Yeshua paid a price he didn't owe for a debt I could not pay. In my mind, to be less than eternally thankful is the height of conceit.
But... I don't hate, denigrate or think less of those who don't. El Shaddai still loves them beyond my ability to understand.
Paul was a close confidant of John Mark and Luke. He also knew James, the brother of Yeshua and certainly knew Peter who said of Paul "...And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave him. Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." I don't think it's reasonable to think that if any of the writers of the Gospels were unknown that fact would have been made abundantly clear.
Lastly, as you know, there are copies of the Gospels dating back to at least 125 AD. All were from different, far flung locations... no chance for collusion. And, with that plethora of examples, not one has ever been located with any other author's name appended. The earliest Church father's all attest to their authorship. Many scholars, far more knowledgable that I accept the fact without doubt.
Seeking brevity, I would offer that only 6% of galaxies are capable of producing a star such as our sun. While that still leaves many others, when the other requirements for star and planet formation capable of supporting any kind of life are added up, it makes life... any life extremely rare in this universe.
Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on attempting to locate radio signals coming from space via SETI... and the entire search is centered on recognizing "design". Yet, when overwhelming "design" is seen in the creation around us, it is rejected and sttributed to "chance"... Go figure.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond...
Latest Posts
Body & Soul2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.