Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Evolution and a supreme being.

12467…15

Comments

  • #92
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I presume you are thinking something along the lines of a sentient race, a matrix type scenario or some other non-interventionist type thing... Is that so?

    I just think that "creative intelligence" is inherent in everything that is and that there is no need to invoke a supreme being outside of reality to explain things.


  • #93
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Robdude wrote: »
    Sure - and if you used enough big words, cited other papers and tossed in some math symbols - you could get it published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal and it would be science.
    Um...I think you are talking right out of your arse now.


  • #94
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Robdude wrote: »
    "We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

    People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.
    Unfortunately they idiotically took a lot of this evidence out of the Christian Bible, a source of innumerable idiocies. When they gave the religious beliefs the heave-ho, they learned the truth.


  • #95
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Guill wrote: »
    I can google too:
    I say again, everything is theory as above.
    [/LIST]
    Not really. The hypothesis of a geocentric universe is no longer a theory, is it?


  • #96
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I just hope the god the deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope the god the deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    Um...if that was subtle irony it went way over my head at least. Which gods should we not deny? Someone said very rude stuff about Thor earlier.


  • #98
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope the god the deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    Could you unscramble this incoherent post, please?


  • #99
    LH Pathe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    devolution you mean, I fail to see how gradually having more and more things take care of emselves for us whilst we sit on our holes more can cause us to evolve

    And we dont inherit knowledge at birth either, that's been built up from smarter people down the ages for us to build upon. The main foundations have been laid


  • #100
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Could you unscramble this incoherent post, please?

    no.


  • #101
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    hahaha... "the god" I said... I'm leaving that typo be :D


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    RichieC wrote: »
    hahaha... "the god" I said... I'm leaving that typo be :D
    So....
    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope the god the deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    That becomes, "I just hope god the deniers in here...." which is presumably supposed to be "I just hope god deniers..." Assuming this interpretation is correct, why would you assume what you assume?

    Because so many Irish go along with a "I don't need to follow any tenets of religion, I'll call myself a cultural Catholic." That it? For the moment I'll assume this to be the case. I'd find it more shameful that people will cling on to a label they can't shake despite having either no connection to what the label would suggest, or an extremely tenuous one.


  • #103
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope to god the (evolution) deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    Thats what I read :)


  • #104
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    seamus wrote: »
    Thats what I read :)
    Ah. Thanks for the translation. My previous post is rendered redundant.


  • #105
    Lone Stone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,405 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    Im an ancient astronaut theory kinda guy myself :eek:


  • #106
    dirtyden
    Registered Users Posts: 1,730 ✭✭✭dirtyden


    Robdude wrote: »
    "We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

    People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.

    Part of believing in the scientific method is accepting that, at any time, a better theory can come along and be more correct.

    We know Newtonian physics was wrong. But it still has a lot of solid evidence. Hell, it's even TAUGHT because it's pretty darn right in a lot of cases.

    Einstein came along with a better theory that was more right. But it still doesn't explain everything. Then we've got quantum mechanics that, again, still doesn't explain everything.

    I'm sure, eventually, we'll accept that all three are backwards and wrong as soon as someone comes up with something that is more correct and accurately describes MORE observable data.

    You are being quite unfair to Newton. His laws of motion whilst not painting a complete picture could hardly be described as wrong, incomplete might be a better description but genius nonetheless.


  • #107
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    dirtyden wrote: »
    You are being quite unfair to Newton. His laws of motion whilst not painting a complete picture could hardly be described as wrong, incomplete might be a better description but genius nonetheless.
    Oddly enough, Newton was a very, very religious man. And a total asshole with it, but undeniably a great mathematician.


  • #108
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,957 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Oddly enough, Newton was a very, very religious man. And a total asshole with it, but undeniably a great mathematician.
    Everyone has their blind spots, and Newton had a few. He wasn't very good with money, either - lost a fortune when the South Sea Bubble popped. But his Laws of Motion are still good enough for most purposes we have, they only fall down at relativistic speeds or if extreme accuracy is required.

    When you put together the results from genetics, palaeontology, geology, and so on, you end up with masses of support for the theory of evolution by natural selection, and none for any religious hypotheses. It wasn't done on purpose, there's no agenda to it - it's just the difference between a) evidence and b) no evidence. All that's left is the god of the gaps, and the gaps are shrinking.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • #109
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    Robdude wrote: »
    "We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

    People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.

    Part of believing in the scientific method is accepting that, at any time, a better theory can come along and be more correct.

    We know Newtonian physics was wrong. But it still has a lot of solid evidence. Hell, it's even TAUGHT because it's pretty darn right in a lot of cases.

    Einstein came along with a better theory that was more right. But it still doesn't explain everything. Then we've got quantum mechanics that, again, still doesn't explain everything.

    I'm sure, eventually, we'll accept that all three are backwards and wrong as soon as someone comes up with something that is more correct and accurately describes MORE observable data.

    Newton's law of physics were right, but only on larger planes - they break down on lower planes.

    In the future, it may be proven that even quantum mechanics breaks down after even lower planes and that a better view of universal mechanics is yet to be reached.

    It may even be possible that there are an infinite number of "mechanical planes" as each plane becomes lower and lower, the laws of physics become slightly different. The lower the mechanical plane is, the more accurate the picture of universal mechanics we have, but they will only ever be approximations.

    A similar interpretation can be taken of all scientific knowledge; it is all approximation, not pure fact. However, this implies (and this is vitally important) that pure fact (if even pure fact can exist) lies within approximation, most of this time this is all we need to prove something. It's like rounding off a number, like 1.776584824862 (depending on level of nontrivial accuracy needed) can be rounded off to, say, 1.7766.


  • #110
    dirtyden
    Registered Users Posts: 1,730 ✭✭✭dirtyden


    Pedant wrote: »
    Newton's law of physics were right, but only on larger planes - they break down on lower planes.

    In the future, it may be proven that even quantum mechanics breaks down after even lower planes and that a better view of universal mechanics is yet to be reached.

    It may even be possible that there are an infinite number of "mechanical planes" as each plane becomes lower and lower, the laws of physics become slightly different. The lower the mechanical plane is, the more accurate the picture of universal mechanics we have, but they will only ever be approximations.

    A similar interpretation can be taken of all scientific knowledge; it is all approximation, not pure fact. However, this implies (and this is vitally important) that pure fact (if even pure fact can exist) lies within approximation, most of this time this is all we need to prove something. It's like rounding off a number, like 1.776584824862 (depending on level of nontrivial accuracy needed) can be rounded off to, say, 1.7766.

    I am surprised a pedant could compose that sentence.


  • #111
    LH Pathe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    Unless we're going to build our resistance underwater to the point we develop gils or be airdropped enough times with a placebo "false" parachute that we start to sprout wings.. the only 'evolution' left to take on is to reproduce younger.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Evolution is a part of biology (or perhaps the process of biology), which is based on chemistry, which is based on physics.

    Being religious and accepting evolution is little different from being religious and accepting physics. It's applying the same principles to a different question.

    If you reject evolution, in order to be logically consistent, you should also reject gravity, motion, electromagnetism etc etc..

    In itself, evolution doesn't disprove divinity in general - if you can want you can still believe the baseless notion that a creator set up the universe to function as it is.

    However, given the nature of the evidence for evolution - that we are the result of chance based on the randomly occurring environments that our various ancestors evolved in - it makes the notion of the particular gods that are currently popular less believable.

    Not impossible - I suppose he still could've generated the whole decent of man in a roundabout way on purpose - but it doesn't seem a very rational or efficient way for an omnipotent being to create life.


  • #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    mylastparadigm wrote: »
    I have a question.

    While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

    Why not post this over on the Christianity forum?

    I and others will be happy to explain how we believe in God's amazing creative power while not denying evolution.

    I clearly don't agree that it makes God "less believable" in the slightest. In fact, it possibly would make Him more believable from my perspective.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    I wouldn't say exactly the same way, no. I don't try to disprove religion and I'm an atheist. If someone called me and said they had rock solid evidence of the existence of a god I would be the first person at the door. I was simply pointing out that you are using science selectively.
    Just ignore the fact that there is a bible, imagine it got lost somewhere before anyone ever seen it. Now show me one tiny piece of evidence that there is a god... one piece that is not written word, word of mouth, carved in a stone, etc. There are museums that hold fossilised remains of early man right through to what we are now. I can go look at that. I can touch it if no-one is looking. I can follow a pattern of how we came to be. That, my friend, is evidence.

    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.


  • #114
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    LH Pathe wrote: »
    Unless we're going to build our resistance underwater to the point we develop gils or be airdropped enough times with a placebo "false" parachute that we start to sprout wings.. the only 'evolution' left to take on is to reproduce younger.
    That's not how it works. Being dropped from a plane doesn't somehow make your body realise it needs wings and grow them or even allow your offspring to grow them, no matter how many times you're dropped

    It works the other way around. A genetic mutation causes an organism to be born with (the beginnings of) wings that the other members of its species don't have. That's when the dropping from a plane comes in. You drop 100 of them from a plane and only the one with the wings survives, so it gets to spread the new wing gene by f*cking all the widows of the ones whose lack of wings naturally selected them for death


  • #115
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Why not post this over on the Christianity forum?

    I and others will be happy to explain how we believe in God's amazing creative power while not denying evolution.

    I clearly don't agree that it makes God "less believable" in the slightest. In fact, it possibly would make Him more believable from my perspective.
    You have foregone the concept of Adam and Eve, right? So, that whole thing of them, original sin, all that then is metaphor from your perspective?
    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.
    But any debate on the merit of the bible is nothing more than shifted goal posts about what is literal and what is metaphor. It is literal until it is proved it could not be literal. Then it is a metaphor.


  • #116
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You have foregone the concept of Adam and Eve, right? So, that whole thing of them, original sin, all that then is metaphor from your perspective?

    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.

    The perfect symmetry between days 1, 2, and 3 of Creation, and 4, 5, and 6 for a start.

    Day 1 - Let there be light. Day 4 - Sun and moon created (they are God's creation, they are not gods to be worshipped)
    Day 2 - The spirit breathed over the waters, Day 5 - Sea creatures created.
    Day 3 - The earth created - Day 6 - Man and other land creatures created.

    It's important to understand that the Hebrew word 'yom' which is rendered as 'day' in this passage is used in other parts of the Old Testament to describe periods of years. The point of Genesis 1 is to point us to God and His power in Creation. It isn't intended to be a science book. That would be to misunderstand Genesis.

    Days 1 to 3 of Creation specify the model, Days 4 - 6 define their substance and contents.

    The second Creation account in Genesis 2 is another clue. The first Creation account in Genesis 1.
    Genesis 1:1 wrote:
    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
    Genesis 2:1 wrote:
    These are the generations
    of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
    in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

    Notice how the order has changed.

    The first account in Genesis 1 gives us the God's eye perspective of Creation. The second account in Genesis 2 gives us the perspective of Creation from an earthly point of view.

    "The generations" is quite typical of a genealogical style of writing in the Old Testament, usually used for giving details about people's offspring. In this sense, we're looking at the inhabitants or the generations of the earth from an earthly perspective.

    Original sin - is unbiblical from my point of view. Man is inclined towards sin because we've fallen into it. Adam and Eve are an example as to how that occurred in mankind. We are inclined towards sin. That's not the same as saying we had it from birth. Mankind has rebelled against God, that's why we're in a fallen state as humanity. Jesus came into the world, to bring us back to God by atoning for mankinds sin, so that the restoration work can begin for those who will live eternally through faith in His name.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    But any debate on the merit of the bible is nothing more than shifted goal posts about what is literal and what is metaphor. It is literal until it is proved it could not be literal. Then it is a metaphor.

    For the most part, that simply comes down to a good dose of understanding literary content. The Biblical text is a compendium of books, with differing styles even if they exist to communicate one truth, that is the good news of Jesus. There are poetic books, there is Hebrew law in the Bible, there are prophesy, there's historical books, there's Gospels, there's letters to new churches.

    It all comes down to reading the context correctly, and being willing to learn a bit about Hebrew, Greek and Roman culture in the process.

    It is misunderstanding what the Bible is if one doesn't understand the sections of which it is formed.


  • #117
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.
    To be fair, a lot of it - e.g. Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the cosmology - have already been proved to be fairy tales. On that basis, its not looking too good for the rest of the claims from a purely rational point of view.

    Your faith may vary, however.
    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.
    I can point you at millions of your fellow Christians who would happily label you a blasphemer and worse for this (what seems to me like a fairly sensible) approach to the Bible.


  • #118
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.
    It is just a mess of contradiction. Before I look at how contradictory Genesis is, I'll start out with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Not all of that is necessary, but might as well show the love the bible has.
    11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
    So, that said, let's take a look at genesis. Genesis 1:27...
    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
    Oh, ok... But wait.. Genesis 2:5-7
    5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
    Now, you might argue that only Adam was brought to the Garden of Eden at this point. Which would be reading in to it more than seems to be presented... Just curious, if that is your take or if there were other humans, why could they not work the ground? Anyway, assuming you'll say there are other humans, there were obviously wimmenz but... Genesis 2:18
    18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
    There still isn't a woman there, obviously as instead of one of the already lollygagging women, a woman has to be made with his rib. Mental gymnastics are required to get past this.
    The perfect symmetry between days 1, 2, and 3 of Creation, and 4, 5, and 6 for a start.

    Day 1 - Let there be light. Day 4 - Sun and moon created.
    Day 2 - The spirit breathed over the waters, Day 5 - Sea creatures created.
    Day 3 - The earth created - Day 6 - Man and other land creatures created.
    Nice ad hoc justification there. Whatever outcome there was, you'd be saying "Well, this is just as you should expect." Nothing is to be gained from that.
    Mankind has rebelled against God, that's why we're in a fallen state as humanity. Jesus came into the world, to bring us back to God by atoning for mankinds sin, so that the restoration work can begin for those who will live eternally through faith in His name.
    So, not those who go on evidence.
    For the most part, that simply comes down to a good dose of understanding literary content.
    Why was it not apparent to any readers of the bible before that literary devices were employed? Why has it time and time again taken science demonstrating something to not be true for it to be categorized as a metaphor?

    Throughout history, look at the steps backwards that have had to happen for the bible. It hasn't been accepted in a "Oh that was a literary device". Is your understanding of the bible that a perfect being would create an imperfect book that would cause people who'll actually want to critically examine things to have to look at absurdity? Seriously? It is not a perfect book, it is much as one should expect. A book of its time.

    Edit: Just found this somewhere...
    Eve is called the "mother of all living (Gen. 3:20) and Adam--"the first man was of the earth" (1 Cor. 15:47; cf. 45).


  • #119
    areu4real?
    Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭areu4real?


    philologos wrote: »
    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.

    How does this even address my post? Has anyone investigated the bible's "claims"(as you so nicely put it)? We've only had about 2000 years... and still no proof. I said ignore the bible for this exact reason; you see it as proof enough. I don't.
    To me, a god makes absolutely no sense. Never has, even when I was a child. It always fell in the same category as Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. in my mind. Organised religion also makes no sense and in my opinion has been stunting mans progression for a long, long time.
    Imagine if we taught children from as soon as they were born to enjoy life to the max and do everything you want to do. You only get one chance, make the most of it.
    Religion had a stranglehold on children and taught that if you behave well here and worship one god that you'll have a great time after you die. What if you're wrong, what a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity. That's what I think.


  • #120
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    areu4real? wrote: »
    Religion had a stranglehold on children and taught that if you behave well here and worship one god that you'll have a great time after you die. What if you're wrong, what a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity. That's what I think.
    Well, worst case scenario is that you were a decent human being during your life - assuming you don't belong to one of those religions that are oppressive of others or whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Well, worst case scenario is that you were a decent human being during your life - assuming you don't belong to one of those religions that are oppressive of others or whatever.
    That might be a point for those who feel good works are necessary to get in to door number 1 in the hereafter. Or, more accurately, those that believe this and act in accordance with it. Not to say the ones who don't hold this opinion would not operate this way, but to say religion is the incentive isn't really true. It isn't their works, in their mind. It is something outside of that. Perhaps something closer to humanism?


Advertisement