Michael,

My problem with religion has nothing to do with creationism or intelligent design. Yes, in the light of what we now know these are silly ideas; but lots of people believe in lots of silly ideas. So what?

The problem is that if you believe you are in possession of a message from the creator of the universe it can drive you to do incredibly evil and barbaric deeds.

It is paragraphs like this in so-called "holy books" that scare the brown stuff out of me:

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Sure you can spin this to make it seem less awful than it sounds. But the true believer will always interpret it literally and seek to crucify etc those who "wage war against Allah and His apostle."

This sort of language can lead a pop star to express a desire to see an author burned for a book he wrote. It can lead a Geneva-based religious reformer to see his friend burned at the stake.

Unlike Dawkins I do not believe religion is the root of ALL evil. But it is at the root of much evil. Those nice United Methodist clergy are in a distinct minority.

The world would be a better place if we could somehow convince true believers that, no, their holy books are not to be taken too seriously. They are not messages from the creator of the universe. An angel did not dictate the koran verbatim to a "prophet" who probably never existed. The creator of the universe did not tell a probably never-extant patriarch to sacrifice his son.

Small correction of fact, stevenlmeyer.

>>This sort of language can lead a pop star to express a desire to see an author burned for a book he wrote.<<

Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) did not express "a desire to see an author burned for a book he wrote"

He was - amazingly - agreeing with you. In that words in the Qur'an can actually be interpreted this way.

"Salman Rushdie, indeed any writer who abuses the prophet or indeed any prophet under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death"

It was probably the sheer amazement that you two could agree on anything, that caused your mistake. Because surely it was not you simply using the opportunity to take another swipe at Muslims.

Heaven forfend.

I notice that you didn't select a similarly aggressive verse from the Bible, to balance your position on "holy" texts.

Probably because you know that they weren't intended to be taken literally, right? And you don't know any southern baptists who take the bible literally, either, do you?

Fair enough.

It is ridiculous to contend that religion and evolution can coexist!

Religion, of any kind, is about a god of some kind who supposedly made the world and watches your every move, about an afterlife and living forever, about heaven or paradise, about hideous punishment if you're naughty, etc.

Evolution discounts the possibility of any of these fantastic religious beliefs and deals with reality which can be scientifically proven.

You can't walk on both sides of the street, Michael. You'll end up with a hernia!

http://dangerouscreation.com

Dear David,
I am sorry I have to correct you evolution and religion do coexist for it was the religious leaders of the day that killed the truth. God loves each as an individual, religion and evolution hunt in packs and deny the right of the individual.

Evolution can be seen as continuation of the biological work by the premier biological controller - DNA. It works with the various types of RNA and works by frequency and coupling of its units - the alleles that make up the genes.

David G wrote: Religion, of any kind, is about a god of some kind who supposedly made the world and watches your every move, about an afterlife and living forever, about heaven or paradise, about hideous punishment if you're naughty, etc.

Dear David G,

You have made an unjustified generalisation. There are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, polytheistic religions and religions which do not have belief in an afterlife. Many people look at the religion or religions they are familiar with and see all religions in those terms.

One of the problems with religion is an attitude of clergy. I have a friend who was a Lutheran pastor. We had a discussion about the mythical nature of much of the biblical material. He told me they had some good discussions at St. Olaf's seminary on that subject. I asked him if he had ever brought these matters up to his flock. He said he would not want to disturb their simple faith.

He has since left both the clergy and the religion.

However, his attitude is a most harmful one. By insulating people from questioning a narrow mind is encouraged. Allowing questioning makes some leave the faith. Others will become fundamentalists being horrified by questioning. Others will grow and have a more sophisticated understanding of their beliefs and the beliefs of others. It will all go over the heads of others.

Maimonides, the medieval Jewish philosopher, was asked how one could show love for God who one cannot physically embrace. He said that one could show love of God by using the divine mind he gave us to ask questions.

DavidF, Buddhism, unfortunately, has been turned into a religion.

Religion involves belief in things that don't exist. Science looks for laws that explain what does exist. Simple really!

These three reference provide a unique understanding of the now world dominant ideology of scientism, and how/why all of what is usually promoted as religion is psychically and Spiritually impoverished.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism.aspx

http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm Chapter 1 The Purification of Doubt

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/psychosisdoubt.html

Note the humorous title of the book in which the 3rd reference is taken.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author. I wish more people could see beyond their immediate prejudices and see that regardless of what axes people have to grind, this is the ONLY way forward.

If we pit science against religion, science will lose, so stop making it an adversarial contest.

Science has slowly been winning an ideas war of attrition for the last several decades with declining numbers of churchgoers among developed societies.
In recent times that this has changing, because fundamentalist religious groups have turned it from a slow contest of ideas to an all out direct war. They know that in this case, they have the advantage. Instead of allowing science to slowly make advancements, they're assaulting it directly.

This is a war that science will lose. We do need to respect other beliefs.
Forget your need to eliminate religion from the masses. Many people need it and it gives them comfort.
One would have to be quite selfish to steal that from them. Look forward to the only sensible outcome - religion and science co-existing peacefully, which also allows science to make further strides. It will never cathartically eliminate religion as some hope, but it will progress.

The Christian religion without Christ as Creator is simply made made garbage. The likes of the deluded Dawkins has enough sense to acknowledge this himself. Christians denying the obvious in the name of pseudo science of which evolution is do their Maker no favours Thankfully more and more people are demanding evidence of which the faith based evolutionist are still unable to produce. The main problem is not ignorant non scientist like myself but people who are trained scientist who have to deceitfully twist observations to embrace evolution dogma.

Re the origins of the entirely worldly power and control seeking "religion" called Christianity--the religion ABOUT Jesus, as distinct from the spirit-breathing Spiritual Way taught and demonstrated by Saint Jesus of Galilee--please check out this set of essays.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

David G, I would suggest that you re-read the article. I believe quite a bit is directed squarely at persons such as yourself.

You say that religion is the belief in things that do not exist, please prove that these things do not exist. Please do not mistake a lack of direct evidence for evidence of non-existence.

Think back to 1900, insidious diseases like syphilis and TB are killing people and of course there is no cure. A heart attack is always fatal. Cancer will always kill. The universe belonged to Newton. The steam liner is king of the ocean.

Now think of just 100 years later. Syphilis and TB are just minor diseases that can be treated with antibiotics. Heart attacks and cancer are not the death sentence they once were and are regularly survivable. The universe has passed from Newton to Einstein to a new breed of physicist. The airliner is king and there is talk of making space liners.

Never underestimate what will be learnt tomorrow. The director of the New York patent office once said 'The patent office should the shut down because everything has been invented', that was over a hundred years ago. All that can ever be said is that there is no proof yet, if there is no viable evidence against an argument. And let's be clear an argument against ID or creationism is not an agrument against god, an argument against what has been done in the 'name' of god is not an argument against god. So please prove that these thing do not exist.

"Forget your need to eliminate religion from the masses. Many people need it and it gives them comfort. One would have to be quite selfish to steal that from them."

Yeah, we wouldn't want to take from people their theological teat, would we? Better to fill their minds with silly superstitions and fanciful hopes for immortality. Better to allow the wars that religion fuels to go on and on forever.

Are humans intelligent? No way!

Here we go, again.

ID-Creationism is a sham, but we need to teach students about it? Do we really?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/intelligent-design-to-be-taught-in-queensland-schools-under-national-curriculum/story-e6freoof-1225872896736

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/what_is_wrong_with_you_queensl.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29

http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=31425

http://www.cai..org/bible-studies/creation-schools

Why does Kevin Rudd keep dropping his trousers in favour of religious fruitcakes?

Hi TBC - if the Courier Mail story is true, it implies that Creationism/ID will be moved from the Science curriculum to the Ancient History curriculum under the topic of "controversies", which has to be an improvement from the status quo.

I agree with TRTL that some of form of religion will probably always be with us, although I think its encroachment into the public education system under such shams as "Intelligent Design" should be resisted. If I understand the mooted National Curriculum correctly, it is to be examined as an ancient belief system in comparison with others.

I have no problem with that.

CJ... I must be honest, and fair to Ed Qld.

ID-Creationism is not in the QSA written curriculum, anywhere.

ED Qld does not 'endorse' the teaching of ID-Creationism in Science.

The problem is that ID-Creationism is taught by individual teachers, and they are allowed to do that, so long as the QSA stuff is taught.

Frankly, this is such rubbish that there is no need to mention it in a school setting at all.

No one devotes time to 'critically analyse' the work of Lobsang Rampa, in literature, in history, in SOSE or Science, because the work is rubbish, not even 'Faction', so why bother to legitimise ID-Creationism?

ID-Creationism is not an 'ancient belief' at all.

It is a modern, and devious, device to circumvent those American states that prohibit the 'faith' teachings in Science.

In 1985, Lyn Powell insisted this rubbish got 'equal time' in Science teaching.

It was rubbish then, and it remains that now.

Sadly, Ed Qld is rampant with fundie QTU members who answer to the call from Scripture Union before Ed Qld.

Our universities are also full of these people, filling our national curriculum with topics that would never get an airing in the USA, who, daft as they seem to be, have a clearer understanding of the 'wall of separation' than we do here.

There are NO DIFFERENCES.They are complementary views of the one Being. Ultimate reality is spiritual.Ask any quantam scientist and others in other fields who think at the top level of the human BEING.
Sciences mainly deal with empirical issues which are only part of our story.

socratease

Socratease...'no difference', what, between Lobsang Rampa's teachings and Ken Ham's ID-Creationism, or Science and Lobsang Rampa? Or Science and Ken Ham?

Spit it out man... tell us what you are really thinking.

TBC - after reading that paryngula article and comments, I'm now inclined to agree with you. It doesn't belong in Ancient History either. If religionists want to teach that nonsense to schoolkids, let them do it at home or in their own schools.

I'm not sure what's in the English curriculum these days, but there might be a 'myths and legends' unit where Creationism might reasonably be compared with other origin myths?

The way to demonstrate that "A" and "B" are consistent, is to design a MODEL whereby they co-exist without contradictions. This by no means implies that the model is correct: better models can be found later, but the very existence of the first model constitutes a proof of no-contradiction.

In the case of A=science vs. B=creationism, the following such model exists:

[
God created the world 5770 years ago, but in His infinite power and wisdom, so to allow us free choice whether to believe in Him or not, He designed it to be "old", so He placed old features in this world that He created, including geological layers, fossils and dinosaur-bones embedded in rocks with carbon-isotope prints supposedly corresponding to millions of years ago, as well as galaxies spreading out billions of light-years apart with velocities of about 90% the speed of light... and many more features of this nature, some of which we have not even discovered yet...
]

Please don't try to tell me that this model is false (I would tend to agree), but its very existence is a proof that at least in the area of evolution, science and religion are not contradicting. I believe it is likely the same in others areas of religion as well - models are welcome.

Pericles....you make an observation which does not entirely correlate with the facts.

You suggest Cat Stevens words are simply saying 'It can be intepreted like that" rather than "Cat Stevens is stating it as a fact that it IS interpreted like that, and such intepretation is APPLIED in some countries under Islamic law and if Rushdie was in one..he would be toast!"

Now..unless you can show good factual reason for your 'spin' on that quote.. I suggest you are just reading it wrongly.

But..time a mild Whack-a-StevenLmeyer :)

Steven.....calling such ideas 'silly' is a bit naughty re the RRT mate.. "holding peoples faith up to public contempt and ridicule"

I don't mind you doing it myself, in fact my problem is not with you but the law. So..without meaning to offend you, I point this out at every available opportunity to raise awareness about it :)

REPEAL THE RRT2001! REPEAL THE RRT2001! REPEAL THE RRT2001!

The PC appoach to criticising religion is to use words like 'not valid based on available facts' or some similar non infammatory language.

If someone can say "The new testament permits child sexual abuse" and then showed it with sound exegesis and verse..I have no argument.

Science is science.... "There was a big bang" or whatever.

Religion is religion "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....

I don't see much conflict myself.

Religion and science can coexist, they deal with quit different subjects, one deals with reality and one doesn't.

Most religious people are pragmatic about it and choose reality over faith. It's only when it doesn't cost them anything do they choose the later.

You will always get people lining up to join cults ( Hi Runner) we just have to be watchful and try to make sure they don't hurt themselves or anyone else.

quote...<<..most people don't understand..the nature of science.>>>

WHO"S FAULT IS THIS?

<<They are unable/..to distinguish between science/and pseudoscience>>>

correct yet again

<<Collectively,..we regularly suffer/the consequences of scientific illiteracy,>>>

well said

<<Scientific investigation..is a process>>

correct...a replicatable/repeatable process...that has faulsifyables...that if found errant...invalidate the theory...

and the fraud sciences..it spawned

a process..<<..that depends upon hypothesis testing/
and demands that scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified.>>..yes..

true science/is the height of man-kinds evolution

<<Simply put,if you can't phrase your hypothesis..in a falsifiable manner,...it falls outside the bounds of science.>>...

this is correct

NOW PLEASE STATE
THE FAULSIFYABLES OF EVOLUTION.out of genus..into new genus

you know macro-evolution...
where mutations...CHANGE GENUS

not one change of genus..has ever been recorded...EVER
all the real science..is
re species evolving...WITHIN their genus

THE LIE IS THAT SPECIES...can transgress out of genus
simply speaking..there is not one...recorded...

not one observed..
not one having faulsiyables

PLEASE state definitivly...
the faulsifyables of evolution by species...

in even one genus
INTO THE SPECIE...of a new genus...

as repeatedly stated...THERE ISNT EVEN ONE../so again

please supply...the faulsifyables..underpinning
EVOLUTION OUT OF GENUS...macro-evolution

not micro-evolution of..species..within their family/genus

like i trust what priests..or religion believe
PRESENT THE SCIENCE/faulsifyables

PRESENT the science...
just one faulsiable case..
of evolution..exta/..out of genus

present your faulsifyables

"the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community."

But WHY do they believe that? Do they have empirical -- ie scientific -- reasons? If so then they are doing science. If they believe it because they want to, then there is no more reason to believe they can do it than there is to believe that they can walk on water, or ascend to heaven on the back of a flying horse.

The advantage of science is that it comes with built-in tests to see whether practitioners are getting it right or wrong. "Am I making the world a better place? If not, let's try something else." It's because religion has no such test that after more than 5000 years it still has not achieved one undisputed success or satisfactorily answered one single question.

Kenny: << Religion and science can coexist, they deal with quit(e) different subjects, one deals with reality and one doesn't. >>

Heh. I like it :)

Dear david f,

Thanks for telling us about this Maimonides’ beautiful and insightful wisdom.

>> He said he would not want to disturb their simple faith …his attitude is a most harmful one. <<
Well, it depends on the audience. I was about 12 when our (elderly) physics teacher spoke very disparagingly of Einstein’s theories, he apparently could not understand. When I asked my father, he did not defend Einstein - he could not, since he probably did not understand relativity himself - but convinced me that it was most inappropriate of the teacher to bring up these questions, and that I shall have to study a lot before I shall understand myself what it is all about, and eventually ask relevant questions (or something like that).

Also, the TV repairman might fiddle around with a screwdriver in the back of a TV set while it is under power, however he will strongly discourage the “good old lady” (who can just enjoy a TV program) from doing the same.

Dear George,

I am delighted to hear from you. You are one of my favourite contributors. However, I don't buy the analogy of questioning religious faith as equivalent to poking a screwdriver in back of a powered TV set.

One may lose one's faith as a consequence. However, one may also gain a deeper appreciation of one's faith. You strike me as an individual capable of questioning your faith. In fact I am sure you have. Yet you also seem to have a deep commitment to that faith. I feel that one does not have to be an academic to question and that my friend really was patronising in his attitude to his congregation.

I think a faith that is so tentative that questioning will destroy it is not a faith worth keeping.

My father knew a Catholic priest who would discuss matters with him that I don’t think he felt free to discuss in the church. The priest came from a mining town and saw his alternatives in life as becoming a miner or getting out of there by getting an education from the church. I don’t think he had much faith left, but he remained a priest. Perhaps he felt he had made a bargain and must stick to it.

Science can fly you to the moon but Religion can fly you into buildings.

One is the study of life and the universe, the other is simply the result of a fear of death itself.

"If you cannot phrase your hypothesis in a falsifiable manner, it falls outside the bounds of science"
Is there another way of phrasing a hypothesis?
The problem is that some people cannot accept that they phrase their hypothesis in a falsifiable manner.
One of the tenets of science should lead us to accept the possibility that we may not be fully aware of all the facts pertaining to particular phenomena. For example, psychology, especially as expounded by Freud, is (or was) regarded as science. It is not.
Economics is viewed by many of its practinioners as science. It is not. Both of these resemble the Mathematical theory of Chaos. To have definitive pronouncement on any of these is very unscientific.
As far as religion is concerned, the fact that so many people around the world follow a disciplined thought, (and did so throughout written and unwritten history), should at least give a pause for science. Can there are some facts about human nature that science had not taken account of? It is not very helpful just to ridicule religious thought. (That is what extremists of all kinds do.)

Please define what a GENUS is, by who and when it was defined.

Second,
Please reference (as in a peer reviewed paper) where it states that evolution involves the evolution "out of genus..into new genus"

I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, thus you are incapable of forming a coherent argument against it. If you are unable to respond with peer reviewed evidence please do not waste our time.

thankyou for revealing your ignorance stezza...google groups/families/genus species...and you will learn the basics

its sad you cant comprehend the basics of genetics...little wonder you and your ilk...claim science...yet have no clue how science works

see that there are birds...for egsample..these are in the subheading aves...these are then sorted/divided...into families...[near relations..these are then sorted into yet other groups called..genus...these genus are then divided into species

now genus is a type...the dodo is one type of a type of bird...the dodo and the pigion are of divergent genus...though both being in the same familie.../group...finaly we get to genus...columbia.....that darwin.used in evolution of species]the genus of columbia..then divied into species

each life has its group/family/genus/species...its own/branch on
the tree of life[how ignorant you chose to be]

please use the search function
many are peer revieuwed
even wikpedia

then you might avoid looking so dumb next time

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=groups+families+genus+species&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. All I wanted to say was that not knowing your Lutheran pastor’s congregation, it might be the case that he did not want to “disturb their simple faith” for the same reasons that one should not “disturb” 12 years old children’s simple understanding of physics (and common sense) with things they could not possibly comprehend. The same about the Catholic priest of your father’s acquaintance.

>>I don't buy the analogy of questioning religious faith as equivalent to poking a screwdriver in back of a powered TV set <<
I agree this was a clumsy example; you indeed might question whether the psychological shock of loosing one’s lifelong faith (e.g. based on naive, uncritical beliefs) is comparable to the shock of being electrocuted. Perhaps more relevant would be to say that it suffices for the simple viewer to know how to operate his/her TV set without understanding the relevance of Maxwell’s equations that govern the broadcasting he/she enjoys.

One can question everything but sometimes the best answer is “either accept a simple and naive answer or do a lot of study to gain a deeper understanding of what you are questioning”.

>>You strike me as an individual capable of questioning your faith.<<
I think I understand what you mean, although to me faith is a state of mind that one can change (slightly or dramatically e.g. by “loosing one’s faith”), but not question.

On the other hand, one’s world-view (religious or not) is based on - among other things - rationally formulated presuppositions (beliefs, “a priori truths”) that one might and should question from time to time. However, this questioning as well as acceptable answers depend on the intellectual sophistication, cultural background etc. of the questioner.

I would think that my understanding of my religious beliefs is more sophisticated than that of the average old lady in the pew, and accordingly so is the questioning and answers that I can accept. However, even this old lady has a right to beliefs she can understand to build on her world-view and faith.

Stezza: << Please define what a GENUS is, by who and when it was defined. >>

Didn't you know that God defined the immutable taxonomic level of the genus, when He was busy creating life, the universe and everything?

George,

<<Perhaps more relevant would be to say that it suffices for the simple viewer to know how to operate his/her TV set without understanding the relevance of Maxwell’s equations that govern the broadcasting he/she enjoys.>>

Yes, but the “simple viewer” doesn’t run the risk of discovering that the TV doesn’t actually exist if they look deeper into Maxwell’s equations, and they don’t run the risk of spending the rest of their life attempting to justify the contradictions and absurdities in the TV’s manual (while passing them off as mere “challenges”) by conjuring unnecessarily complex, convoluted and inventive arguments while blaming themselves for not being able to understand the TV or its manual when no amount of creative thought explains an absurdity.

Nor would they suggest that those who try to point out to them that the TV doesn’t exist are just not sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand the TV - while rejecting any and every suggested notion of what the TV is - when in fact they are not only intelligent enough to understand, but also intelligent enough to see through the inventiveness of the techniques used to support the concept of the non-existent TV.

By the way, I could understand how one would rationally formulate the presupposition that no gods exist, as a nothing-before-something’s-proven stance is a more rational approach to take - for similar reasons that it is more rational for a juror to presume 'not guilty' until evidence has been presented - but how does one rationally formulate the presupposition that a god of some sort exists?

ajphylips..quote..<<..how does/one rationally formulate/..the presup-position..>>talk about/..loaded..with inuendo

,,<<that a god/of some sort..exists?>>...seeing as how/you have given plenty of latitude..lets..have a go eh

i was raised/in science/..told there wasnt no god..
and lived quite contentedly/absorbing science-method...for 30 years

i then/..as a child believed science/man...
could do anything...but in time realsed..mankind's feet of clay...

how to/give you..a thumbnail .of a lifestime..of learning

realise...the theory..is taught to children/for good reason..they are told..your/only a child...later..you will know better...

but by the time..later came...it didnt..in fact...as it progresed..it grew ever more/..specialised

study science..[a]...study science..'b'...well i studied them both/..then you get to go..to uni...and ever more narrow/specialities are offered...

the more/they study..,the narrower/..their field of exper-teaze

we get to the stage/..where like in the previous/topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10424&page=0

we get;..experts...[in paddymelons...or like dear forrest..EXPERTS..in eucalypt..or experts..in fungi...or yabbies]...still holding on to/..the delusions..taught to children

we neatly gloss\over..basics..like mendelic inheritors...like groups/families..genus...and begin talking about..OUR SPECIALISED AREA>..dealing within the..one genus...ie/..talk about species..within/our genus/speciality

even the texts..of the darwinian/god/head darwin..[god bless him]..talked about evolution/;..of species...[in fact i followed closely his subheading/of columbia/liva...that being pigions

bred pigeons...crossbred pigeons...learned the mendelic tables..like they are some/holy-grail...[ps..they refute evolution/..out of genus]..having no mendelic ratio..for change of genus

levi/and hollander..continued.on from darwins/pigeons...in their magnificent opus..the pigeon..

i wrote my theories to hollander...
and the great giant returned my letter's...

in time i broached/..the true reason..for my pigeon facination...[to revive the dodo...the pigeon/..being its nearest relitive
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-120553140.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83362819.html

but hollander/..soon wised me up on..*the genus barrier
i foolishly informed him/his thinking was old...
and..in time learned,...,he was right

there is a barrier...between genus...!

i learned science/based on species/evolving...lol..is a scam...
the hard way..

ever notice/they only talk in species...the only egsamples they give are species..thats children...repeating/mantra..that they learned/earned..as children

even those as wise as..gazza...dont know their species/genus...lol...species/are evolving ONLY..within their genus...

even those wise...in their own theory...dont have a clue/of which they speak...dont know their genus..from their species...

and thus remain..the fool..

being blind..failing..to see the delusion..
chosing/to remain in ignorance..of the true sciences
that are able to replicate...and provide faulsifyables

faulsifyables..that evolutionry/THEORY...dont got

present them/..if you claim them
if not..stand revealed..as a child/decieved

under one god,

I was simply attempting to understand your point of view, it can be difficult to identify your argument from your posts. However you failed to answer any of my questions.

As CJ alluded to, the definition of genus and species is a man made phenomenon, and so is subject to change over time. The tree of life you describe is simply mans attempt to describe the relationships between various animals.

Simply reference (as in a peer reviewed paper) where it states that evolution involves the evolution "out of genus..into new genus.

PS please try spellcheck then you might avoid looking so dumb next time

Dear AJ,

Carnap (something of a rival to Popper) comments that there is a difference between the two following statements:

1. Sea-serpents exist
2. Sea-serpents exist and are on display at the British Museum

Or if one prefers:

1. God exists
2. God exists and is sitting in three pew in St Marys in Sydney

As for as testability is concerned the 2's win hands down. On the other hand, the 2's are also existential, wherein one has to make a determination based on meaning or demarcation (Popper), in the context of the metaphysical and the empirical. Herein, we might ask in what sense are any of the statements valid?

Dear Yuyutsu,

The difference lies in the existential nature of the subject of comparative statements.

1. The star has exhausted half of its nuclear fuel
2. God made it appears as if the star has exhausted half of its nuclear fuel

We can point to the star and measure its composition. We can point to and meare God.

We can't substitute a dog or can-opener for the star, as the subject of the sentence; yet we can substitute, the tooth fairy or elves for God.

-My replies could be a few between. Thanks.

Dear Oliver,

Indeed, you successfully demonstrated that the theory whereby the world was created by the tooth-fairy is consistent with physics, but I just cannot see any use for that.

Demonstrating that there is no contradiction between science and creationism has a useful application: it allows those of a Judeo-Christian faith to sleep well at night. They may go about using science in their worldly endeavours and religion in their spiritual endeavours, without incurring a split personality.

nice try stezza...mate you play word-games

retards such as you..have repeatedly declared..micro evolution of species...has resulted in all the diversity of life

i state again..never has a mutation been observed..exta/..out of genus...ever

genus may be a manmade lable...
but it is also the limiting factor of evolution

no evolution can get out of its genus...thats a simple fact

that simple fact..refutes evolution

further re the tree of life..yet again a manmade delusion

look at one...sometime...
even the tree of life project...has gone into stasis...[unable to move beyond bacteria,,,lol]...yet those such as you have swore on the delusion...claiming it some holy grail...evidense of evolution

evolution..[as postulated by such as you...states species evolved...ie apes became human...cows became whales...

[its totally delusional]..because they are of divergent genus

you can jam spell/check...
get yourself some wisdom

redirection isnt working for you

its clear you have no idea

PROVIDE..your evolution faulsifyables,...!

.

PERCEPTION, INTERPRETATION, COMMUNICATION

.

Science and religion appear to be the yin and the yang of most if not all human civilisations.

Perhaps their difference is complementary and necessary for social harmony.

Like many old couples that survive the vicissitudes of cohabitation, they may have become inseperable, barely distinguishable any longer as individuals, like the opposing poles of the same magnet. Perhaps they have fusioned.

Science and religion are an old couple who have been living together for such a long time now it is possible that if either one eventually passed away, the other would not survive alone very long.

It seems to me that the difficulties described here by Michael Zimmerman and which he attributes to "illiteracy", are more broadly speaking problems relating to perception, interpretation and communication.

Reality is not the problem and couples that endure have surely established a modus operandi that satisfies both egos to the point that it allows them to fusion into one.

Shared perception, shared interpretation and shared communication. Are those the characteristics of an "accommodationist" ?

.

Oh dear, not this boring subject again?
As far as I am concerned you should all call a truce.

No creationist can ever 'prove' that God created the world or it's inhabitants, just as scientists can never 'prove' there wasn't a God who created the world.

It was all just too long ago- let's just go on with what science can prove today :)

one under god,

I don't believe you.... prove it.

sorry your losing sleep/stezza

prove what dear?

i know god did it
you claim the science did it

science claims faulsifyables
underpin...the theory...of evolution

is it too much..that you/..who claim the science
present them?

is it not unreasonable...that you can claim the science
and its assosiated faulsyfiables and science teqnique

yet im required to disprove...your faulsifiables
faulsifyables..YOU CANT PRESENT!

fauls=if=y-ables...thats science...lol

you claim THE science..of genus evolving
WELL..present them/...faulsifyables

how can i rebut a thing...
you ..are unable to present?

if you claim/science..present your faulsifyables..!

or admit...the science ...lol..of genus evolving...
is comp-lete delusion

no scienc/faulsifyables
then..no rebuttal..of your grand deception is possable

little wonder...your own peers
revieuw the...'science'...in house...lol

it saves you presenting...that ESSENTIAL...
to be a valid/science...to wit...faulsifyables

[that if rebutted..
invalidate the theory...
..and the science]

no faule-as-if-y-ables...
NO SCIENCE

GET IT?

evolution/of species/out of genus
is a fraud...

live with it!

present...faulsifyables...please..
if you have them?...lol

if you dont..
let your silence...invalidate your claim..
to have any science fact..re genus evolving...

present your faulsifyables

no faulsifyable
NO SCIENCE

EVOLUTION ...the grand deception
fooling the decieved

[its the same scam...as religion...
fodder..to confuse the masses]

worse..to lead...the creation
away/from its creator

GIVE BACK TO GOD
that gods alone

Yuyutsu,

There difference I was highlighting was in the semantics of the subjects of sentences. God created the explosion and gunpower created the explosion: These are two sentences of a difference kind.

To say God created the universe was yesterday and we are tricked by making everything appear evolved turns, on the an unidentifiable God (fairy or elf). The sentence, "the backgound radiation of the universe suggests that a BB occured 12-15 billion years ago". Here, one can measure the radiation (2.7 degrees K). One cannot measure the slide-of-hand of God. And even if there was some slide-of-hand, why not aliens from another dimension or The Little People. [On the otherhand, "there is "a pot of god at th end of th rainbow" would a appear more substantial.]

Hello OUG,

"genus may be a manmade label"

Yes, it is a taxonomy designator to classify the products of evolution and its does not disprove evolution, to the contrary it necessarity supports evolution. I have read museums work on the basis that say a cat and dog are separate species, because to subsequent species share them as a common ancestor.

Oliver,

If you mean to say that we cannot have objective information about God, then I fully agree - and thank God for that!

Objective information can only be obtained about objects. While idols are usually objects, God is not.

Correction:

Yes (OUG), it is a taxonomy designator to classify the products of evolution and its does not disprove evolution, to the contrary it necessarily supports evolution. I have read museums work on the basis that say a cat and dog are separate species, because to subsequent species DO NOT share them as a common ancestor.


Yuyutsu,

Thanks.

Yuyutsu wrote: Objective information can only be obtained about objects.

We can have objective information about anything that can be detected by our senses or instruments. eg. Amperage and voltage are objective information about electric currents.

oliver...<<..say a cat and dog/are separate species>>..giberish/deleted

The whole classification is:
dog/KINGDOM:Animalia
PHYLUM:..Chordata
CLASS:..Mammalia
ORDER:..Carnivora

FAMILY:..Canidae
GENUS;..canus
SPECIES;..familiaris

Canis lupus familiaris,/a subspecies of wolf.

cat/..Kingdom;Animalia;
Phylum - Chordata;
Class - Mammalia;
Order - Carnivora;

Suborder - Feliformia;
Family - Felidae;
Subfamily - Felinae;
Genus - Felis.

cat=..The genus IS Felis...

The species below the genus Felis..get a little fuzzy/with Felis sylvestris catus..being the consensus,..but with some usage..(archaic, I think) of Felis domesticatus or Felis domesticus catus, and Felis catus..('catus' being italicized).because to subsequent species share them as a common ancestor.

In order for two different species to be able to interbreed,
they must be closely related.

CLEARLY CAT AND DOG ARNT
their genus diverged long before genus level

THUS NO CAT/DOG...can breed..BECAUSE THE GENUS BARRIER..cant be crossed

Generally,..animals within the same genus/can interbreed
for example,..that most famous of hybrids,/the mule,..is a cross between a male donkey and female horse,..

both of which belong to..the genus Equus...!

Depending on how closely/related they are,..species in different genera but the same family..can sometimes interbreed too/for example, the puma and the leopard..both belong to the family Felidae,/but the genera Puma and Panthera respectively,/can interbreed to produce a hybrid known as a pumapard....BUT ITS STERILE

Being closely related/basically means that two species share a greater amount of genetic material/with each other than with other animals.

Beyond family level,/two species cease to share enough genetic material/for the egg and sperm to 'recognise' each other,..which is why you can't breed animals from different families like,

a cat - a dog sperm/simply wouldn't be able to fertilise a cat egg, and vice versa.

Most hybrids/are sterile..because/the parent species/often have different numbers of chromosomes,/which means the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells....

no cat dog..is possable..live with-it

for you to/say...gibberish...restored..<<a cat and dog are separate species,../because to subsequent species/share them as a common ancestor.>>>is cccc-rap...

how can you state such gibberish

&#@>>>...OH right..redirection...lol..
TO AVOID PRESENTING FAULSIFYABLES..you aint got...lol/ha/ha

lol...you got me...
great destraction...lol
-
-
-
0

PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE...
present your faulsifyable's
but..you aint got none.....right...lol

David f,

"We can have objective information about anything that can be detected by our senses or instruments. eg. Amperage and voltage are objective information about electric currents."

Of course, electrons are objects!

I agree that science and religion should be thought of separately.

I'm not the first to point out that science is a method of enquiry;
it is not a belief system in itself. A good scientist holds all possibilities open. Science is not supposed to be a religion.

Science will catch up with religion eventually :)

.

Dear Suzeonline,

.

"No creationist can ever 'prove' that God created the world or it's inhabitants, just as scientists can never 'prove' there wasn't a God who created the world ... let's just go on with what science can prove today".

As you may possibly have noticed, some of the participants in this debate are already complying with your wish.

Others are "getting on with what religion can prove today", which, though you did not mention it, follows on the same principle.

Man, so it is said, Suze, "does not live on bread alone". Nor is he entirely rational.

He also has a psyche.

He has emotions, desires, pride, prejudices and several other attributes.

He only sees what he wants to see but cannot see all that we wants.

He only sees what he knows, what he recognizes. He does not see what he ignores.

He does not know what it is that he sees and the rest is invisible.

He goes through life tapping the ground with a long white cane. His perception is partial and false. His ability to interpret what he sees is limited. His memory is fettered and repressed. He often finds reality quite frightening. His courage is in short supply. His expression is approximate and imprecise.

Truth, even for an honest man, is inevitably a deformed representation of whatever reality may possibly have existed at the time he perceived it.

So, as you quite rightly observe, dear Suze, we are all wandering around on this forum, tapping the ground with long white canes, endeavouring to avoid bumping into each other, hoping to share in some vision of reality which most certainly has eluded us, and doing our best to offer whatever we can in return.

.

Pynchme and suzeonline,

Much has to do with the relationship between the enquirer and the objective. In science the enquirer is independent of the objective; whereas, with religion the enquirer is assimilated into the objective and in a sense becomes one with objective. As the Chinese say, "one cannot see the face of the mountain from inside the cave". Herein, the theist is hard pressed to think rationally, because of the absence of the apt qualifying syntax.

AJ Philips,
>>discovering that the TV doesn’t actually exist<<
I do not understand how you can discover that your TV set does not exist if you are watching a program on it! Of course, you can “discover” that God does not exist, though others might not be convinced. That is hardly news, confirming only that there is no universally convincing evidence one way or another.

>>how does one rationally FORMULATE the presupposition that a GOD OF SOME SORT (my emphasis both times) exists?<<
By expressing it - to follow a form preferred on this OLO - as lack of (or absence of) belief in the Sagan maxim i.e. in the reducibility of all existence to that accessible through science (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883).

Oliver wrote: In science the enquirer is independent of the objective.

In general the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective. To observe anything we must receive the information through our senses. I am working with mycology at the moment. To observe an object through a microscope I must focus light on it. The light is energy which impacts on the particle. When I go on field trips I sometimes cannot observe fungi without disturbing vegetation.

My son is an anthropologist who lived with a group of Amazonian Indians. Living with them he became part of their society. He tried to minimise his influence but could not minimise it completely. As he became accepted he went out on hunts with them. He painted his body the way other males living there did. If he remained an outsider he would have not been as effective as gathering information on their way of living. Indian agents from the Brazilian government visited the tribe. The government wanted to exchange blankets and other goods for forest products. As the only person there who was fluent in both the Indian language, Kayapo, and Portuguese my son was pressed into service as a negotiator. Had he refused to take part he could not have retained the trust of the tribe.

My sympathies are with you, Suzeonline. This subject again! But I see you’ve added your contribution as well.

As it is one of the hottest topics on the Forum, I may as well put in my 20 cents worth, especially as I am one of the few to support creation or ID**. There would be no Roland Garros if there was no one standing on the other side of the net.

It is an endless argument. The reason being, as someone pointed out recently, that it represents the pointy end of a very old question: is there a God?

Did someone make us or do we just happen to be here?

And Zimmerman’s take is not very helpful: Science is good, religion is bad, but let’s all try and get along because it’s obvious religion isn’t going to disappear quickly. Frankly, I don’t think Zimmerman has much grasp on any of this subject matter. At best, his view is quite partisan.

One misguided soul above says, “Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.” As a measure of how far that statement is in error, and how wrong some people can be around this issue, here are some facts:

The person responsible more than any other for sending men to the moon, Apollo’s chief rocket scientist, Von Braun, was an advocate of six-day creation. James Irwin, one of the twelve who walked on the moon, also was a creationist. All of the twelve were highly trained scientists or flight engineers.

Those who say creationism is out of step with science don’t understand one or the other.

**CJ, please don’t (not that you have) accuse me of putting it in schools, as I don’t think I have expressed an opinion on that (at least not recently).

Dear David,

I agree with you. I do appreciate and accept the concept of the experimeter being part of the experiment. I didn't think about that case, when writing. I was, however, indicating that the theist, metaphorically speaking, lives in the cell on the microscope slide, and, does not look through the microscope. Perhaps, oblivious of the existence of other cells, let along the experimenter. Moreover, the cell dweller has no desire to look through the microscope.

I am sure your son would be aware that environmental situations affect the interpretation of visual patterns, wherein, juggle dwelling persons are less susceptible to the Muller-Lyer Illusion.

http://www.rit.edu/cla/gssp400/muller/muller.html

Dan S de Merengue Asked:

"Did someone make us or do we just happen to be here?"

Only objects are made and only objects may have a location. Assuming that this question refers to something deeper than our bodies (made by our parents), it is like asking a bachelor "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both options make no sense, unless you think that you are an object. Find out who you are first, then you will yourself laugh at the silliness of this question.

"is there a God?"

There is nothing but God, but the question "is there" always refers to a location, an area or a volume to be inspected whether certain object(s) can be found in it. If God were to be located in space, then He wouldn't be God, would He? Hence the answer must be NO.

Suzeonline wrote:

"just as scientists can never 'prove' there wasn't a God who created the world."

Why not? Perhaps someone did create the world, scientifically I cannot exclude this option, but if there was such a guy (or a girl), then he/she would not be God. You see, any action, including the act of creation, affects the actor. If someone creates a world, then it changes them that instant from being a non-creator into being a creator. Claiming as if God was subject to change, is a heresy!

Dan S de Merengue wrote: The person responsible more than any other for sending men to the moon, Apollo's chief rocket scientist, Von Braun, was an advocate of six-day creation.

Dear Dan,

You have cited Von Braun before. Rocket science has nothing to do with biology, geology or any other branch of science where evolution comes into play. He was a competent scientist in his area, but his area was the physical sciences.

As a human being he was scum. He presided over slave laborers at Peenemunde and served Hitler faithfully. Being useful as a rocket scientist to counter the Soviet rocket program saved him from being tried as a war criminal.

However, he had the superstitious belief and the lack of respect for humanity that many fundamentalist Christians have.

I for one am curious as to exactly how a belief in six-day creation gets you to the moon.

Apparently it also gets you to the Oscars, so many actors thank God, you'd think he had made the movie. Or maybe they were referring to James Cameron.

still no faulsifyables...lol

but lets quote olivers latest...redirection...
in lue of science fact..or faulsifyable

oliver...<<<..the enquirer>>>and the mindless

has...<<is assimilated into the objective>>>.to wit...the ...lol..SCIENCE...lol..of evolution

<<and in a sense becomes one with objective.>>.lol
we finally agree...

<<As the Chinese say,.."one cannot see the face of the mountain/from inside the cave".>>>a great saying...but it cuts both ways

PRESENT THE FAULSIFYABLES
or by not...admit...evolution...ISNT SCIENCE

<<Herein,..the theist>>>and the athiest...alike
let alone...the children thinking..evolution/science..WHEN CLEARLY ITS NOT

<<..is hard pressed to think rationally,>>...lol
yes...ignorants...claiming...science...yet..UNABLE..to present...faulsifyable...science...MUST HAVE,,by its own measure...reveal their ignorance...simply by avoiding even their mention

<<..because of the absence of the apt qualifying syntax>>..isnt science method

lack of science/faulsifyables..
.MEANS,,you dont got a science
at best you got a theory...

at worst..you got a GRAND/deception/FRAUD!
peddled..by those ignoarant of science

fool's/thinking they...are so clever...
claiming...science
yet science...illiterate..

thus simply fools/..decieving yet other fool's
[the teqnical term...being imbisile...
but that might be beyond your ken..[knowing]

evolution...out of genus,..,is fraud*
its opinion/..theory...NOT* SCIENCE

LIVE WITH-IT
the silence...lack of *faulsifyables..speaks for itself

Dear Dan,

Once again you have trotted out the despicable Nazi war criminal, von Braun. Remember why you trotted him out. You responded to wobbles posting: “Science can fly you to the moon but Religion can fly you into buildings.”

Von Braun used his science in the service of Hitler to send V2 rockets into buildings in London during the Blitz. He is responsible for many more deaths than those who flew the planes into buildings on 9/11. He used his science to fly into buildings. He is also responsible for the deaths of many slave labourers who were worked to death at Peenemunde.

Believing in the Jewish fairy tales of creation in the Bible didn’t stop him from serving a government which murdered 6,000,000 Jews.

Albert Einstein, also not a biologist, but with a far greater mind than von Braun realised at a young age that the biblical account of creation was a fairy tale and gave up belief in the Bible as literal truth.

Of course one does not have to be a decent person to be a scientist or to believe literally in the Bible, but must you keep bringing up such filth as von Braun?

Why do most scientists accept macroevolution theory? A major reason is that it is now the accepted world view of scientists

—an idea to which they are exposed from the earliest days of training,..and by which they are surrounded daily....ras been refuted..by science..not being as egsact as they thought

Most scientists are influenced by social pressure,..and many believers fear recriminations from their fellow scientists/..if they do not conform to what currently is viewed as correct.

To prove their orthodoxy,..many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism.

50 Belief in evolutionism..requires a credulity induced partly by pressure......to conform to a world of science..that is saturated with naturalism.

this is from the conclusion of
http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism
and it dosnt...you will recall...homology...presumed..linkage to ape...and other delusions

I KNOW YOU LOT CANT PRESENT.../faulsifyables

SO TRY...lol..
to rebut what is revealed at the link

<<'It is homology that Darwinists..rely on../to bridge the gaps in the fossil record.

..It is homology/..that underlies the diagrams drawn up/..by Darwinists from Haeckel to the present day..showing how every living thing is related.

Ultimately,however,..it is homology that has provided the greatest stumbling block..to Darwinian theory,..for at the final and most crucial hurdle,..homology has fallen.

The recent information/explosion in embryology,..microbiology, genetics..and especially molecular biology..has revealed in minute detail how plants and animals are constructed/at the molecular level.

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct,/then we would expect ..that the same homologies..found at the macroscopic level...also exist at the microscopic,/..biochemical..and genetic levels.

What researchers..in each of these fields often find,..has greatly undermined the homology concept.

So many exceptions..now exist that molecular biologist/Michael Denton concluded..that the homology theory/..should be rejected.

His main argument is/that genetic research..has not shown..that homologous structures..are produced by homologous genes..and follow homologous patterns of embryological development.

Instead,..genetics has found..that homologous structures are..'often specified by..non-homologous genetic systems'..and furthermore,..the homology..'can seldom be extended..back into embryology'.

but present..ya...fauls-if-i-ables...lol..
or rebut..if you dare...lol

Dear David,
Sorry if I offended you by mentioning the name Von Braun. It was not my intention to offend. And it is true that we’ve been around the block on this one.

It was Wobbles who raised the moon landings, and it is hard to talk about that without mentioning Von Braun, who was responsible for the technology.

The issue I was attempting to address (as brought up in Zimmerman’s article) was the general compatibility (or otherwise) of science with faith.

There is no incompatibility with science and a very straight forward reading of Biblical Scripture. Thousands of practicing scientists and understanding theologians will testify to that. I mention just two names. Included are many who work in all branches of science, including physical, biological, geological, etc.

Now that you have completed your character assassination of one of them, you are welcome to try completing it for the rest.

-

Yuyutsu,
I know who I am.

The word ‘there’ does not always refer to location. ‘There is’ can be part of a stative clause, a bit like ‘there exists’. For example, ‘there are no laws against stupidity’.

Either someone made us (the human race) or no one made us. These options cover it all and are mutually exclusive. Or do you think you can squeeze another option in there somewhere?

Dear Dan,

I did not commit any character assassination. What I said about von Braun is true. He is a war criminal who got away with it because of his rocket expertise.

Dan,

I was unaware that the question "who (if any) made the human race?" was ever raised here, or was of particular importance to anyone here, so I was very surprised by this "us (the human race)" statement. While I could discuss that question if you insist, I never touched on it previously. I consider it like asking "who (if any) made your hat?": the human form is but a garment that we wear for 70, 80 or 100 years, then discard. We are not it just as we are not our hat.

The statement "there are no laws against stupidity", translates into "one cannot find any legal, written or verbal documents that prohibit stupidity anywere in {this-forum|Australia|Planet-Earth|...}".

Nevertheless, I will rephrase my earlier statement in a way that does not discuss space or use the word "there": Stating that "God exists" is an attempt to degrade God to the level of an object (because only objects exist). Worshiping an object is idolatry.

.

Dear Oliver, Dear David F.,

.

I am intrigued by your observations regarding the relationship of the enquirer and the objective in scientific research.

I perhaps mistakenly imagined that science was to do with objective knowledge exclusively and that religion was to do with subjective knowledge but not exclusively.

If, as you both seem to finally agree, the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective in scientific research, does this not introduce a degree of subjectivity into the research and disqualify the ensuing results as objective knowledge ?

I must confess that I was not aware of the impossibilty of the enquirer to be independent of the objective of his research.

In this light, scientific research would appear to be more correctly described as "personal observations and experiences" even if the research may be repeated by others with similar results.

As the results are necessarily determined by the relationship of dependendence of each individual person with the objective, ie., by the unique couple individual/objective, what guaranty is there that they will always be exactly identical ?

How can a unique personal relationship produce objective results ?

Should I revise my definition of science as an enterprise dealing with objective knowledge exclusively to that of an enterprise dealing with objective knowledge but not exclusively ?

Or do either or both of you have some other definition to suggest ?

.

Banjo Paterson,
>>Or do either or both of you have some other definition to suggest ?<<
What you are asking here is the subject of what is sometimes known as the quantum enigma. It is perhaps related to the other two epistemological dilemas: the Wigner’s (“the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”) and the enigma about mathematics being both and invention and discovery).

Actually, I have just finished reading the book ‘Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (OUP 2006) by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (both physicists, the former personally knew Einstein as well as John Bell). I do not know what is your knowledge of the mathematics behind quantum theory, but it is irrelevant for the understanding of this, in my mind unique, popularised treatment of the problem.

Of course, no solution is offered, it indeed is an enigma, at least for the time being. Let me repeat, Rosenblum is not an esoteric crank or what, but the former Chairperson of the Physics Department at the UC, Santa Cruz.

One quote:
“The quantum theory works perfectly; no prediction of the theory has ever been shown in error. … But if you take (it) seriously beyond practical purposes, it has baffling implications. Qauntum theory tells us that physics’ encounter with consciousness, as is DEMONSTRATED for the small, applies, in principle, to everything. And that “everything” can include the entire universe. Copernicus dethroned humanity from the cosmic center. Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we ARE a cosmic centre?” (p. 207; I had to capitalise words that are in italics in the book).

Well, probably too ambitious words. I would have my own perspective on that, assigning (pure) mathematics a more central role in our epistemology, nevertheless we do have an enigma.

banjoe...quote..<<..my definition/of science/..as an enterprise>>>enter/prize...certainly sounds apt...

need some more/cash...to publish..or perish?..
revieuwed..by peers...also/paid...to make gain..from the prize..

no/..that certainly fits..the facts..

your spelling/is a bit wonkey
but..the summation ..is right on/the money

<<dealing with/objective knowledge>>>shaped and formed to fit the best return..either in fame/glory...or cash

objective is hardly the issue...an object/egsist...
they cant make their own..object...so they study..it..[oooops..get a grant..to study/it...]

and if it works out...its a nice/..big payday...they hold the patent..over it/for 75 years...[ok it/used to be..25 or so years]..but

money/is no object..as long as/you..hold the patent

<<<exclusively/..to that of an enterprise>>>yes exclusivity/fits nicely..as well..

with the prize being/exclusive knowledge/exclusive prize..
exclude..collude..seclude...yes it all defines/the art of science theory...nicely

<<<enterprise/dealing with objective..knowledge>>selectivly...as revieuwed by peers...with insider knowlwedge..to get the..other/prize

<<..But not exclusively?>>...
no of course not...lol..wrong...its about exclusive..
or rather ..the ability to exclude/..exclusivly...

the peers..make sure it stays..within the narow confines...of exclusivity..its an art form..

but thats not fair ..to simply rebut yours..and not present mine

what are we/defining again...oh...

<<my definition of science>>

science is the study..of nature/natural...excluding the un/natural..
seeking to control the nature...into the unnatural

its is a concept/that begins with a definitive..
then abstracts away from it..

repeatedly doing/..the same thing..
till that one time...things dont end the same...and a new''disscovery''..is made,sorry..discoverd,

,that one/exclusive/fact that changes facts.../makes..$$

that fact..then disappears/under the numbers...hiden further by peers....living/their past glories..who control the funding...

and accreditisation...who need to protect/the exclusive/franchise ..of theIR..specific branch of science..they hold in trust

the diversity of science/indicates there are many claims..to science..yet not all are..scientific..

many claiming science..dont have faulsifyables
WITHOUT fasulsifyables..they dont got any SCIENCE

thus there is validated science..with faulsifyables..and there is SCIENCE...that dont have faulsifyable..not one

yet both claim/the lable of science...lol

thanks be..to the peers/..the saintly ones..who have organised their belief...not in science,..,but arround it

science thus;..encompasses everything that needs..authority..structure...followers..money/and a reason to publish...

a selective belief-system..for cash..glory..or deciete/..as over/seen..by the peer..neo/elite...ie the same old elite..

that in time..may diss-appear/..publish or perish..thats science...

not fact..but sci-trance

David,
You say Von Braun was a war criminal. You are free to state your opinion here on OLO. I’ve already addressed that issue in detail elsewhere. I don’t think assigning culpability for the wrongs of WWII is the topic of this discussion.

-

Yuyutsu,
I ask who, if anyone, made the human race, as I understand that that is one of the central questions of ID. Were people, or other living things, created by a designer? It is the study of evidence for design within nature.

By analogy, if we find a beret in a paddock, we are usually capable, by using certain lines of logic, to establish whether it was designed by an intelligent agent, perhaps for the purpose of keeping the sun’s rays from burning the top of someone’s head. Or can a beret come about through natural processes of matter combining with gravity, wind, erosion, etc.?

In contrast, evolution (the topic mentioned in the summary statement at the top of this page) claims that people came about by totally natural processes.

Evidence that points to a grand designer is evidence for the existence of God.

God’s existence is an important concept with regard to faith. The Psalms declares that ‘the fool states in his heart that there is no God.’ The writer of Hebrews says that anyone who wants to please God must believe he exists and rewards those who diligently seek him. Believing in God’s existence is a minimum requirement for a Christian believer. We must also honour, love, and worship God. This is hard to do without first believing that he exists.

By the way, what is a ‘verbal document’?

Hello Banjo,

"If, as you both seem to finally agree, the enquirer cannot be independent of the objective in scientific research, does this not introduce a degree of subjectivity into the research and disqualify the ensuing results as objective knowledge?" - Banjo

Yes, experimentally,if, primatologist, Jane Goodall, observes the Great Apes from a hide, she is changing the environmental condition by her mere presence. Dr Goodall is not independent to the experiment because she is a part of it. However, "for practical purposes" the scientist would regard this situation as experimental error and assume independence. In science you still an experimenter and subject, plus independent variables and dependent variables.

As George alludes on the scale of the very small observation is held by QM to cause conditions.

I will need to come back on the interesting questions you raised.

Good moorning George,

"we ARE a cosmic centre" - George

As would every particle and waveform in the universe. Not only our conscience selves but the indiviual cell of which we are composed.

All,

The above does not change what I was saying with regard to the religionist and the scientist. An academic theologian like Barbara Theiring and a parish priest shall "for practical purposes" (above) have a fundamentally different relationship, when studying Christianity. Theiring will try to be detached, whereas, the priest, will wish to be further assimmilated.

Similarly, the scientist wants learn how to change "water into wine"; whereas the priest does not, because explaining miracles, negates divinity. If an ordinary man did change "water into wine" that might also create what developmental (child) psychologist, Jean Piaget, called "disequilibrium". To be "accommodated" (Piaget)into an exising belief system, the religionist might rationalise that, "God created man alone above the animals to perform this miracle," perhaps citing as support that Jesus gave special powers to the Apostles.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

We need not define science.

Karl Popper illustrated this point in his book, "The Open Society and its Enemies." A scientist is told to study the behaviour of sand dunes. He or she doesn't worry about defining a sand dune. The report of the findings is titled "A study of the movement of mounds of sand in height between a meter and a hundred meters." One may protest that sand dunes may be only a half meter in height, but does it matter?

Science produces workable results in studies of the behaviour of animate and inanimate matter. Whatever definition one can make of science may be pulled apart by philosophers. Much of the Creationist effort on this list to discredit evolutionary biology is based on half understood definitions of science. It doesn't seem to matter to them that it works to explain the development of life on this planet and is used in such applications as the treatment of infectious diseases.

We study science by doing science. We learn enough about science to perform experiments and make hypotheses. When we have a difference with other scientists there are mechanisms which eventually resolve the conflict and determine which views are accepted. There is no serious scientific disagreement with evolution although there are differences in regard to details.

We learn about religion by absorbing a body of knowledge encompassing a description of our particular religious faith and what it requires of us. Others with the same religion may believe differently. There exists no reliable method to settle these differences so we have schisms and conflict which may be resolved by violence.

Scientific studies of religion examine it in the light of anthropology, sociology and history. That differs from instruction in a particular religion. There are studies in comparative religion. These are valuable since it can lend insight into one's own beliefs. Religious organisations may promote science. The Vatican has an excellent astronomical observatory staffed by priests with scientific training. These priests cannot be Creationists who accept a literal account of the creation in Genesis and also be competent astronomers.

david...quote,,<<...difference/with other scientists..there/are mechanisms/which/resolve..the conflict/...lol..and determine/which views...lol..are accepted.>>>lol

like peers..that decalred flat/earth..or peers/that determined/con-sensus...that the universe/revolved arround ..the earth

how easy to forget...how easy..to declare...science..
of evolution..of genus..yet not present..faulsifyables...lol

anyhow;..here is some..'differences'..for re-solution
from
http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

<<..Belief/in evolutionism/..requires a credulity../..induced partly by/pressure..to conform..to a world of science>>..to wit/peer-presure

peers..who/deem..inteligent-design..a non-topic

<<<..A review/of the literature/..on homology...>>
that underpins/evolution...species/evolving..from genus..as measured..by like trait..inducing;..like trait..YET..VIA DIVERGENT MECHANISM...lol

..<<indicates that the theory...>>!
..<<does not provide evidence>>..for evolutionary/naturalism..
despite/..being loaded with..terms..like natural/lol/selection...

...DAVID/quote..<<There is no/serious-scientific..disagreement>>lol

reply..<<..The comparative/anatomy/argument..fails completely..when an attempt is made..to trace;..all living forms of life..(and even fossils)..back to/their..postulated;..universal common ancestor's).>>lol

<<Few skeleton,muscle/and brain..counterparts/exist..in single-celled animals..(or..in many developmental-stages..afterward).

<<No biological/..or..logical requirement/exists..to vary the design of bones,..muscles and nerves needlessly../..in every living form../beyond..what is necessary..to adapt/..the animal to its environment.>>

<<with evolution/..although there are/differences/..in regard to details...>>..the mechanism...by which they result...are divergent/

meaning..they come via different..means...
thus cannot be linked..back to some/..mythical ancestor

PLEASE DO READ/..THE LINK..IN FULL
you just might,..,get/..what it is revealing

<<<..One problem with/..the convergent/evolution-hypothesis..is that it requires..'reinvention..of the wheel'..scores/..or even/..hundreds of times.

The eye..is hypothesized/..to have evolved/independently..as many as 60..different times.>>each via..differing mechanism's

<<One major problem/..is that/in many cases..organs and structures/..which appear identical..(or very similar)..in different animals/..do not develop..from the same structure/..or group of embryo cells.

It is not uncommon/..to find fundamental structures..(e.g. the alimentary canal)..that form from different;..embryological-tissues/..in different animals.

For example,/..in sharks..the alimentary-canal/..is formed from the roof/of the embryonic-gut/cavity;..in frogs..it is formed from the gut-roof..and floor;

and in birds/and/reptiles..it is formed..from the lower-layer..of the embryonic-disc/or blastoderm.

..<<..vertebrate forelimbs../referred to by Darwin..(and cited/in hundreds of textbooks/..as proof for evolution)..has now/turned out to be flawed/..as an example of homology.>>

<<The reason is/that the forelimbs/..often develop from different body segments..in different/species..in a pattern/..that cannot be explained by linked/evolution.

The forelimbs..in the newt/..develop from trunk/segments 2 through 5;..
..in the lizard..they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9;
..in humans they develop/..from trunk segments 13 through 18

WAKE UP FOLKS..read/..rebut/
OR..present/faulsifyables

publish/or..perish

Dear OUG,

AS you well know, Genus sits inside a classification scheme, which is open to interpretation, with regards its delimiters. That does not mean classified entity has no relationship with other classified entities. Its like asking if Pluto is a planet or a planetoid. Either way, Pluto was formed within the Solar System.

Yet, with regards species:

DNA suggests that HIV-1A, HIV-B and HIV-2 evolved from a common ancestor.HIV-1A and HIV-B can reproduce with each other; yet, no HIV-1n is known to reproduce with HIV-2. One possibly exinct species has become two extant species.

Here is a Baha'i view on science & religion:

“There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance. How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!

It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth. ..the strength and power of religion must not be doubted because of the incapacity of these persons to understand.

All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance. To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an open book...

Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles -- and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.”
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 141)

Dan,

"I ask who, if anyone, made the human race, as I understand that that is one of the central questions of ID."

I see no connection, since who I am has nothing to do with the human race. I just happen to temporarily wear a human.

"Were people, or other living things, created by a designer?"

Perhaps an interesting question for some, but I don't know the answer.

"Evidence that points to a grand designer is evidence for the existence of God."

Not necessarily, it could point for example to some alien monster conducting a sinister experiment.

"God’s existence is an important concept with regard to faith"

The concept of God's existence is detrimental to faith. It causes people instead to believe in, pray to, and bargain with, an object, an idol.

"The Psalms declares that ‘the fool states in his heart that there is no God.’"

Taken out of context. Within context, it would read: "the fool states in his heart that 'since there is no God I can do whatever I like without getting punished'".

"Believing in God’s existence is a minimum requirement for a Christian believer."

That's by definition, but you don't need to be a believer in order to be a good Christian. All you need is to love God and your fellow as thyself, just as Jesus loved you.

"We must also honour, love, and worship God."

So true.

"This is hard to do without first believing that he exists."

Granted, but neither is it easy to love your fellow as thyself, or to abstain from sin.

---
G.R., Thank you for this lovely and true exposition of Baha'i faith.

OH/DEAR...oliver is on the hiv...yet again
it must be the only study he has done...lol

but here we go/...again...hiv=virus...one of many virus
but hiv...is a type/genus of virus...that has species..within it

for species..to mutate...within their genus..is as nothing..
its basic genetics...within a genus..
there can be many/species..within the genus..its proof..of MICRO/evolution..within the genus...nothing more/nothing less

WHAT you need..to present...
is just one evolution...INTO A NEW GENUS/genious...get it

yet...pigions..all fall within..columbia[genus]...species liva...every domestic/pigeon..is species/liva...genus columbia

mating any two pigions..say a fantail/and a tumbler...produces the wild/type...'liva'...also called..[+]...the blue-barred/rock-dove...

as repeatedly stated...within the genus..no worries..
thats micro/evolution...

BUT..evolution...as you claim...as per..the tree of life...
THAT/needs evolution..BEYOND/species...level...

that...macro/evolution..is impossable

PLEASE PRESENT YOUR FAULSIFYABLES!
one that STATES..definitivly...that a NEW genus..is created

if you can name/even one...that shall be a first!
SCIENCE...has never..witnessed..a change of genus

to put it in simpler/terms...

the tree of life...has cold/blood..fish/..evolving into warm/blood..lol
...even you can see that is clearly..impossable...any science deluding/..at the impossable..isnt science

if you cant replicate
if you cant state...definitive/faulsification principles

then you dont got no science...!

learn to live with the fact..you got decieved/conned...its no shame..

the only shame..is continueing the delusion..in the face of clear refuting...of your hype-o-thesis..with valid science fact

READ THE LINK

further..re the baha/hi..comment

PLEASE?NOTE...<<..that which is contrary to knowledge..is ignorance.>>>

ie the delusion..that species evolving/WITHIN THEIR GENUS...means species...can evolve out of them..that is fraud/delusion

THAT IS PURE/DELUSION..to wit/ignorance..wrought of fear

<<How can a man believe to be a fact..that which science has proved to be impossible?>>>

clearly refusing to read the link...is evidense...of many..ignorant/
..steadfastly/chosing to remain/ignorant

...simply because..they are fixated
on the godless theory/masked as sci-trance

what you afraid of?

god is love
present ya faulsifyable's

Dear OUG,

A new genus:

http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/1/191.pdf

But that is not the point. The species (plural) within the genus are a product of evolution.

Banjo Paterson,
Apologies, I have just realised I was commenting on a question you actually did not ask.

Namely, the question about the dependence of the result of an observation (e.g. experiment) on the fact of being observed. This is an enigma going beyond e.g. the easy to explain two cases mentioned by david f,

(i) where the observer, or his/her tool, disturbs the observed object or
(ii) where the observed object is a group encapsulating the observer, e.g. when the group is a religious or ethic community or any group the observer is existentially or just emotionally attached to (c.f. Oliver’s understanding of theists).

This enigma concerns a more principal question - not only in the epistemological but also in the ontological sense - about the dependence of what we understand as (objective) physical reality on what we understand as (subjective) consciousness.

Of course, the classical answer is that there is no such dependence, because natural science could not work without assuming that there is a world - the source of our sensual perception - independent of our observations. However, all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles, indicate either

(a) that there is such a dependence that we do not understand (yet?), or
(b) that we miss something essential about the very existence of the physical world as we know it. Since knowing requires consciousness, this indeed might be a permanent enigma that we shall have to live with.

Oliver,
>>"we ARE a cosmic centre" - George<<
I am not the author of this statement, but I agree that my quote from the book was too terse and out of context, thus prone to misunderstandings as you demonstrate. Besides, mixing particles with “waveforms” - I take it you meant wave functions - is a good indication to where the “enigma“ lies: any layman can “visualise“ a particle as a physical OBJECT, but not a wave function, which in principle is a mathematical construct to model the state of a physical system.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for the introduction to what appears to be interesting reading on the so-called quantum enigma.

.

Dear Oliver,

"...experimentally,if, primatologist, Jane Goodall, observes the Great Apes from a hide, she is changing the environmental condition by her mere presence ..."

I understand it is her "mere presence" which causes the change, even if her eyes were not constantly fixed on the Great Apes.

Had she been able to observe them from a satellite, would she still be deemed to be "present" ? At what distance is one "present" or absent ?

Is it possible that you and I are also changing the environmental condition of the Great Apes by our mere presence ? If so, presumably it is reciprocal.

But then, how can there be a "change" in the respective environments of Jane Goodall and the Great Apes due to the fact that she observes them from a hide.

What difference does it make, whether she be enjoying a nice cup of tea in her, no doubt, cosy home in England while the Great Apes are swinging through the foliage in Africa, or observing them from a hide ? What is it that triggers the "change" in the interaction and mutual influence of Jane and the apes ?

Is the degree of mutual influence proportional to their proximity or remoteness, like a magnet in relation to a metal object ?

Is the influence constant irrespective of the size, weight and shape of Jane and the apes and indifferent to the matter of which each is constituted ?

.

Dear David F.,

I can't help noticing that your explanations on the meaning of science, for which I am extremely grateful, are remarkably similar to those of a highly reputed French chef who gave a conference a few years ago on French cuisine.

I suppose it's not as surprising as one may at first imagine as much of the research in both areas of enquiry are still rather artisanal in nature and largely a question of trial and error.

.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for taking a double dip at my question on observer dependence.

I was not planning on studying quantum physics on this forum but shall do my best to understand your message.

You refer to:

" ... all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles ..."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how this principle is applicable to Oliver's example of Jane and the apes.

Please forget it if it involves too much effort, I shall not lose any sleep over it.

Thanks and regards,

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

>> " ... all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles ..."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how this principle is applicable to Oliver's example of Jane and the apes.<<

I do not understand and can just repeat my apologies for misunderstanding your original question. I am not sure what “principle“ you are referring to. That interpretations of any physical theory should not contradict experimental results seems to me a simple requirement.

As far as I understand it, Oliver‘s example of Jane and the apes more or less falls under the cases I excluded from the enigma since they are easily explained (c.f. my “(i) where the observer, or his/her tool, disturbs the observed object“). It has nothing to do with the behaviour of elementary particles under observation that leads to the philosophical dilemma referred to as an enigma, that I admit you were not concerned with.

oh dear oliver your link leads to a PROPoSED...new genus

how de-spirite your are...
grasping at semantic straws

if you can explain...using your own words...
just what the link reveals...i will be supprised...no...astounded

its a gobbildy/cook..of chemical semantics...
not a new species...let alone new genus

CREATED...by by definition...
then only...as a proposal...lol

its so sad
BUT HEY...lets HEAR your FAULSIFYABLES...!...!...!

not just jour despirite attrempts/strawgasping...via google

lol...how easy to expose/those who decieve...
claiming knowledge..they cant grasp/..gasp

sad bro...its just so sad

further as said many times
species evolving is science fact/..WITHIN GENUS

its when the fools..take that step/too far...to/wit..that one genus..evolves..into neo/NEW GENUS..lol..that delusion enters..

that fools..go that one step beyond..what science can validate

PRESENT>>>YA>>>FAULS_IF_FIABLES
no faulsifyable's...NO SCIENCE

Dear Banjo and George,

I am aware of the issue of the effect of observation on an experiment, but for the moment don't recall the source. But have heard of of it several times. It would apply to a larger scale than QM.(The state of the apes is not resolved by Jane's observation). Yes, as little as I understand it, theoretically observing the atmosphere of Venus alters the experimental condition.

Above, " 'Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we ARE a cosmic centre?' ” (George), caught my eye. I thought two things (a) "We" is too big and (b) if "we" have a priviledged position, it is likely to be relative; i.e., everything has from its perspecive would see itself the centre. The is no priviledged position. Of course, this could all be my nonsense, when making comment on a small quote.

I believe Roger Penrose is exploring the possibility of QM consciousness.

Dear George and Banjo,

On reflection, I think the situation is that by being observed by Jane is not a part of the natural environment and Jane is an extraneous variable. I suspect the case has more to the quality of the "locus" of the experimental condition than something like making a sound or the apes smelling her. Apes in their natural state are not enjoined to spying primatologists. She has contaminated the experiment to the extent he presence means the apes are not in the wild.

I had a quick look for cite but was unsuccessful.

David,
From what I’ve heard, there are some scientists within the Vatican who are creationists.

Yuyutsu,
It’s been a pleasure chatting with you over these concepts. Though I didn’t realise I wasn’t talking to someone of the human race, only someone temporarily wearing something human. And I never did catch where you hid those verbal documents.

OUG,

"CREATED...by by definition..." - OUG

Of course, pertaining to the definition, it is a classification system. As I have said before, its like defining Pluto, as planet or a planetoid. People agree on the delimiters based on tentative knowledge of the time. It does not follow that they "created" Pluto.

Put another way, you probably would not call your cat "Spot" and your dog "Felix". There is a convention.

The author has written an extensive methodology section which would be opened to critique by peers. The paper has seemingly already passed desk review.

.

Dear George,

.

"I am not sure what “principle“ you are referring to"

I was wondering what justification there was for a particular phenomena that had been observed during a quantum physics experiment on "elementary particles" to be established as a general "principle" to be applied to the relationship of Jane and the apes and how its effect could be detected.

Perhaps that is a stupid question but I must confess that it was the one which my uncouth mind produced on reading your post.

.

.

Dear Oliver,

.

"I suspect the case has more to the quality of the "locus" of the experimental condition than ..."

I am afraid we are now into conjecture on this one.

Perhaps David F. can get us out of this stalemate "locus". I seem to recall that he brought our attention to the so called phenomenon of "observer dependence" in the first place.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,
>>what justification there was for a particular phenomena that had been observed during a quantum physics experiment on "elementary particles" to be established as a general "principle" to be applied to the relationship of Jane and the apes and how its effect could be detected. Perhaps that is a stupid question<<

Apparently I misunderstood you again, being misled by the particularity of Oliver’s example. As I understand you now, you are asking why the quantum theory conclusion that “observation produces the property observed”, applies to the micro-world of atoms and “smaller” particles (where it can be experimentally verified) but cannot be observed/experimentally verified in the macro-world of everyday objects.

This is anything but a stupid question; it is actually part of the quantum dilemma. Allegedly (just quoting from the book, p. 107) if you wanted to repeat the interference experiment (that in the micro-world leads to the baffling conclusion of an “observer created reality”) with a grain of sand, it would have to move slower than an atom’s length in a century!

The standard Copenhagen interpretation considers two realms: the macroscopic, classical realm of measuring instruments (and Jane and her apes) governed by Newton’s (or even Einstein’s) laws; and the microscopic, quantum realm of atoms and other small things governed by the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics. Until recently physicists could tacitly accept this "double standard" of physical laws since for all practical purposes it was always clear whether they were dealing with objects from the macroscopic or from the microscopic world.

However, today these artificial boundaries between macro and micro, that the Copenhagen interpretation assumes, are more and more blurred. Quantum mechanics is increasingly applied to larger and larger objects, cosmologists write a wave-function for the whole universe to study the Big Bang, etc.

So there are not only philosophical objections to the artificial dualism dividing physical reality into its micro and macro “components” with different laws.

Well, I don’t know if this helped. These are things nobody, including you and I, yet understands properly.

Dear Dan,

Whether von Braun was a war criminal or not evolution has absolutely nothing to do with rocket science so he can have whatever crank ideas he has in that area without it affecting his rocketry competence. It really doesn't matter and is irrelevant. It is no more significant than a sculptor being a Creationist.

Please cite your Vatican astronomer priests who are creationists and what their role is in astronomy. If you are dealing with the theory of the development of the universe it is accepted that the sun came into being before the earth. That is incompatible with a literal belief in genesis with its six day creation and the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation after he had created earth and plant life.

Dear Banjo,

I cannot get you out of the problems with 'observer dependence.' I just took issue with the statement by Oliver that in science the observer is independent of the object. The problems that observer dependence involve are still a matter of dispute. One thing science does not deal with are phenomena which we do not have tools to detect and which we cannot show have an effect on the experiments and observations. As long as Jane was in a hide there was no detectable influence of her on the apes. When interacting with the apes in touching them or handing them food there was an affect on the apes' minds. That is somewhat observable as they would recognise her. My son's presence with the Xikrin and the Canela, the Amazonian peoples he worked with, has affected them. They can tell him about their feelings toward him, but he cannot read their minds. He is very blond and very hairy This is unlike the Amazonian Indians but like a monkey that lives in the area of the Xikrin so they call him by the same name that they call the monkey. That may tell a bit about their feelings toward him.

.

Dear David F.,

.

Thanks for the explanation. That's quite clear.

.

i asked oliver..to decribe..in his own words

here is how he explains his link...quote...<<Of course,..pertaining to the definition,..it is a classification system.>>>the link is not a clasification system

its a proposal..to declare a find/discovered in an old mine...re some virus..that has been tested..and found to have 25 percent divergebnt aminoacids..and other rna/dna..bits..that would make it a new genus

IE...ITS NOT THE RESULT OF EVOLUTION>>>INTO NEW GENUS

get it?

but you waffle on more /with redirection..
IN LUE OF FAULSIFYABLE..or explaining/in your own words...just what the link is saying

<<As I have said before,..its like defining Pluto,..as planet or a planetoid.>>>when clearly he is another/family...genus/species..alltogether..ie/he is a/cartoon/dog..

but lets go your joke..<<agree on the delimiters based on tentative knowledge of the time..It does not follow that they "created" Pluto.

Put another way, you probably would not call your cat "Spot" and your dog "Felix".

There is a convention.

The author has written an extensive methodology section which would be opened to critique by peers.

The paper has seemingly already passed desk review.>>>great

a new discovery is discoverd..not bred via ya theory!

NOW IN YOUR OWN WORDS..please explain..
what you think the link is saying

or..provide/..evolution of genus/s...FAULSIFYABLES

but you aint got that
thus talk about pluto

OUG,

The claimed new genus has been classified on the basis of its divergence using means known/accepted by biologists. The authors triangulate a series/threads of analyses to drve home their argument.

Pluto is what is it, whether we call it a planet or something else. No matter how it is classified, Pluto formed out of the same reminants of an earlier star stysem as to did the Sun, the Earth, you and I.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html

Likewise, the classification system used to "label" a genus stands apart, from Hongia gen. nov., which evolved. Even very Christians believe that a god somehow "zapped" each individual genus. No matter how it is clasified, Hongia gen. nov., evolved from an earlier form.

Calling something a genus, Hongia gen. nov., based on biological parameters is no different than calling a colour, yellow, based on physical parameters (eletromagnetic spectrum).

OHliver...i have/simplified..the/con-tent..of ya link...

so even you can see/it is nothing/but a re-clasification...NOT NEW EVOLUTION..only a clean-up...from some previous scientists/stuff-up

QUOTE..<<..An aerobic,..nocardioform actinomycete,/named LM 161T,..was isolated from a/soil sample/..obtained from a gold-mine in Kongiu,..Republic of Korea.

This organism formed well-differentiated aerial and substrate mycelia/and/produced branched hyphae/that fragmented into short or elongated rods....edited

...The phylogenetic position/of the test strain..was investigated using/an almost complete 16S rDNA sequence.

The isolate formed the deepest/branch in the clade encompassing..the members of the suborder/Propionibacterineae Rainey.../On the basis of chemical,phenotypic..and genealogical data,/

it is proposed that this/..isolate be classified/>>>RE_CLASIFIED..

<<<within a...new genus..as Hongia koreensis gen.nov.,sp.nov...in the order/Actinomycetales.

The type strain is LM 161T(¯IMSNU 50530T)>>...EDITED

<<Recently,/the phylogenetic relationship/between members of the family Nocardioidaceae/and related taxa..was re-evaluated on the basis of 16S/rDNA sequence...comparisons(Yoon et/al.,1998).

In addition, the following ll-DAP-containing actinomycetegenera,/which belong to other phylogenetic
lineages (Stackebrandt et al., 1997),have been/described:

The members of the suborder/Propionibacterineae..are readily differentiated from/each other/>>NOW>><<<and from the other ll-DAP-containing/genera/mentioned above..by a combination of morphological,physiological/and chemotaxonomic/properties

During the taxonomic study/of soil actinomycetes/..from natural environments,..strain LM 161T (T¯type-strain)/was isolated from a gold-mine cave in Kongju,Republic of Korea.

Strain LM 161T contained ll-DAP/as the diagnostic diamino acid in the peptidoglycan,and the substrate-/and aerial mycelia showed/a tendency to fragment.

In this work,/we have determined..the taxonomic and phylogenetic position of..the isolate..by examining its morphological,physiological/and chemotaxonomic properties and by analysing..its 16S rDNA.

Our results indicate that the/..isolate should be placed in a new species...>>>LOL..GET IT SPECIES...lol,..not genus/..genious

<<..of a novel/genus,..for which the name Hongia koreensis is/proposed...Strain LM 161T..>>ie....RE-CLASIFICATION>..NOT EVOLUTION

ALSO...please present...FAULSIFYABLES
BAD LUCK..SUN-SHINE...

nice try...lol

OUG,

That is what I said they classified the genus as “new”.

All,

The idea of the experimenter being part of the experiment means that Jane would not normally be present in the wild. She is an extraneous variable in the environment, herself, that is, the locus of the study. It does not mean that apes might her or smell her. The “natural” experimental situation, under study, would not normally include the presence of a primatologist. This happens at a “macro” level and is something very different to observation in QM.

Notwithstanding the above, observation in science requires detachment. Detachment requires a syntactical device similar to subject and predicate. With regards religion the practitioner can be en-circled and dwell within a performance (Polanyi) and loose that sense of detachment.

I guess if one tries to have it both ways, we have left with (theoretical) contamination.

OUG,

p.s. The first specimen within a new genus will be a new species.

OHliver..

*PROPOSED..neo/new genus...

its is..a re-clasification..of a previously recorded/species...
NOW REALISED..to be/in the...wrong genus

its sad/you find...the delusion...of missclasifying/a genus...as some sort of'evidence'...

*please...PRESENT YOUR..FAULSIFYABLES...!

the/reclasification...dont validate/
species...EVOLVING...out-of..their genus../which..has not_EVER_been recorded..nor/observed..nor/replicte-able..even/if..it had..

and/..it aint..

ANYONE/..CAN POST/LINKS
here are some..other/media/deceptions...

as bad/worse..than...the delusion..of genus/evolving

here..are some links/..as to/..the why/how/who..of the decption..

as our/YOUR..credit slowly/dries-up..its worth/seeing..just who/..is still..able to get it/..and who isnt

noting..bankers/..have paid for/..every war...for centuries
they financed;..the natzies...for egsample/..many of which's..firms/multi-nationals/duel-passport...holders

...are still going/today..credit/rich...lol..as usual

from..alex James:..THIRTY-TWO STATES NOW BANKRUPT:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/3a1a1e40eb19654f
___________________________

Zionism = Nazism:..Is there a difference/that makes a difference?,..by
Roger Tucker part
II of 'Us vs...Them:..On the Meaning of Fascism'

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/79782034e2c1b824
______________________________

Why the Zionist JEWS/are your worst enemy..by Randulf :

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/b43ddb7805d1ff63
_______________________________

Videos:..Gang of Jewish Rabbis..arrested for selling body parts..using
Politics and..Religious Fairy Tales..to cover up/their crimes:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/8d97a25c9011aace
______________________________

JEWISH lady..in charrge of MMS/..which gave BP the go ahead/resigns...(really fired):

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/99781387d6166af0
________________________________
Gordon Duff:..Was America the Golden Goose..that Zionists wanted to
fleece..just like they/fleeced Germany?

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/eb1de1c6d62c6250
_________________________________
CBS 60 MIN...TRUE STORY OF BILDERBERG GROUP:..How governments and their/intelligence agencies..working with international drug dealers and/hired terrorists for/mutual benefit and profit:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/81423651bdc25b40
___________________________________
10 Shocking Things..To Know About the BP Oil Spill:..Goldman short
Transocean..and this/owner of the exploded oil rig/has made $270 million off the leak,..BP..plans/to profit..from disasters,etc:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thrad/c4cf604307f9ea60
_________________________________

Gaza humanitarian flotilla/versus Zionist Israel's..evil navy?:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/45ade962fb5cb833
________________________________
The Former Director Of B'nai Brith Quebec,/Bill Surkis Pleads Guilty
To Child Porn Charges:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/08eae9a3f7b74c82
______________________________
Christopher Bollyn:.."Michel Friedman/and the Jewish Zionist
Crimocracy":

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/cd428c6129464b6f
_______________________________

Video:..Zionists genocide 100,000../Sephardic Jewish kids:..How will
Zionist give..justice to Arabs..if they don't even give Sephardi Jews justice:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/85e4030068c4674b
_______________________________
former ITN & BBC Middle East Correspondant/Alan Hart Exposes Zionist
evil:

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/55
74aa9e589fce77

the mess-iah..once said...
by their works shall you know them

he hated the money/changers...who financed the natzies
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2010-prisonplanet-com-master-page.html

ursury especially...isiah curses media/especially...well know we the decieving media/run by the conrad/blacks..murdoch...etc

OUG,

I wont even open those anti-semitic links.

you give me so little to work/with...oliver

it was inspired by your last...throwaway comment...QUOTE...<<i guess if one tries to have it both ways,..we have left with (theoretical) contamination.>>.it got me thinking about the other deceptions

anyhow as you got no...faulsifyables
i guess the topic is ended

life goes on...wonder where the builder/bergers...former bolchovic/natzies...have got in store for us next...

its likely just more of the same/grand deceptions...of those thinking themselves the master/s...over all races..no doudt the media...shall spin their spin for them in no time

its a shame..you wont look at...'my'..links
i looked at yours...

but then again..i seek to know
not sure what you seek..

anyhow..hope you find it/
whatever...it...is

hope it has science/method..not scien..tist/k/..tisk/tisk

anyhow got some other science...to absorb...
there's..certainly none here

at least read the titles
see there are those...with/adjenda's

science...is about seeking answer..
by knowing the right question to ask
then seeking to find...certain..faulsifyables...

that if proven..erant,,,cancel out the theory...

im only too pleased to hear the 'real/truth'...
wherever the chips fall...god loves...us..one..and all
[god being the one/only]...

its lonely..but to whom/..much..is given..
much is expected...

i wasnt given/much..
so have little more left..to give

cheers eh

The theory of evolution itself doesn't fit into the scientific verification rules clearly outlined in the article.
The Christian school I am involved with as a parent teaches creation from the point of view of what is taught in the Bible; the school also teaches the current theory of evolution in a scientifically correct approach ie that evolution is a theory which is understood by faith alone amongst those who do not believe the Bible (Genesis 1 - 3). These kids can understand what it is that people who don't believe the Bible actually do believe, and I think they are getting a much rounder education than their peers in the secular system who are taught that evolution is not a theory, which is not true.
I don't see one set of truths cancelling out the other - as one evangleical apologist pointed out: how can truth disprove truth?

Dear TAC,

You misuse the word, truth. The Bible is not truth but religious belief. It is no more a book of truth than the Koran, Tripitaka or other scripture. It is a book of legends some of which may have a factual basis. Some of the biblical legends such as the first chapters of Genesis and the Book of Esther have not been demonstrated to be other than pure legend.

Unfortunately, by some truth is regarded as equivalent to religious belief. Believing that gods were on Mount Olympus did not make the presence of gods on Mount Olympus fact. Believing in the bible god does not make that god fact either.

david has doudts as to what is true...and what truth...'may'..be

TAC..<<I don't see/one set of truths..cancelling out the other>>


david says<<Dear TAC,You misuse the word,/truth.>>

TAC..says<<..as one evangleical apologist/pointed out:.."how can truth disprove truth""?>>>while i can hardly agree with the statement...clearly...tac didnt say it

david says<<The Bible is not truth/but religious belief.>>>thats casting rather a loose/noose...please point out where the two bookd[bi-=2../ble=books]..where both books are untrue

in affect your calling the writers...witnessing/recording the christs deeds/works/words/the last testimant..liers?

your calling the various..messengers/proffits..translators...liers?

cant you see that these/men...of honour...both in their time...and these more recent tiimes..LIEREs...at least see what the true/import of your words implies

the bible/records..that they believed true...in lue of proof..of them lying...throeing a broad-brush..upon all the religious texts..mate thats provocative...that NEEDS EVIDENSE

you state clearly...your opinion...lol...that<<<'It is no more a book of truth than the Koran,/Tripitaka or other scripture.>>>thus please supply your evidence

you claim<<It is a book of legends>>>but then after selectivly/returning to the 2 books....lol...state<<<some of which may have a factual basis>>.refuting your own words

it seems the words in the koran...must have some semblance of truth,,,for in it it is written...[god confuses who he will'...]

your striking out blindly...[beloved/micheal]..letting hate/fear/bias...absolutism/pride...come before common sense...as well as common courtesy

you make bold/generalisations..that demand proof
i would ask you to present your evidence

AS WELL AS PRESENT YA FAULSIFYABLES
but its clear you dont got none
ya only got opinion

its not bad enough..you reject the all living/all loving..good/god
you also reject as being true...those messengers god favoured

i feel so sad...my beloved
that one normally...so precice
should speak..into word...so mindless a recording into word

TAC,

I would suspect that most Christian schools would teach Genesis on the basis that it is a story and concentrate on its purpose to explain the special relationship between a god and its creation. Maybe not to much information on allegory would porvided to the young. What would be important with Evolution is to explain the process and assumptions and the conclusions that are tentatively held, yet, strongly validated and reliable.

I agree wih david f that the Bible is an important book on many fronts: e.g., literary and antropological value. It is a dyndamic works. Take the story Noah in the OT: In the first century of the current era, the story was re-written with a greater emphasis on the Jewish calendar (and harmonising with Roman calendar) and lesser mention of the animals. This account didn't make into the Nicaean collection works.

Science and religion treat doubt differently. Scientists recalibrate their thinking in the presence doubt, while doubting in the face of contrary evidenc is a "test of faith" for the theist.

What a Messiah meant before the Roman-Jewish Wars was different to the situation which evolved (ahem) afterwards. Contrast this Darwin, we certainly he didn't point his finger on everything, but the basic tenets stand up very well.

Dear OUG,

You have referred to me and addressed me in your post. I am sorry, but I don't feel any reasonable discussion with you is possible.

Best wishes,

OUG,

What I was saying if one tries to hold a detatched view of the researcher in an experiment while feeling that the expereimenter can't be fully detached, the presence of the experimenter, in theory or diminiutive practice, the subject/locus does no reflect a fully detatched environment and is therefore contaminated.

I was suprised by the links you presented and hope that you are drawn into them. What has happened to the Jews (and the Poles)in history is terrible.

OUG,

I was suprised by the links you presented and hope that you are "NOT", repeat, "NOT" drawn into them. What has happened to the Jews (and the Poles)in history is terrible.

All,

Please a excuse my tendency to leave words out as my typing and thinking are not well co-ordinated. Also, I am usually, toggling between OLO and something else I am working on

One Under God,
As much as I have difficulty following the flow of where you are going, I do agree with the one point that you keep repeating, that is, where are the falsifiables? The evolutionists on this thread claim that their view is reasonable in the sense of being falsifiable, but they haven’t come up with anything yet.

TAC,
I liked your post, until I got to your last line. It seems you are suggesting that conflicting truths can exist next to each other. This is like compartmentalising truth, a bit like a left brain / right brain set up. A lot of people are happy to live with conflicting truths. But it’s not ultimately satisfactory. What’s true is true. (Although you’re probably about to find out that David has a fairly rubbery concept of truth.)

-

David,
We’ve already followed that line of discussion above with regards to Von Braun. So we are at risk of repeating ourselves. I raised the name of Von Braun in response to someone else who spoke of space exploration. You say Von Braun’s expertise in rocket science has nothing to do with evolution. I say, Von Braun aside, there are other creationists involved in all areas and at all levels of science who do not agree with you that the evidence points in favour of evolution.

In reality, ideas relevant to evolution, which touch on the nature and origin of the universe, will affect just about every area of inquiry when one tries to establish an overview or big picture of things. You’ve raised the area of astronomy. I’d have a guess and say that the world’s leading rocket scientist, the one responsible for putting people on the moon, might have known a few things about astronomy.

You ask me to cite what I said about the Vatican. If I thought it important, I might try and find out more about it. It was just something I heard from a Catholic friend who’d been there. But it makes sense. Creation ex nihilo is a pretty explicit teaching coming from the Scriptures that the Catholic Church considers as authoritative. You’d think there might be some there who might be just a little interested.

Yet you ask me for a citation without making any effort to support your own assertion. How do support your statement that creationists cannot be competent astronomers? As I said above, creationists are found in all areas of science.

But Dan, we had already sorted out the falsifiability issue...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#120923

I hope that the above link will help jog you memory as to the falsifiability of evolution. After all, you're certainly not one to repeat discredited arguments, are you.

dan/quote..to tac<<..It seems you/are suggesting that conflicting truths..can exist next to each other.>>...my thoughts..are that they...must...if were ever going to go beyond..where we are

you and i agree/that faulsifyables...havnt been presented..but no doudt there are many areas..where our beliefs...thus that we BELIEVE/true..diverge

take/religion...all believe/basicly..on the one/good...god[of grace/mercy]..yet came to this/truth...via diveregent messengers..via divergent belief/systems...

[as jesus said....mine fathers house has many/rooms...that jesus church/[room/..in our fathers house..now has many rooms...is beyond dispute...

yet each room/knows a truth...in common...
that our fathers/house..[of many rooms]..has grace/mercy/love/light

it dosnt matter..if some..of the christs/church...think jesus/the son,..,to be the father...now...only that he sought us to live/our love/grace/mercy...now...[that ye se me do ye shall/do greater]

jesus..of course/was only doing that he saw our father/do

<<This is like compartmentalising truth,>>.thus our fathers/house...has many rooms..god dont judge...despite him knowing he is the only/truth

<<a bit like a left brain/right brain set up.>>>egsactly...a bit like heaven/hell...WE each/hold partial truths...we EACH..have eternity..to refine them....there is none...totally/wrong...there is none/TOTALLY RIGHT...but one[good/god]

we get close to god...when we dont judge others...[inevitable...by judging others...we MUST..judge ourselves..by the same measure

<<..A lot of people/..>>MOST...if not all..<<..are happy to live with conflicting truths.>>...because we are in our fathers image/look at you/look at me...and see our fathers image/ways/means..strengths/weakness...loves...

but all the time/see me/..see my father...
[see we...see me.....
ME/WE..

invert the all...
SEE the one

<<But it’s not ultimately satisfactory.>>
but such is the way...the only
revealed himself..to his others

<<What’s true is true.>>>
and the one../CERTAIN-TRUTH
certainly/true...is him..

the one/the father/the love.creator...
as reflected/true...via his creation

we are...because i am....is

by his signs may we know him
life/love/light/logic

Dan,

The laws of physics would have chirality of complex molecules to be 50:50. Life (DNA) is always right-handed. From the first living thing to the last, this is case. There has never been left-handed DNA. The discovery of the latter would confound the premise of a common ancestor. Were parents to birth to a child, where the chirality of the DNA spontaneously reversed, that would falsify one significant pillar of the modern understanding of the genetics of life.

Dear Dan,

When you back up your assertion on creationist Catholic astronomers by citing scripture you are trying to make Catholics Protestant fundamentalists. Catholics realise that scripture is not to be taken literally. They accept some miracles such as the virgin birth, but they do not in general take scripture literally.

I do not accept that any miracles ever happened. You apparently do. Now miracles have been subjected to analysis by the Catholic Church in the saint-making process they become limited to unexplained cancer remissions.

I don't believe I have insulted you in any way. I think your beliefs are rubbish, but I do not attack you personally.

It is insulting me to say I have 'a rubbery concept of truth'. I object to calling religious belief truth because no matter how sincerely you believe something it does not make it true. It is especially insulting to be accused of having 'a rubbery concept of truth' by a person who accepts ancient legends as truth.

I see no point in further discourse.

aj...seems confused...he declares...faulsifyables...have been presented...gives a specific link...

from the link...i would point out/..two contradictions

aj/quote..<<There are many/other ways to falsify evolution,>>>lol..do/tel?..rebut that one later

but contrast it..to this..[indicating...he is confused.re faulsifyables

...<<Either way,/..your claim is absurd/..considering Creationists claim..that evolution/has been falsified.>>>

clearly...us creationists/here...
are requesting fAUKLS-IFyables...BE PRESENTED...

as THEY are the TEST...of a science...in that when/they are rebutted...the theory/falls

but lets look at aj's...falsifyables..<<.. such as:..Finding fossils of more complex..and more recent..lifeforms/..buried deeper..than the primitive lifeforms;>>>

aj/score that one..for creationists

mate/stop shooting ya-self in the foot...
BUT LETS CLARIFY...is that..your faulsify-able...or ours?

WHY NOT REPRESENT>>>YOURS
you do know...what/a faulsifyable is...DONT YOU?

its...SCIENCES..PROOF>..OF THEORY..
that..IF REBUTTED/refutes..ya theory

but lets look at more....of yours?

fossils...come..in many shapes..and sizes...
its like picking up rocks...sorting them by size/colour...and claiming the little red ones...evolved..the huge blue/blood/ones...lol

<<Finding true chimeras,..such as mermaids and centaurs..>>lol...THIS IS YOUR EVI-DENSE?

<<Discovering/a mechanism..that would prevent mutations from accumulating;>>>>mate..first find one...lol..that does....lol

-<<..Observations of organisms/being created.>>meaning if you watch some seed sprout...it will reveal..its evolution...?..please validate/or confirm...how

mate/please present...some science...
EVIdense...that does any..of the abouve
THAT YOU CALL PROOF?

mate do us all a favour...
PRESENT YOUR FAULSIFYABLES

here

in your own words..
then SOME REAL SCIENCE evidence
not just reactive words/..spurilous/claims...
of having allready/..lol..done so....science/claims..repeatability

please repeat/replicate...
your faulsifyables...HERE/NOW

i would hate to quote you/..out of context..!

so cut..that you feel...is proof....
from ya link...

then...present that...again..
here....now

oliver...quote..<<..The laws of physics/..would have chirality of complex molecules..to be 50:50.>>...

ok there you go...chance would have/evolution..spin bothways

yet all dna/..spirals to the right...lol
indicating god used his left hand...in so many ways...your refuting chance

but then you go/and spoil it all...with an out and out lie..

QUOTE..<<..Life (DNA)>>>see my bro...dna...isnt life...!...!
its 4 chemicals...that CAN ONLY BIND...with half of each other...

NEVER the other/..allways..in a right hand spira..[yet man...HAS...made/left-spiral...fat..that dont make you fat...lol]

[surely...in this/al-one..there is evidence/sign..of intelligence...if not..an/...THE..intelli-GENT/de-sign/..ER

as you said....<<DNA..is always right-handed.>>...meaning the same/..left...hand...[og/god]..intelligently...de-SIGN-ed...it/us..to so be

lol...you reveal gods-hand...
and still fail to see the SIGN...in de-sign-ER

<<From the first/living thing..to the last,..this is case.>>>>AHHH-men

<<There..has never been..left-handed DNA.>>yet the laws of chance/and physics...would demand.../by chance..it so be

<<The discovery of the latter/would confound the premise of a common ancestor.>>ahh/man...BUT NOT THE left/HAND...of god/.."ER"....doing it all....by design....lol

<<..Were parents/to birth to a child,..where the chirality of the DNA spontaneously reversed,>>as impossable...as an ape/breeding abouve its station...

or a virus...being self/sustaining...its/own..life

why are you/so wise...
yet cant see that//obviousness..before your eyes?

what holds you from seeing...the bleeding/obvious...
virus needs...life...to sustain..it-self

all dna...spirals to the right...
yet the laws of physical/CHANCE...indicate...the left hand spirul..is equally/possable..YET..AINT...[naturally]

under the/law's of physica...and random selection...thus the designer...is left-handed..[right/brain]..

what stops you..from seeing the good..of god?

<<<that would falsify/..one significant...lol..pillar of the modern understanding..of the genetics...<<EVOLUTION>>>LOL,,<<..of life>>>

yes your/certainly correct...
and thus/dash/for-ever...lol..,chance...lol

lets give/back..to the/intelligent/designer...
naturally/using..HIS...nature..[and left-hand...to do/
..guide..the natural/selection...of us all..lol

WHICH..he does..OH..SO...naturally...
by his...nature,

,..EMMANUEL...god within

OUG,

The point is that the handedness od DNA indicates a common ancestor. Go back and re-read what I posted. Had humans (we don't) had a different handedness than the rest of nature, now that would a curious, but we don't.

i know what your saying...perhaps more than you do oliver

thing is....artists...are known/by their teqnique...you have your style/favoured form of writing...and so do i...

you...might/just see...how others could/sumise...if you wrote...something...or if i did,..,simply by our unique/teqnique

you see righthanded dna/spiral...as confirming..that we decended..from one cellular/life form..[in itself rebutted]...as per the tree of life...

that found..it didnt work/couldnt work///like evolution propound's...ie...when the dna/..they needed to evolve...didnt...lol..like evolution needs

as supplied..by dans link...[its sad..you didnt read that/then...you wouldnt look so wise/yet foolish now]...but its not too late...scroll/back a bit and read...the extracts...i quoted from it

try reading the whole/thing...its only a few thousand pages

because it was news to me...i thought i would check your claim...and learned more...so will share it with you

...<<..The alpha helix/in biology..as well as the A and B forms of DNA..are also right-handed helices. ...*Z form of DNA is left-handed>..

so again...there are some expectations/..overstatements rebutted

more..<<..5 Lira Turkish/banknote has a lovely left handed DNA on it!>>seems lefthand dna has its own...hall of fame
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov%2F~toms%2FLeftHanded.DNA.html&ei=eDwPTJ6YJ4fBcfKnhewM&usg=AFQjCNE0aPoiQhFNSRZqKff7Yqx4d1hQlA&sig2=TIZLUXGaOdZpF-ysXCCMxg

this looks interesting aswell
<<The left-handed &#945;&#946; spiral-DNA model provides the structural explanation of the ...>>.well you get the idea...you are in error/yet again

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2F104%2F11%2F4309.full&ei=eDwPTJ6YJ4fBcfKnhewM&usg=AFQjCNEi2xOD2JVxeBB5bU7od1DE1qjF-w&sig2=nxiTRib0OSgkkuGSR2CY5A

mankind/has made a few stuff-ups as well..<<For examples of left handed helices that were printed by mistake, ... The DNA is double stranded. One strand spirals one way and the other ...

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CD8QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newton.dep.anl.gov%2Faskasci%2Fmole00%2Fmole00556.htm&ei=eDwPTJ6YJ4fBcfKnhewM&usg=AFQjCNHb4F3wvuuiq0xh6jMhxjrECZiyig&sig2=iSW6Wasig0IV6T8jw2VTdA

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEQQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceagogo.com%2Fnews%2F20060113011006data_trunc_sys.shtml&ei=eDwPTJ6YJ4fBcfKnhewM&usg=AFQjCNGuXtAOKhNM0yUbYG9gnLMUcuAzeg&sig2=_-XyVIYcTNHigW1Coe0eAA

SO I GUESS>>...its good that I DO MY OWN RESEARCH
cause...you cant trust abnything...evolutionists say

PRESENT SOME FAULSifyables...
no faulsifyable....NO EVOLUTION

get it?

OUG,

There is nothing in nature stopping the creation of left-handed DNA.

This point is essentially commonly occuring DNA is right-handed, suggesting a common source. I was unaware of the Z-DNA. Interesting cites not mentioned in the genetics books I have read. Thanks.

What I would not expect is would be a swap in handedness between generations of given genelogical line: That would take some explaining.

Dear David,

Catholics do believe in the Scriptures. Nobody takes all the Scriptures ‘literally’ (so that statement is just a red herring). The Catholics, like all other Christians, try to interpret them faithfully, intelligently, and in a scholarly manner.

I am sorry that you felt insulted by my comment. I wasn’t meaning to offend by saying you had a rubbery view of truth. By this, I wasn’t trying to imply anything sinister, only that your view is a bit nebulous or underdeveloped.

For instance, you say that truth is not found in religious belief. You’ve said before that scientists are not seeking truth. So you’ve said where you can’t find it, but where can you find it? Does truth even exist for you?

I’ll admit that words like ‘truth’ or ‘science’ are not always easy to define or grab firmly. But you have not convinced me that you have much of a handle on it.

For my part, to try and define ‘science’: science is as science does. It is a bit like ‘democracy’ or ‘justice’, in that it is hard to find a one-size-fits-all definition, rather it is the compilation of its many examples.

Within science circles, evolution is the current majority accepted view, but that’s about all.

You say that it is ‘accepted’ that the sun came into being before the earth. Now, by your own words, believing in something doesn’t make it true. Does having a majority of people accept something make it true?

Oliver,
From what I understand you’re saying, all sugars in DNA, in all types of life, are chemically ‘right-handed’, so to speak. However, all such chemical structures or polymers are naturally found to occur in a manner both left-handed and right-handed with a 50-50 ratio.

You claim this as evidence for a common ancestor. I think this could just as easily be evidence for a common creator. Is it not expected that if all life had originated from a common creator, designed to live on the same planet, then they would show many indicators of commonality in design?

However, I think you have a far greater problem. If you say that such chemical structures occur naturally in a manner both left-handed and right-handed with a 50-50 ratio, and evolution is a natural process, then how could these purely right-handed DNA come about in the first place? Who separated out the left-handed and right-handed DNA?

So what was going on there in that primordial soup? Normally one would think that it would produce the 50/50 mixture, not the pure one-handed forms needed for life

first..note that no faulsifyables have been presented/thus evolution is not scientific...in having no faulsifyables..cannot claim to be a science...

further that many/claiming faith in evolution[of genus]..dont understand..the concept[of faulsifyables]...nor the science..thus have belief/faith...not science

evolution therefore is no more than an idea/
a system of belief...a theory...
that decieves...the creation..away from creator

that being said...i would like to return to the observer/changing that observed...it must be noted..that god observes us....

[indeed by virtue..of sustaining each of us life...nessesarilly..is an observer...who simply by his act of observances...changes that he observes

[from inanimate...animate is converted...or to keep it simple...dust is made to live..this is what gods observances have achieved

which is what many messengers[such as swedenberg]..have said all alone who would have thunk it...YE shall call him emmanuel...lol...god within us all

realise god is watching/us...
not from a distance..but from within our inner being

in giving us life..he has made change...is ever changing..yet allways will be/as he allways was[the living/loving grace/mercy/the light/the logic...if it dont make sense...if it dont love...if it isnt most mercyfull..if it isnt living...its not of god

noting even the dust..is active...atoms/with elect-rons..neutrons...etc...

oh how ignorant...blind we can chooose to be
but such is as we are..thus how god can also be..[of course we can strive to overcome our ignorances...and other viles

but just think what could occure...if we convince god,,,he dont egsist
why the universe will simply collapse in within itself...till in time with a big bang...god/emanuel/within..begins the whole thing all over AGAIN

anyhow...there is no evidences either way
some claim their faith in love/good/grace/mercy...
seeking the light

others claim their faith in the darkness/the dust/man/flesh
but it is written...one cannot serve two masters

[one has logus/logic...life/love...natu-real/nurture
the other little white deceptions...under the veil of science...

its easy to claim disbelief...
but remember..some-one is watching/
loving you...all the same...

love provides its own faulsiyable/failsafe
[where loves isnt..there is hate]..[lies/deception/fear/blame/shame]

if you see hate[etc]...
the lover/..cause of causes..is not there...
as affect/yet remains the nature/nurture..of the cause...

thats not quite correct/
but only god is perfect

Dan,

Perhaps we can compromise on a common (organic)creation. What it does not suggest is that species appear at regular intervals with the handedness odds being like flipping a coin. Instead, the DNA handedness trait is being inherited.

I haven't had opportunity to have a close look at Z-DNA (OUG) but it seems that it is a transient torsal structure which is not the stable Watson & Crick DNA structure.

I have come across the handedness matter more than once. Probably, the best known genetist to cite the case is Spencer Wells, the guy who is working the National Geographic Society to use DNA trace human migration patterns over thousands of years. Paul Davies, though outside his field, as mentions it too.

.

DID YOU SAY TRUTH ?

.

Off the cuff, I would say that truth is information that has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission.

Or, should I say it is whatever version of reality a particular individual is capable of transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.

It is a concept that has no existence beyond humanity.

That, of course, does not discourage many Abrahamists from claiming that tuth and the large idol are one and the same, which, I suppose, is one way of saying we are basically all quite rubbery really.

.

Banjo,

Reality can be elusive. Karl Popper used the example of looking at an object through a microscope at various/different magnification is any visualisation more real than any other? We are really seeing only part of the elephant at any one time.

oliver...quote..<<Perhaps/we can compromise..on a common..(organic)creation.>>...them is big sounding words

organic creation...lol...
now there is a biased compromise...lol

for those confused/with big words...

organic=of the flesh...thus what oliver...'proposes'...is a victory...for accidental/evolutionary/chance creation...ie..the 'compromise''..excludes logus.../logic..ie..[not a devine/creator]

not..a natural/designer...using logic...that spoke all living into being...

great words...oliver..lol..poor compromise though

<<What it does not suggest is/that species appear at regular intervals>>.there should be a joinder...but lets go with the clear error...in your last line

the SCIENCE of genetics...rebuts you...IN that species...fluctuate...between their genus/mean

not to mention/your fellow/genus evolutionists...who claim...species mutation...[small mutations=huge mutations..into new genus

thus both sides...should reject the biased compromise/but i love the clever use of words...and the joinders you so intelectually joined together[you should work for some politition...talk about gloss/spin

but you compound the two previous errors..with this..<<with the handedness odds being like flipping a coin.>>>when handedness is in fact a standard...[not...'like'/flipping a coin at all

but i might have you wrong/on the last point...but its hard to read/think...im laughing so hard..

<<Instead, the DNA handedness trait is being inherited.>>clearly...its a standard...any/not being..'right'...naturally fail...via survival/..of the fit-test...its inheritable...for sure/cause anthing not dies

<<Z-DNA/it seems that it/is a transient torsal structure..which is not..the stable Watson & Crick DNA/structure>>>

ok im no expert either...but my reading of it/was...its the active state..of dna..[when it uncoils..to/create rna...that creates ensimes/for egsample.

..<<..use's/DNA/to trace human migration patterns...over thousands of years...Paul Davies,>>>again im not sure/either...but in evolutionary terms...a few thousand years..is the wrong/scale..for evolution of genus

im recalling the last..topic/..you...i think it was/raised paddymelon's....10 million years...linked/with parental/dna....

my point being/..humans are less than a million years/old...[80.000 years...or maybe 100,000...according to true science...

but our diversity/dna wise...is over 5000 mutations..but its reassuring to know we share/..50 percent of our dna with a bannana

im still getting over/how a circular dna/ie bacteria...flattend out into spiral...[lol...evolved...out of spiral/bacteria...into what?..

yet in spiral..the dna concept for bacteria...simply speaking..becomes troublsome

no doudt/some expert..will explain it all...sometime

though outside his field, as mentions it too.

OUG,

My reply to Dan was on the basis that, if I recall correctly, he believes his God works through science and the Earth is much older than 10,000 years. Herein, I was saying ID or non-ID, stable handedness in DNA indicates a common ancestor. If there had been multiple creation points, there should be left-handed and right-handed stable DNA. The absence of handedness in stable DNA ,suggests any hypothetical Creator is not inteferring with a process started once a long time ago or that there was a single biological happening, by chance or by the innate self-organising properties of the universe.

.

OH YOU SAID REALITY ?

.

I guess that's what hits you when you cross a busy road without paying attention.

Otherwise it's a purely abstract concept.

.

oliver...lets skip the science...lets go with logic
[but first..a little...science...]

there is a theory/known...as..cognitave/dissonance[tcd]...which holds..that the mind..INVOLENTARILLY/rejects information...NOT IN LINE..with previousthoughts..or actions...[you cant teach an old dog/new tricks

thats why they..get/us...young
im hoping to use logic...in lue of/that you claim to know

see this/first life....you claim/we decended from..[yet science cant identify/or name..nor replicate..or find]...so we MAY have say some virus

lets ignore...that a virus...needs a host cell to replicate...that the twenty elements/life needs..is in this primordial soup..allready working..[its crazey..i know..but lets say it is so]

so this thing[unamed thing]...breeds...and replicates thousands of others/millions...no quadruillions...[yet in pure math...just one mutates...up the tree....up the evolutionary/ladder

so we have uncountable...of alpha's...and one beta...the opther a's...simply keep on breeding...and by some fluke..so too the beta

thus we have 2 beta's...then 4..then 8...and in much time...many/BUT NOT AS MANY...as the alphas..who had millions of years head start

now see that the apha's/beta's...have circular/dna..breed infinite ammounts..but allways proportunate..to their PRE-egsisting numbers

then one day a spiral dna..mutates.../then from that single/cellular..multi-cellular,..then that multi..into other life forms..into cold blood fish...into warmblood mamals...eventually into some cow like creature....mammel...that evolves into some wolf like crweature..that devolves into a whale

mate its insane...cant you get past that you think you know>?

LOOK oliver...i got that tcd...thing as well/i knew more about genetics../mendelic inheritance/physiological morphism...even the chemistry..involved in creating scimera's[ok i forget most of it now...but mate..

if you learned more...you would see the NUMBERS ..just dont add up

for every new mutation/created..
there MUST be trillions of non mutated...

even with some advantage...any change must stil be within the genus..or we dont get fertilised off spring...it al defies logic..yet here we are

ok YOU CLAIM>>YOU KNOW HOW
reveal..your SCIENCE

anyhow....YOU WRITE>>HOW IT HAPPEND
NAME NAMES...describe/replicate...

REVEAL YOUR FAULSIFYABLES
in time you se it wernt by chance
thats when you know/validate..the theory..of tcd

Oliver,
Definitely, handedness is an inherited trait. I think everyone agrees.

So now, you’re saying that life happened ‘by chance or by the innate self-organising properties of the universe.’

Well, I’ve had evolutionists on these pages swear black and blue to me that evolution is not a chance process. So, it must fall under the latter, the “innate self-organising properties of matter.”

So within that process that started once a long time ago, what are these innate self-organising properties of matter that separated the handedness of DNA into only right-handed molecules? You’ve already said that there aren’t any, in that these molecules naturally occur in a 50/50 ratio of left-handed and right-handed. Is there not a contradiction?

its clear/there..are..*no faulsifyables...able to be/presented

thus people/give links....to past glories...linking to victories...they claim...via points..that have/no science=validity

its sad..that so many/..are decieved..
but such is..the nature of/..the lie

those..who know../that evolution of species..OUT_OF THEIR_GENUS ..is factually..not_based/..in fact...are required to shut-up...

mainly because..there are so many/..ignorant/of science...as to not even comprehend...that being revealed

but/such is the fact...the godless..will allways/..seek for excuse..to keep doing their wrongs...its sad/but its fact...

luckey..god is mercyfull...

but..if you look/at/..the totality...of our being...our knowing...as being...equal..to neurons...in THE/..one gods/brain..

it becomes clear..the athiest/lie...is like-as...a cancer...in time..there is but one/little true/left...

the rest/is based on a lie/to wit a cancer

in time/..the sheer masS of a tumour...kills its host
such is the reality...that as like/..we kill off nature/nurture/..host

in like way/..we are killing off/..the natural/god/good..sustaining it...and us..our every living/loving breaths...

it can be thought..that if enough believe/..the lie
the lie/cancer..will become the reality

thus the logus..is killed..via its own defective logic/
the cancer..that shall shortly...destroy us all...

feel free to believe as you chose...soon the good of god/dies

then the big bang...reverses..into the big crunch...
yet again...till god lifts the stasis/darkness/deep..yet again..

revealing he is/..the only true...
the natural..behind nature..

till in time...the cancer kills off/not only the nature...but the natural...nurture..sustaining it...to life....'lol...LIE-fe

live/veil/evil...vile...liefe/love..lie-if

i should resent the cancer..but i cant...i can only resent the ignorance/mindlessness..that makes it spead...so fast

[time moves/..really fast...at the beginning...and the end...
[thats why millions of years..may seem like a day

but my own cancer is/gnawing in my gut/..i will leave you all to figure out the rest...but dont blame yourself...

we could only do our best...for each is given...no more/than they can bear/bare

to some...given much..to some little...but to each/gifted/so much

anyhow cheers..eh

sorry/about demanding..the impossable

*..i know/knew..you got no faulsifyable/*fact...for certain/
thus i know god..is the only certainty...left/right

but/not based on fact..[rather/in the lack of alternatives..to the self_obvious_fact...we are...here...intelligent...living

knowing like..comes only from..like/

..life from life..logic<from the logical..cancer</ignorance<from the illogical...but there is reason...under the logic...god

sometimes..its more important..to know the reason..than the logic underpinning it....the reason is clear...gods reason...not ours

bye

Dear Dan,

The single handedness suggests that the event occurred only once and was replicated over and over again. The initial state was copied.

I don't think self-organisation and chance necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course, 747 can't self assemble in the life of the universe, however, a million-to-one shot might occur, if the conditions are suitably primed (a galaxy has formed, there is a solar system, there are the right gases...).

Dear OUG,

Will come back.

Dear Oliver et al,

Stevenlmeyer started this thread with questioning why one should take any scripture seriously. That is a good question. However, it shortly disappeared with fundies taking over and questioning an aspect of science, namely evolution, which seems to be questioned only because it does not conform to scripture. The original question has disappeared but is still valid.

Why should we take scripture seriously as science, morality or history? Its morality accepts slavery and polygamy. It plays a distorted lens on history with some of the books such as Esther having no verification at all, and its science is non-existent.

oh dear david/i reacted to the content..of the post...Religion and science:..respecting the differences

then steven comes in with his adgenda....NOTING...steven...didnt set the topic...only managed to polute it..with his/loaded biased adgenda

<<<..questioning why one should take any scripture seriously.>>as you put it

further you feed his bias with<<<..That is a good question.>>.we can agree to disagree...but one thing must be clear...

*he didnt/respect the topic...or the content...
SET BY<<By Michael Zimmerman,>>.

to wit..<<The teachings/of most mainstream religions/are consistent with evolution.>>

SO LETS GET BACK TO THE FIRST REASONing..,
not the first replie

i can agree...<<However,..it shortly disappeared>>>but that was because of redirection/begat from the first/reply....BY THOSE OF LIKE/belief as steven

till i raised the issue...raised by the auther...that of faulsi-fables...claimed/by the high priests of evolutionary/THEORY...yet conveniently...consistantly...NOT PRESENTED

but its not too late...
you can chose to present...any FAULSIFYABLES..you might have...lol

but you dont...so thus refuse to leave the question of non..faulsifyables..being able to be presented...

with/out constant..re-direction..
onto topics..for which you do have OPINION...but no fact/EITHER

neither the ORIGONAL questioner...NOR the respondants...have conducted as many redirections..from the posted topic as yourselves...

YOU WITHOUT FAULSIFYABLES...!

for your faith...in a flawed THEORY/ecvolution...exta/outof..genus

masking as science...
but without any of the faulsifications...TRUE SCIENCE REQUIRES

PRESENT YOUR FAUL-ASIF-YABLES
but that you dont got!

what you lot do have is FAITH...!
its time you respected your sameness...decieved by decievers/..all

each following the blind...by faith alone
BUT.../you claim/your faith/../lol..by fact...LOL

you CLAIM science...
WELL...present/ya faulsifyables

or realise your just the same/
believers/believing a flawed theory

Oliver
You say that the single handedness common to all life “suggests that the event occurred only once and was replicated over and over again. The initial state was copied.”

‘Genesis 1:12, The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.
Genesis 1:21, So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
Genesis 1:25, God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.’

It sounds like you’ve been reading the first page of Genesis; life reproducing ‘of the same kind’. Your description sounds like the initial creation event, after which a lot of things were being copied.

The only part you left out was the phrase “And God saw that it was good.”

David,
It’s not just fundamentalists that continue to question evolution. The triumph of Darwinian theory is a boat that hasn’t arrived.

This was the summary of Zimmerman’s article, which we discuss:
“The teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution.”

Using Oliver’s discussion of chemical handedness as an example leads to suggest:
“The teachings of Genesis are consistent with science.”

But of course Dan, you should be able to interpret them as to make them consistent with anything.

i should/let..the lack of..faulsifyables..speak for itself

but/even..watching..the abc/..voyage..to the planets...just/now,,,the delusions/deceptions...just keep/..rolling along

the show/was..about the voyage...to pluto...got-to talking/..about how pluto/wernt..a planet/no more...[now its called/a micro-planet...lol..apperntly...]

but note/..the word planet...is still/there..[so pluto/..IS still a planet...infact..they now add in..4 more...

so..the story/should have said..we added 4 more...

[but THEN/they..couldnt have shown/..that neat footage..with protests...etc/..about the bland statement/beatup..with the deception of a planet/..that was/..*and remains...a form of/..planet[oid]...

as if..4 more/..isnt news-worthy enough/..as it was

but that..wasnt/my main gripe...
see the talk..got onto...commets/

specificlly..about how/these/are water/ice...and contain carbon...then the statement/...manipulated..by a revelation..lol

*dna...contains carbon...[wow...no sssssh-it]...lol

they then/..went on about/..how carbon..is a basis_of_life...and thus [via carbon...lol..life...*MUST be common...all over the universe..lol}

indeed/..THEY..went so far as/..to state..life came here...via carbon...

which is all spin..[ie..there is no science/joinder...that carbon/equates..to living...life/../lol

but it..was part/of..the flow...
so the mindless/now have*comet=life abiogenusis..
[planted..in their mindles-ness...}

to reinforce/the delusion of..evolution}..of genus...lol,
being a science/fact...?

and commets did it..[every-where]..and not god...

so subtil..the decievers...
so clever/..those/who decieve..
bit by bit...decieving/..bit by bit

bite this

im not angry...because no doudt/..carbon is in dna...
but that dont validate..THAT..carbon created it...
ie that''C''..made living..

or indeed is..any more/than a small part...
OF A HUGE..UNI-versal big picture..
even/science hasnt grasped fully

[an end?..or a stepping stone..to a beginning?...
but not the cause..not worthy of dumping intelligent/creator..or validating life...FROM carbon..thats plainly deceptive

look..i have a match/...i strike it..
the sulpher lights the match...lots of carbon...

but no life...

we got this huge sun..in the heavens...
no doudt emitting..massive ammounts of carbon...[not just wind]

i would be supprised..if carbon..wasnt in ice/commets...that it is is not worthy of..the spin they spun around...the diss=-covery

but such is..the low/science has sunk/to...
its time/..many of you egsamined..your belief's*

..[god dont judge NO-ONE...}..and evolution isnt..[IS/NOT...science...

WHY?..
be-cause...it has no faulsify-ables]...

live with/..some truths....egsamin the facts...
dont be a blind-follower...god made you unique...

[we each have OUR/OWN face...realise how special/..each of us is]

NO-one is an accident..

the least/can still teach us/..much about the most
god sustains us/..all..our living...just have faith in that

at least DEMAND proof..*
SHOW/ME...the faulsifyables

Dear Dan,

Genetics would go a step further and say that the Kingdoms (of Life)share a common ancestor. Yet, yes, replication is certainly involved.

Dear David f,

Arnold Toynbee suggested that economic systems are too feeble to exist without an underpinning ideology: e.g., religion. However, I wonder as we mature sociologically, whether the "trainer wheels" can come off and moral civilizations can exist on their own two feet. Herein, I would not see science, as an ideology, rather scientific societies would be founded on morality of a human and humane kind.

Science can help us to understand religion. Religion is more pressed at allowing us to understand science.

Dear OUG,

"Genus" is a hypothetical construct in the form of a taxonomy. It is merely a system of classification. There are several classification systems used in biology.

That stable DNA exhibits left-handedness is falsifiable.

Dear Oliver,

Toynbee was wrong in one respect. He put forth the view that societies and nations had a life cycle analogous to that of organisms. Birth, growth, maturity and death. The revival of Poland and Israel after years without a state puts the lie to that. Toynbee, in addition to being a historian, made unsustainable vast generalisations.

You wrote: "I wonder as we mature sociologically." I question that we are maturing sociologically. Furthermore I don't know what a moral civilization is as opposed to an immoral civilization. Any civilization contains an implicit or explicit morality that may be at odds with the values of other societies. I am sure that the Nazis thought of themselves as moral, and they were in the way they defined morality.

From your posts we would probably define 'humane' in much the same way. That is different from the way others might define it.

I don't see why religion should attempt to explain science. Please refer to any instances you know of where religion has tried.

Science has tried to explain religion from various standpoints. I eagerly read those books which are based on anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology etc. Right now I am reading "The Story of God" by Robert Winston who is a medical scientist. He brings in the possibility that religious feelings have a genetic component. I imagine there will be many more books on the subject, and I will enjoy reading them.

Dear David f,

I agree with all the points you make. Carroll Quigley noted that Western civilisation has recovered twice from the decline phase and we are now in West III. Albeit, Quigley too, tends to put more emphasis on patterns in history than history might support.

Yes, morality is a relative term. Wherein, I meant a mature society should be able sustain what the man in the street would call moral without redress to a religious code: That as a society, we agree that certain values are self-evident. Of course, posits would be an artificial constructions but of no lesser value for that reason. If our descendants in 2500 CE eat synthetic food, the idea of killing an animal is likely to be repulsive.

Maybe, we are too primitive to accept human made constitutions might very well equal or exceed the moral codes of the religions. Modern democracies, if these societies remain sustainable over long centurie, do offer some hope. On the other hand, religionism is so very entrenched now and it is handed down generation after generation.

The trial of Galileo involved the Catholic Church usurping observation and defining Science, as, at best, Instrumentalism (Popper) and Science’s claims to descriptions of reality as not necessarily so. Yet, I think too that in more recent centuries, in the face of the obvious, the Churches have moved to cite scientific knowledge as evidence of the divine: e.g., all snow flakes have six sides and of all the quintillions of snow flakes no two are the same.

At OLO, I have found it a challenge to encourage theists to take a detached view and study religion as might an academic or behavioural scientist. Reading about religions in their historical contexts is very interesting. I haven’t read Robert Winston’s, “The Story of God”. I will look out for it.

OHLIVER..quote..<<That stable DNA/exhibits left-handedness is falsifiable.>>>of genetics..yes..not evolution...one/of which[genetics]..is/science...the other..[evolution]..a theory

<<Genus"..is a hypothetical construct..>>how despirite you are...are you claiming..i made genus up?...or that some religious/godhead made it up?

you do grasp at straws...lets say/..it is hypothetical
..WHAT ARE ITS FAULSIFYABLES...?

see how..saying science is hypothetical...dont supply the required evidense...?

to/say..that science includes evolution/has no faulsifyable-facts...because evolution/exta genus..has no verifyable fact...and no fact/allows no rebuttal...its trickery...lol

is not science..BECAUSE it cant produce..its faulsifyables...
THUS REMAINS A BELIEF...to decieve those decieved..into thinking it is/a..science

<<:Genus" is a hypothetical construct..in the form of a taxonomy...It is merely a system of classification...There are several classification systems used in biology.>>yes...BIO_LOGY...not/evolution

<<..in the form of a taxonomy.>>>>ok your saying taxonomy..is fraud?

<<<It is merely a system of classification.>>lol..one put forward...BY SCIENCE...!

yes it has flaws..but its/the best...YOUR LOT COULD COME-UP WITH...

i have debaited taxonomy/classification in court...the judges have even less/a clue than you...they put an expurt/on the stand...who said taxonomic classification...of cannabus sativa...as a genus is fact...

so go put your delusions before the courts...

they ruled taxonomic/classification/a fact/live withit...or rebut it with more..than mere words..

and i will go lodge my appeal/to the courts..tomorrow...lol

the judges are as ignorant of science/as the rest of you evolving believers/putting your faith in not..just us..but the dead-fraud/godheads..that believed /decieved..in an ever evolving THEORY/...of evolution/of genus..

JUS/you..as you lot do/do..here/now

<<<There are several classification/systems..used in biology.>>.yes there are...lol...i wont ask you..to look upgoogle-up..their names..lol

BUT>.your point being..?,
..that means..they are your un-named faulsifyables?..
or that they rebut taxonomy...?...
or rebut intelligent design-ER?...

you must/try..be more scientificly correct..not make broad/brush orphin statements...*rebutting your own..[shooting yourself in your/own foot*]

please grasp at straws more efficentially...
with referances/links/facts

you must do more..than use mere words..my fiend

david f,
>>I eagerly read those books which are based on anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology etc. <<
I can understand that very well, see also my earlier post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8567#136197), where I state:

“As for religion … I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.”

Also e.g. mathematics (or physics) can be looked at from these many perspectives. This is OK unless, one draws conclusions from these outsiders’ views, without understanding the subject matter of mathematics (or physical theories), as some postmodernist “social constructivists” sometimes do.

However, I would agree that for a mathematician (or physicist) these outsiders’ perspectives are not as illuminating for his/her understanding of mathematics (or physics), as these many external views are for an educated person’s understanding of his/her faith, of whatever denomination.

For me, one of the most revealing definitions of religion, albeit from an anthropologist point of view, is the one by Geertz quoted in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645.

Oliver,
>>I have found it a challenge to encourage theists to take a detached view and study religion as might an academic or behavioral scientist.<<

Do you mean to say that there are no “academics” among your “theists”? On the other hand, I agree, that “behavioral scientists” should be added to the seven “wise men” I spoke of above.

David and Oliver,

I've been following this thread with some interest, albeit at a distance. It seemed at first to be a 'same old, same old' discussion to which nothing new would be added and in which many people would get fired up about the same things. But you two have raised some interesting questions that perked my interest - thank you!

David, you (rightly) attempted to redirect the thread to its original purpose, asking (among other things) why we should take scriptures seriously as history. Oliver, you raised the question of theists' reluctance to take a detached, academic approach to their belief systems.

I'll start by stating what is probably obvious - I am a theist. I'm also an ancient historian of sorts (nearly finished my Masters - Round 1 coming to a close!) and, as such, I have been required to detach myself from belief and study scriptures through the lens of historical inquiry. It's hard to study Rome in the Near East without looking at scripture!

One thing I have found is that scriptural sources must be treated just like any other. While they are unafraid of hyperbole and painfully long anecdotes (often with no real historical value), there is often a glimmer of verifiable truth in them. The two books of the Maccabees (don't look for them if you don't have a Catholic Bible, or you won't find them) are verified by a range of other sources. The existence of a historical Jesus is alluded to by a number of other sources, albeit in nowhere near as much detail as the Gospels. When used alongside other sources, the scriptures can shed some light on history. As a scholar, I cannot trust their historical veracity any more than Josephus, Tacitus or the scandalous Suetonius. But I would be a fool to dismiss them altogether.

I can do this without weakening my faith - in many ways, it strengthens it. It certainly contextualises it.

Just thought I'd add my ideas here.

religious/texts..must be read...in the context..of their times

at the time of the..'water/into wine'..''the feeding/of 4000/5000..is helpfull...if read..in context..of the'shew bread'...where jesus deciples/ate of the shewbread...without the ritual..of handwashing

this is a huge point...as the eating ritual/*of the times insisted..on the ritual...washing..of the hands...via progression of up to 7 jars...gradually progressing/from the more unclean..to the final/presumably..more clean

to eat...at these times...needed the ritual...!..no believer/of the time...would touch/food..with unclean hands...thus giving them...'all they wanted'..becomes as if nothing...[as no one'wanted to eat'..with unclean hands]

thus as jesus said...a servant/shall lead you...meaning to look through..the eyes of a servant....like with the wine/cana/wedding..

see that/servants arnt all equal...the servant of the high-priest had higher standing..than any other[servant or freeman]

see thus a face/saving exersize...if the master looses face...how much more the servant to loose....

as jesus clearly says...'its not my time'..we can KNOW..he DIDNT..make toilet water..[for such would be the equivent]..into wine

would you drink the..'best wine'...from a toilet...?

well neither the guests...see that servants/simply served the masters/best wine..better the masters/private wrath...than the discrace/publicly..of serving toilet water

so we move along...recall jesus talking/of this generation...needing miracles...that wasnt jesus way..[nor that of mosus]..any maJition then could fake/the tricks...

so there needs be more/to the matter

ditto science...it claims repeatability...
claims fact...not fiction...yes species evolve/within their genus..but the genus bounds hold firm...

expoliating evolution/within the genus...into delusion of creating new genus..is pure fanticy...as much as/turning water..into wine..

only the decieved decieve themselves...believers are not anything...less than the fanatics/dissBELIEVERS...who kill/take LIFE...for the life-giver*..LOL

think you/god is pleased...that you given/mind/logic/life...subvert others..EQUALLY GIFTED gods gifts*..with delusions or murder/or insane ravings of zealets

darwin/clearly wrote..evolution of species...not evolution evolves genus...evolution is a theory...it is not science...anymore than the pope/is jesus/king on earth...

jesus died for you/then came back*..to wit/he aint dead..get it...!

he was born/again...thus still rules...!
not in these/..satans realms...but the next realm...

the lord/of this..prison/planet..isnt jesus..

lets evolve/folks..evolve our thinking..god/the giver/sustainer of ALL living..has grace/mercy...not judgment..

jesus proved..THERE IS NO ENDTIME/JUDGMENT DAY...
AS HE SAID...THAT YE SEE ME DO...YE SHALL DO GREATER

LETS MAKE/JESUS...and DARWIN PROUD...
READ WHAT..THEY REALLY SAID..*
NOT WHAT..WE WERE TOLD/or think..THEY SAID

Dear George,

You wrote: “As for religion … I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.”

Religious believers can also use the techniques of science. I do not read books by fundamentalists who take scripture literally, but I do read books by religious believers who use science and rational analysis. I have read historical material by Hans Kung, a believing Catholic, biblical analysis by Bishop Spong, a believing Anglican, and general reflections on the origins of religion from a background of medical science by Robert Winston, a believing Jew. I do not restrict myself to reading Dawkins, Hitchens or others who don't believe.

Religious believers like Otokonoko are able to use the techniques of science, textual analysis and logic to examine the meanings, purposes and logic of their faiths.

it is unnecessary to have a belief in religion to learn about it and to have an idea of what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.

Although I see no point in dialogue with literal believers in scripture, dialogue with other believers can contribute to understanding. One need not accept scripture as literal truth or discard it entirely. I'm with Otonoko on that. We can examine the first 18 chapters of Genesis as legends originating from the ancient peoples of the Middle East and modified to suit their purposes by the authors of Genesis. The Book of Esther so far has absolutely no historical verification, but we can speculate on why it was written.

We are islands of separate consciousness. We can only see outward physical manifestations of the workings of other people’s consciousness. However, I think we can make useful studies of both consciousness and religion without sharing either.

Otokonoko,

Welcome to this discussion.

I would take the view we should take religion seriously but in the context of history (as you allude) and anthropology and even neurology (e.g., neocortex rationalising limbic system’s survival instincts as “afterlife”). I would not take the view we have understanding of how we have come to being, from religion; rather I would look to science. I would see the postulation that “a divine entity created us” as a degraded heuristic/notion, like the solid state universe. The evidence is strongly against the assertion. Instead, I find as particle physics as becomes more refined the need for an external agent fades. In October 2010, we might have confirmation of matter is created (CERN), wherein science does explain fundamental matter.

True, objectivity, I put, suggests that the investigator look “towards” rather than “from” the religious entity studied. H.G. Well’s classic “The Outline of History” is quite detached, with the occasional apology to not offend) on ancient religions. Wells notes that Serapis (Osiris + Apis) and Isis (Hathor) and Horus trinity that:

“Hourus was the only beloved son of Osiris (Serapis) … he was the intercessor with the Father for sinners and he is depicted in the Book of the Dead … pleading for the deceased. He ‘ascended to the Father’ and became one with the Father.”

Similarities between the above and the Nicaean Trinity are evident.

Moreover, the Jewish missions of the House of David, under the Herodians, would not have entertained the fusing/theocrasia of gods/godhead as did Egyptians and the Christians of Constantine’s time. The historical Jesus, I see, as a Jew ministering the gentile godfearers. When tail began wagging the dog, there was schism and a new Christian myth created. The tail began wagging the dog, when the Jews were expelled from the Holly Land and a Latin Bishop appointed; so this originally Jewish outer sect could return to Jerusalem. Circa 250 until 325, the Latinised sect became institutionalised as a religion. The historian needs to be detached (as in science) to see what happened. Herein, context is best seen from a distance.

George,

From before and after Newton there have been many academic theists, I am sure. I was meaning non-theist academics with an interest in religion and especially those non-theist specialising in studying religion. Detached academic persons with an interest in theology/religions. As mentioed above, folk, who look "towards" religion(s) (from afar), rather than from a religion (from within).

Mathematically, I see Nicaean Christianity like Procrustes Rotation: Doctrines are slected, harmonised and cut to fit the Bed of the Creed.

What if theism is the Elephant and the various religious merely parts of the pachyderm? Is there an anthro-theo-zoologist in the House? :-)

OUG,

Re: Your Comment on Water into Wine

The Bible says that Jesus changed water into wine. This is informative because it does not say that Jesus made water, wine, which would have been a miraculous substitution. Water has two elements, whereas, wine has many elements, including traces of metal (e.g., Iron). Were Jesus to have “changed” water “into” wine, the energy released by nuclear transmutation of valencies would have blown Cana off the map. Heavy metals are normally created at the temperatures of stars.

On the other hand, if Jesus contained the liquids in a magnetic field (as in plasma physics), I suspect, there would still be residual radiation, after the field was dropped. Is Cana radioactive? If the location of Cana is known, then bring in the Geiger counters. Ockham’s Razor would suggest the event is an invented story or that the wine was there all along.

Maybe, we need to re-focus and follow david f's recommendation and look at value of science and the scriptures. Thanks.

Dear david f,

I agree with practically all you wrote above.

>>it is unnecessary to have a belief in religion to learn about it and to have an idea of what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.<<

I agree, in the same sense that one can understand theoretical physics, have an idea of what it says about e.g. electromagnetic radiation, without being able to sensually experience colour and appreciate visual beauty, e.g. when one is blind.

Very roughly speaking, a theist’s external view of the atheist’s position is that he/she is lacking a sense of the numinous (Rudolf Otto), an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc.

I think we can learn also from the external, even if unsympathetic, looks at our own world-view presuppositions. As my wife would say, I cannot tell you how you FEEL in your clothing (only you know that), but I can tell you how you LOOK in it (never mind the mirror).

>>we can make useful studies of both consciousness and religion without sharing either.<<

I think this is very well put, except that I - as a person with “continental roots” - would write “world-view” instead of “religion” since many people do not like their personal convictions to be brought into contact with religion. Actually, it is a reasonable requirement, to study other people’s world-views, before entering into meaningful exchange of views. This can (or should) lead to the broadening of one's own perspective, even if it usually does not lead to a complete understanding of the subjective reasons for the "world-view presuppositions" of the other consciousness.

Oliver,

My comment was only a reaction to your finding “it a challenge to encourage theists (on this OLO) to … study religion as might an academic”. It seemed to follow that you needed to lecture theists on this OLO on how “to study as might an academic”. Otherwise please read what david f wrote on different views, and my comments on that.

You can “see Nicaean Christianity” as you like, however the relation of that view to mathematics escapes me. Also, I see you misunderstood my metaphor with the “elephant” as a phenomenon (that as such is beyond dispute), and not as a belief system (you might or might not share/like).

As to

>>Similarities between the above and the Nicaean Trinity are evident. << etc.,

in your post to Otokonoko, he might be interested that we two have been through that on this OLO many times. As before, I appreciate you bringing up certain similarities, though Otokonoko will probably know more about it than I. And, as before, my reaction would be that I do not mind if you point out to me that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee as long as you do not try to draw conclusions from that about my reducibility to a chimpanzee.

.

Dear George,

.

I understand you are wondering what religion is and what purpose it serves.

I take it to mean a conviction or set of convictions for which there exists no scientific or historical proof.

Religion may be unique to a single individual, or shared with any number of individuals.

My understanding is that its purpose, like its meaning, has evolved over the years in order to survive.

From providing a simple explanation of natural phenomena to a convenient means of maintaining social order and cohesion, religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers.

It provides a certain number of services which participate in structuring the community and laying the basis for harmonious relations among its members. The services are vast and comprehensive and irrigate the entire community from the most humble to the most distinguished of its members, essentially in the domains of education, health and social welfare, not to forget, of course, the all important confessional for the Catholics.

For political rule to be effective there must be social cohesion. Astute political rulers have always had recourse to religion to disseminate their control throughout the community and establish social cohesion in line with their policies. In return, the rulers afford protection, support and finance as well as numerous other favours to the religious organisations and their representatives providing the services.

Also, as Sigmund Freud may possibly have pointed out, it is the promise of heavenly bliss that allows us to sublimate those all too familiar companions, our earthly woes.

That is probably the most powerful ant-revolutionary argument that was ever invented, "the opiate of the people", as Karl Marx observed, borrowing the expression from the Marquis de Sade’s novel "L’Histoire de Juliette", published in 1797.

.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Very roughly speaking, a theist’s external view of the atheist’s position is that he/she is lacking a sense of the numinous (Rudolf Otto), an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc."

I lack a sense of the numinous, but I do not dismiss your religious feeling as a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc.

I know people have spiritual feelings, and it touches something deep in them. It gives a feeling that they are at one with something outside of themselves. So they say, and I believe they are sincere. Yet I don't have those feelings.

Sunday afternoon I was at St. Stephen's Cathedral and heard six young women with beautiful voices singing. I was very moved and cried.
http://www.belladivaopera.com.au/home.cfm is their website. You can hear something approximating their voices, but you have to hear them in person.

A lot of other things besides music, my family and descendents move me deeply. Mathematics, nature, reading the narrative of history, reading poetry etc.

However, I don't have a sense of the numinous or if I have, it is buried very deep.

Science cannot fill many of the gaps in our understanding. However, that does not mean that religion has answers. I accept that our understanding will always be limited. I don't think life has any intrinsic meaning and purpose. Morality just seems to be a way that our particular society has worked out as a reasonable way to deal with each other. It is part of our culture that has evolved.

I used to be very religiously observant when I was young. However, it was with a feeling that it was something I was supposed to do. However, I never had what I think you are talking about.

the list of scientists who studied the spirit world is sparse/most like gregor mendel studied gods creation...but head of the short list stands swedenberg..who communed with angels

while some may regard that as equivelent to being insane...swedenberg is well worth a read[ok its far from a short read..the arcania/celestia..reads more like a book of science...but no doudt is the authoritive text..for those who can read the science fullness...in the maters of spirit

tghose who like to have their shortcuts spelled/out for them...might try heaven and hell,one of his shorter treaties...and lest you doudt his scientific bent...google up his sciences/qualifications

we can speculate...but science needs facts...thing is we can put a living copckroach...into the hardon collider...and the same identical results will be revealed...simply speaking science cannot find that missing/bit...that equates to life

its much like trying to find the active of electicity[by studying dead cables....as swedenberg puts it its much the same/flow...life-force..flows from god...THROUGH...all living...then returnes to god

im unsure why you lot need to doudt...life's/living...has a cause..this must be self evident...must have been self evident..from the death of your first pet...the dead...'LOOK'..much the same...

identical...in fact...so the only change[appart from eventual putrification]...is the animouse...that defines living...science hasnt a clue...

it has learned to do this..or that...but in EVERY CASE...death comes...at the end of our life sentance...surely in this is a sign for the most ignorant

life comes from the living....this is fact...a living sperm...entered a living ovum...and you are the collective fruit....

yes you may/or maynot have passed on the gift...but the fact is...the living pass on the flow/link..to the creator/SUSTAINER of living...your ever loving good/GOD

i was once where you are...i knew science had no reply...science has NEVER made life...from the dust...[only recently has learned the programing..to make the dust]...

just because people need disbelief in love is no excuse for you to not research...or demand..the full facts/...full fausifications..be presented

those who chose to remain ignorant...will be the extreemists...who fear love needlessly...terrorists have stolen from you...the all living...all loving..all logical...but dont get angry...get even/LEARN

L-earn...the love/y-earn for the love
see living as the sure sign love lives

david quote..religion<<what is/its purpose>..this is subjective...[i believe/its there..to give direct-comunication...to deeper thought/insight..into the human-condition...

and concepts/such as faith...even a basis/to looking beyond...what we self-evidentually are...and the underllying/cause/of our/conjoined being

see that..words...or vital....thoughts../acts/works...are recorded[in affect..we can hear...the dead...

AND/the dead..can reach beyond..their seemimg/death

we must/recall..the dark-times...when to get education.needed one to go to the priests..to learn letters...etc...many higher education facilities...were founded/by the church,..,not the state

we see films/of students..learning the letters[as in so called extreemists..studying the koran]...

but not long ago/it was priests..labouriously transcribing texts...with bird feathers..and dead calf skins...and dies

no doudt/chemistry..had its roots...in simple things..such as glue/or the making of ink/paints..etc

beyond doudt/the huge cathedrals/pyromids...etc advanced the art of design/building etc...in short..there isnt much religions...helped founded..or preserved./..from books/book binding..to libaries...from law...to business[the money changers]

lets recall/astronomy...used to make predictions..but mainly to study the creation...determine signs/etc...lest we forget gregor/mendel..who founded the genetic art/of mensdalism...or math

then/there is the..fine wine/culture/rank...and infinate other civilisationary measure's..begat via various religions...speech making..creative writing...just about/any left brain...or right brain thought

<<or why it is there at all>>.because if it wernt...neither you nor i could do more/than grunt..at each other from the adjoining busche

sweden/berg writes..that we/..unique with the angels/can understand the written word/sign...[and that there are 9 others...just like us...except..we alone..can read/commune in words/signs..wrought of free thought]

we are here/fallen from the heavens...each sent here to be free
confirm/..god gives us freewill...each has our life sentance/according as we earned...then we get eternity...to do it together...with all those/..who have passed/over,..before us

one day/i will sit and have tea with darwin..so will you...if you so choose[and dont pee him off]...one day some will feast with plato...hear mosart...build/create...do things you allways wanted to do

all of you...be you lover/of the vile...[there is better and worser than thee...you who love murder...shall murder your other lovers of murder..

you lovers of art/shall paint with rembrant/pablo picaso

TO EACH SHALL BE GIVEN..[more shall be given]
according as to/that you love...for god..is a good of love

jesus has his own room/..in gods realms[each love has its own room]...even vivisectionist have eternity just dicecting[only]..each other..

so be carefulll..of that..you/CHOSE to love

The discussion has flung off tangentially.

Zimmerman says, “The teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution.”

Dawkins says, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Who is right, as they contradict?

We could reconcile them by saying that religion is becoming atheistic. This may be true for some religion professors in the ivory towers of academic circles; those who think religious study is the study of belief, not the study of God. But it isn’t true for mainstream religion.

Actually Dan, they don't contradict at all. Those two statements are compatible.

Unless you think that my atheism logically negates your religion.

Ridiculous, right?

I’d say they contradict. Atheism stands in opposition to religion. To say that evolution is the correct position for mainstream religion is about as bizarre as saying special creation is the correct position for the atheist. One cannot run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.

Dear Banjo,

The six, or seven, wise men in my metaphor were meant as representatives of whole classes of narrow, usually one-sided, views of which there are zillions. I appreciate your concise description of one of the standard ones among them. Just two remarks:

I do not understand what “scientific proof” (whatever that means, since even serious philosophy of science does not operate with such terms any more) you would expect for a “set of convictions” (i.e. world-view presuppositions) referring to beyond what can be investigated by science. Neither do I understand the relevance of “historic proof” e.g. for a non-historical religion such as Hinduism.

>>religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers<<
This is a standard sweeping statement (e.g. as taught by my Marx-Leninist teachers) revealing not so much the role of religion as one’s ideological orientation. I do not know what rulers are served by e.g. Buddhism, or, centuries before 1948, also by Judaism.

I can also assure you that religion did not serve the Communist “states and political rules”, unless you consider their ideology also as religion (as some do), which I do not think Marx had in mind when referring to “the opiate of the people”; neither does it have “a promise of heavenly bliss”. So there seem to be some internal contradictions in your description of religion and its role.

I think that for instance david f's reference to a variety of books dealing with the phenomenon of religion is a good indication of how complex is the issue.

Dear david f,

Thank you for the sincere words that very much illustrate how a non-fundamentalist theist can have his/her perspective broadened through listening to a non-fundamentalist atheist. Especially I appreciate you saying

>>but I do not dismiss your religious feeling as a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. … people have spiritual feeling<<

Instead of “spiritual feelings” I would prefer “religious experience” in the sense of William James, since what I called “sense of the numinous” is not reducible to its emotional dimension, nor to its other dimensions, rational and moral. (Neither do I think James sees religious experience reducible to its emotional component, but there I might be wrong.)

[These three dimensions reflect my standard way of looking at the world (outside and inside me) through the lens of Plato’s three norms, or ideals or primary categories: BEAUTY, TRUTH and GOODNESS corresponding to the AESTHETIC, RATIONAL and MORAL, and expressed in FEELINGS/emotions, THOUGHT processes/analyses, and purposeful ACTIONS respectively (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#150621).]

If you identify religious experience with mystical experience, as some do, I can tell you I have never had one. Some mystics are aware of the “outside source” of their experience, some are not (Buddhist monks), or more precisely, do not care. Like you can watch a movie on your TV (connected to a DVD player) without having to know, or care, whether it is transmitted from outside, or just a DVD.

I think that this is true also of aesthetic, highly emotional, experiences in general. You are right, one can have them on many occasions, and in most cases there is no difference whether the subject is religious or not. Nevertheless, sometimes a believer might connect these emotional experiences to an a priori awareness of an outside “transmitter”, and the aesthetic experience becomes also a religious experience going beyond mere “feelings” (which still does not have to be a full-blown mystical experience). Of course, a non-religious subject will see any aesthetic experience just as a “DVD” played off in his/her brain.

Dan, while evolution can enable an atheist to become 'intellectually fulfilled' (to use Dawkins expression), as it gives a reasonable explanation as to humanity's origins that does not invoke special creation, a belief in evolution does not cause atheism. Nor does it actually exclude creation, because by definition that is a 'miracle' and cannot be touched by science, which is why those statements are compatible. Most mainstream religions accept it, but probably only because if they didn't it would show how out of touch with science and reality they are. Like the US fundies, and you.

Found that ID research program yet?

.

Dear George,

.

By "scientific proof" I mean whatever justifies the assertions of a scientist in the eyes of his or her pairs and competitors.

"set of convictions" or "world-view presuppositions": either term suits me fine.

You ask:

"what “scientific proof” beyond what can be investigated by science?":

None. Consequently, any conviction in this area is religion. However, you imagined that situation, not me.

Your comment:

"Neither do I understand the relevance of “historic proof” e.g. for a non-historical religion such as Hinduism":

Example: Did Jesus exist ? This is a question for history not science. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. It has developed over time. No historian has ever provided proof of the existence of the characters and myths which compose those particular "world-view presuppositions". The corpus is therefore defined as a religion.

You indicate:

>>religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers<<
"I do not know what rulers are served by e.g. Buddhism, or, Judaism":

The rulers of many nations continue to assume both an earthly and religious role. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia also has the religious title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. King Abdullah II of Jordan is the 43rd-generation direct descendant of Muhammad. Akihito of Japan, whose title in Japanese signifies “The Heavenly Emperor”, is the highest authority in the Shinto religion. Margrethe II of Denmark is head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. Elisabeth II, Queen of 16 independent sovereign states, members of the Commonwealth, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Buddhism is an important vector of social harmony in India, China and elsewhere, a force with which political leaders cooperate. Judaism determines almost every aspect of daily life in Israel. Though it is not a State religion, political leaders and Judaism are inseperable.

Re: religion & communism:

Communism has replaced religion in communist countries which are de facto dictatorships or oligarchies, not "idiologies" nor religions.

Communism does not promise "heavenly bliss" to help people bear their "earthly woes" without revolting, religion does.

.

.

SCIENCE V RELIGION / THE NUMINOUS, THEORIA, VISIONS, MIRACLES ...

.

Competition between science and religion seems to have settled into a stalemate position for quite some time now, except in the minds of a fragmented and disorganised minority of fundamentalists on both sides.

Religion obviously made a discreet tactical retreat which has proven quite judicious. It switched roles from that of a dominant predator to that, far more modest, of a patient scavanger.

It no longer confronts science head-on. It waits patiently until science has exhausted all its resources to no avail before stepping in triumphantly to stake its claim.

Science and religion now enjoy a far more civilised relationship. They agree to disagree but tend to avoid open confrontation.

Science rules the world and religion reigns over the rest of the universe, including the vast majority of mankind.

The debate on the so-called "numenous" reminds me of the claims of a certain number of neurologists (Grafman, Ramachandran, Persinger) that they have succeeded in identifying several areas of the brain involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

According to Ramachandran, patients suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy frequently report having intense religious experiences.

Persinger has developed a “God helmet” that he claims produces in whoever wears it, the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room".

Grafman, a theist, observes that "When we don’t have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations”.

Persinger suggests that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon by which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons since the advent of Christianity.

Apart from a few notable exceptions (David F), perhaps we all have personal imbedded antennas in our brains, tuned-in to some special celestial wave length, no doubt installed and operated by the intelligent designer and manufacturer himself.

Who else ?

.

Dear George,

I know I have mentioned the Nicean Trinity vis-à-vis other trinities before, essentially, because Sells, introduced the topic. Then, as now, I am saying , Constantine’s helpers had a pre-existing Egyptian model, which they seemly used. As for my reference to “Nicaean Christianity”; again, I am making the point the Creed was constructed centuries after the time of Jesus and that the dogma handed down from that time might have been that practised by Jesus and those of the first and second centuries. Modern Christians look at events assembled between the third and fourth centuries; whereas, Jesus, sits as a Jew, in the factionalism leading “from” a Jewish path of history, against a Messianic backdrop. Herein, Jesus riding a donkey is far more significant than changing water in to wine.

Of the elephant metaphor, I do acknowledge the distinction you daw. Yet, there are more similarities, you don’t recognise. Rather, theists do take different perspectives on religion (even though, yes, I was emphasising that no religion has a special place, anthropologically speaking), herein, primitive religions often had a Mother Nature Goddess giving birth and the more advanced religions are more anthrocentric. Just like say in psychology, sociology and anthropology, there will be both overlap and distinctions. Christians see only Christianity.

I wasn't overtly addressing mathematics, yet, you would know better than me many different mathematic models can be used posited to explain the same underlying phenomenon or latent variable. If you, were referring to Procrutes Rotation, I was meaning this form of analysis cuts of the off or changes the information that does not fit, usually when models do not fit traditional factor analytical techniques. In Greek Mythology, Procrutes had a bed claimed to fit any person. This was achieved by stretching the slumberer or cutting off the bits that didn’t fit. Ouch!

Science is coming to grips with how matter was created and how information is created in the universe despite the second law of thermodynamics. This is not say that religions have no value. Certainly, many tenets of the religions are purposeful, as an ethical constitution.

"because by definition that is a 'miracle' and cannot be touched by science." - Bugsy

True. Moreover, once a miracle is "explained" it is no longer a miracle. Science understanding the creation of matter ab initio would challenge miraculous design. That understanding is probably not far off.

George,

I have no problem calling myself a primate. Human intellect is brought about by the same evolutionary process that allows dolphins to (allegedly)hear in 3-D or birds to fly. I am looking at a full five-tier bookshelf. I can read these books, but, a chimp, not I, could, lift the selves, books and all.

Correction (above): "... Constantine’s helpers had a pre-existing Egyptian model, which they seemly used. As for my reference to “Nicaean Christianity”; again, I am making the point the Creed was constructed centuries after the time of Jesus and that the dogma handed down from that time might NOT have been that practised by Jesus and those of the first and second centuries."

Dear Banjo,

>>By "scientific proof" I mean whatever justifies the assertions of a scientist in the eyes of his or her pairs and competitors.<<

One could analyse away this definition of “proof” as consensus, but let us leave it at that (one usually retains the term “proof” for formal statements of logic or mathematics).

>>"what “scientific proof” beyond what can be investigated by science?" None. <<

Not religion - that is a phenomenon that can be looked at from many perspectives, both by theists or atheists as I keep on saying - but BELIEF in the existence of something that exists beyond the realm investigated by science (usually but not always, referred to as God) is the essence of the world view presuppositions of a theist (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883)

So if you mean that there was no “scientific proof” of God's existence - anyhow, one does not “prove” presuppositions or axioms - then we are in agreement.

The rest of my comment was concerned with the sweeping nature of your statements, not with possible occurences: Of course, there are parts of e.g. the basic tenets of Abrahamic faiths that refer to historical events for which it is relevant to ask about their historicity, “historic proof”, if you like. Also, of course, there are/were religious institutions that serve/served certain "states and their political rulers".

The contradiction I pointed out was:

(a) If Communist states were served by ideologies that were in fact religions (as some atheists claim), then this is a counterexample of a religion that does not have a “promise of heavenly bliss”, neither had this Marx in mind with his “opiate of the people”;

(b) If Communist states were not served by what can be called religion, then this is a counter-example to your sweeping statement that “religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers”. Religion, i.e. religious people, did exist in Communist states, but it certainly did not "serve" the state and its rulers.

So I didn’t necessarily disagree with your statements, only with the sweeping nature of some of them. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>Competition between science and religion seems to have settled into a stalemate position for quite some time now, except in the minds of a fragmented and disorganised minority of fundamentalists on both sides.<<

My first reaction to this was that there was no point in me reading further [If you google science, religion, you get 132,000,000 hits, if you google “science and religion” you get 879,000 hits, and even if you google “religion and science” you get 490,000 of them.]

However I did read further. You seem to confuse - or at least lump together - religion as a phenomenon, religious (notably Christian) world-views, religious institutions in general, Evangelical movements, the Catholic Church, Christian politicians and scientists, etc.

Ramachandran’s findings were made public years ago (see e.g. the BBC debate “God on the Brain” on 17/4/2003, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml, where most of your observations apparently come from), and misrepresented by sensationalists (see e.g. DER SPIEGEL 21/2002).

Ramachandran: “Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. Now it may be god's way of putting an antenna in your brain to make you more receptive to god. Nothing our scientists are saying about the brain or about neural circuitry for religion in any way negates the existence of god, nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it.”

Well, I think one should distinguish between “predisposition to religious belief” (what I called sense of the numinous) and ability to have mystical experiences.

Even more explicit is Andrew Newberg (also featuring in the BBC debate) a leading neuroscientist and author of a number of books on the subject, one published a couple of months ago.

I would not have minded neuroscientists attaching electrodes to my brain while I was “doing mathematics”. However, I would object if they tried to draw conclusions from there about the subject of my research, correctness or not of what I claimed to have proved.

Dear Oliver,

Thank’s for the collection of historical (and anthropological) facts the plausibility of which I have to take your word for. As an external view, I have been writing about, they can only enrich a Christian's world-view, if one leaves out the judgmental, non-sequitur, parts of it (c.f. my repeated reference to “me” - i.e. Christians - sharing “95% of DNA” with a “chimpanzee” - i.e. predecessor religions).

I don't see the relevance of you last post, but of course I agree that you and I are primate the same as Christianity is a religion.

Now I also understand your connection between the Nicean Creed and the Procrustean bed: “Stretching the slumberer or cutting off the bits that didn’t fit” happens on many occasions, e.g. if a physical theory has to be adjusted to fit the experiments, or vise-versa, if experiments have to reinterpreted to fit an established theory (see my reference to quantum enigma in my earlier posts on this thread). I am not that historically and theologically knowledgeable to be able to explain what, where and why had to be a adjusted in the Nicean Creed, and what played the role of the bed.

Well, I still maintain, that religion is a phenomenon you can study from many perspectives - internal or external, each one of the named “wise men” can be a theist or an atheist - whereas the theist presupposition you can either accept or reject and try to draw conclusions from that. The latter, of course can be done on various levels of philosophical sophistication. Mother Nature is a poetic expression that, I think, not even Dawkins objects to, but I agree that a hunter-gatherer had a different understanding of his “faith” (the casue and puropse of his existence) than a modern Christian.

>>Christians see only Christianity.<<
Would you also claim that e.g. “Australians see only Australia”, or anybody born into a cultural environment is prejudiced to see the world ONLY from that perspective?

.

Dear George,

.

I googled as you suggested and obtained the following results:

"science, religion" = 183 000 000
"science and religion" = 76 000 000
"religion and science" = 74 000 000

I then googled the combination that was missing in your demonstration:

"religion, science" = 153 000 000

I should be interested to know how you interpret these results.

Perhaps we should ask somebody else to repeat the experiment so that we have a third indication.

What do you think ?

.

Dear George,

Perhaps the New Testament, as a selected works, is a clearer example of a Procrustean bed.

Yes, I think Christians are aware of other religions, especially, the Abrahamic ones, but do so from a very biased perspective, and are possibly unaware of what happened before Nicaea. Furthermore, I agree that a religion "can" be looked at internally or externally. Yet, my experience of OLO theists is they live 99.9% inside their Creed. Sells, as I have said before, lives between 325(Nicaea) and c. 1760 (Great Divergence), without seeing the setting of the stone. Other theists are not so rigid, yet, the inclination is there to a high degree to look from the inside-out.

"The quantum theory works perfectly; no prediction of the theory has ever been shown in error..." - George, Friday, 4 June 2010

To my lay knowledge, QM phenomena are (exceedingly) accurate only when sets rather than instances are considered and infinities are put aside.If you are saying that the neuronal Bose-Einstein condensate is at the centre of the centre of a QM universe, I would feel you might be going way beyond the claims of Penrose or Zohar. Yet, were you to say that consciousness includes QM phenomena; e.g, quantum coherence entangled to a universal quantum state; I think the jury is still out. Were, the future, the primary case of quantum consciousness proven, I would expect that entanglement would be a better description, than having Humans returned to the centre of the universe.

Given, your restating the of Chimpanzee relationship, as a metaphor for the history of relgion, I put that one should, indeed, look at the DNA of the religions openly and pragmatically.

All,

"One of the problems with religion is an attitude of clergy. I have a friend who was a Lutheran pastor. We had a discussion about the mythical nature of much of the biblical material. He told me they had some good discussions at St. Olaf's seminary on that subject. I asked him if he had ever brought these matters up to his flock. He said he would not want to disturb their simple faith." - david f.

I too would like to see clergy being more serious interactive with the laity, discussing issues and answering questions, on occasion. Every fourth week? More like a forum. Say discuss Genesis versus positive energy/matter(a.k.a. e=mc2)complemented by gravity as negative energy; all the matter in the universe is cancelled out. That is, the initial state of the unverse is nothing comprised of two somethings.

If matter can be created, without God's breath or God, where does God stand in relation to the universe?

If matter was created after a zero state (cancellation of energy properties) what does this say about Genesis?

Did God just nudge physics and the universe did the rest?

Presumably, a cleric, who can learn Koine Greek to study the NT,can understand the Emperor's New Mind (Penrose).

Dear Banjo,

Well I do not know how google works. I got slightly different values when changing the browser (Safari to Firefox with Mac OS 10.6.3). Perhaps the results are still different with Windows. Also, the quotation marks are important, but I think you know that.

I am also sure you understand that this was not my point: it suffices to look at the first few hits to see that there are also scholarly works (about interpretations of both) reflecting neither a “competition between science and religion” nor a “stalemate position” in our 21st century.

Your “competition” would correspond only to the first stage in the - by now classical - Ian Barbour’s typology (conflict, independence, dialogue, integration, see e. g. his “When Science meets Religion”, Harper 2000). Barbour is one of the “trinity” of 21st century natural scientists with theological qualifications (Polkinghorne and Peacocke are the other two). There is also V.V. Ramadan, a physicist of Hindu background, interested in, and knowledgeable about, religion (see e.g. his regular articles on http://www.metanexus.net/). I learned a lot from his perspective, a perspective that cannot be accused of a "Christian (Abrahamic/theist) bias".

Dear Oliver,

>>Christians are aware of other religions … but do so from a very biased perspective<<

Again, would you also claim that e.g. “Australians are aware of other nations, but do so from a very biased perspective?” As in my post to Banjo, I would not object if your observation was qualified, e.g. as “but SOME do so from a very biased perspective” to make it less sweeping.

I do not understand how can phenomena be accurate, neither what a quantum mechanical universe is. However, you might be right that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement might be a better explanation of the violation of Bell’s inequality than observer-dependence. You are certainly right that the jury is still out on the proper interpretation of these things known as the quantum enigma. Anyway, I confess I should not have brought it up, since this detail is irrelevant for your comparison of the Nicean Creed with the Procrustean bed.

>>one should, indeed, look at the DNA of the religions openly and pragmatically<<
Well, to carry on with our analogies, you can look at Einstein’s DNA "openly and pragmatically" if you wish, however I think much more important than Einstein’s DNA is his contribution to our understanding of the world we live in.

How many clergies, and how many congregations, do you think you would find who would be able to seriously discuss the questions you ask, which require some knowledge of contemporary cosmology (theoretical physics) as well as philosophy of science and (theological) metaphysics?

As many times before, I thank you for stimulating my little grey cells to provide a (hopefully) clearer formulation of what I want to say.

Dear George,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, I would say that as an Australian’s my world-view is biased by be an Australian. Moreover, given I have worked offshore for ten years, in my case, there will have been acculturation factors too. I return to Polanyi in-so-much-as tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are coefficient.

“I do not understand how can phenomena be accurate, neither what a quantum mechanical universe is.” Neither can I. I took the aforesaid to be the drift of your citation.

I think we can have it both ways. Einstein’s contribution and Einstein’s archaic DNA (or that much of the bacteria inside his body was not human) are individually important.

My meta/theoretical physics example may have been a little over top for reason of illustration. Yet, there could be more sophisticated forms of bible study, perhaps, pragmatically looking at history. Even if a theist, I would see no issue in taking a critical look at the Flood, the Shroud of Turin and Fatima. There is evidence of the foremost, yet, issues of scale need to reformulated.

Best regards.

.

ON THE NATURE OF SWEEPING STATEMENTS

.

In addition to the various sweeping statements already posted on this thread, please allow me to suggest some others:

cogito, ergo sum; the world is round; I love you; it's hot; I believe in God; he's my brother ...

These are all simple statements. All simple statements are sweeping.

Sweeping is a synthetic process that eliminates the superfluous and highlights the essential.

It is the Gaussian curve that describes the distribution of probability without necessarily crossing any particular point on its path.

It does not exclude deviances to the rule. It is the product of all deviances and non-deviances.

It is the synthesis. It is the essence. It is the end result of a lengthy process of analysis, interpretation and assimilation.

To put it simply, it is simplicity.

.

.

ANOTHER BASH AT THE NAIL !

.

Please excuse me for having another bash at the nail. As George might rightly suggest, it is an add-on that disserves my cause:

I, nevertheless, beg to plead that simplicity is not facility.

It takes an enormous amount of time and energy to be complete, and it is only once this is done that the additional time and energy consuming work of simplicity can commence.

It was General Bigeard, the commanding officer of the French colonial armed forces during the Indochina war, who died in his home town of Toul in France, just one week ago, at the ripe old age of 94, who pronounced those famous words when reporting back to the Commander-in-chief of the National armed forces at head office in Paris:

"Excusez-nous, mon Général, nous n'avons pas eu le temps de faire simple". (Excuse us, my General, we did not have time to make it simple).

.

Bugsy,
If you suggest it, we could discuss the levels of acceptance of evolution amongst religious leaders, religious communities, scientific circles, and the population at large.

“’It is just a matter of time,’ one biologist wrote recently, ‘before this fruitful concept comes to be accepted by the public as wholeheartedly as it has accepted the spherical earth and the sun-centred solar system.’ Time, however, is what evolutionary biologists have long had, and if general acceptance has not come by now, it is hard to know when it ever will.” - Berlinski.

Have I found that research program yet? No, not yet. Has advancing your theory helped us out with anything fruitful yet?

You say belief in evolution doesn’t cause atheism. Yet it sure doesn’t hurt.

What you said after that, I had trouble understanding. ‘A miracle cannot be touched by science’. Could you explain further? Jesus changed water into wine. People not only touched it, they tasted it and drank it.

Dear Oliver,

Let me repeat, we all can learn from external, even if unsympathetic, looks at our convictions making up our world-view, so I am grateful to you for providing these. One only has to be careful how one formulates this criticism, and the same is true about formulating the response to it. This is how we can mutually enrich our perspectives without converting to the other side.

Dear Banjo,

In my dictionary a sweeping statement means “taking no account of particular cases or exceptions; too general”. I am sorry I did not make this more explicit.

Try “atheists are arrogant (or some other negative adjective)” and see the reaction (since it will be understood that you claim this about ALL atheists). On the other hand, “SOME atheists are (whatever)“ is almost always an empty information. Similarly, e.g. “blacks are stupid” is a racist statement, whereas “some blacks are stupid” says nothing.

Of course, you could replace “some” by “the majority of”, which turns your statement into an opinion that one might or might not agree with, not a sweeping one.

Also, there is a difference between simple and simplistic, although I am not sure what you wanted to say with your last post.

Dan,
The only person who seems to have written that 'biologist' quote within the Berlinski quote was Berlinksi himself.

Did Jesus turn water in to wine? Really? How many times? Who else could do it? Oh once, only Him and we can't see it, it just written down in your book.

Untouched and untouchable by science, Dan. I can certainly see why you have trouble understanding things about science.

Keep looking for that research program Dan, it's bound the be the Next Big Thing. Isn't it?

Dan,

I thought you might be interested in this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/can-a-darwinian-be-a-chri_b_618758.html.

Christians and Jews both share the Jewish Bible. However, they take very different things from it in some respects. It seems to me that the main argument on this string is between those who take scripture literally and those who don’t whether they are believers or non-believers.

To many bible literalists humans are the culmination of creation. Moses Maimonides (died 1204) is considered by believing Jews as their greatest philosopher. He did not take scripture literally. Here is what he writes in the “Guide for the Perplexed”:

“The major source of confusion in the search for the purpose of the universe as a whole, or even its parts, is rooted in man’s error about himself and his supposing that all of existence is for his sake alone. Every fool supposes that existence is for his sake ... but if man examines the universe and understands it, he knows how small a part of it he is.”

I am both amazed and amused that some Christians take Genesis literally when almost none of the descendents of those who wrote it take it literally.

.

Dear George,

.

You are quite right. We have to adopt a common definition of what we are talking about, otherwise we will never get anywhere.

I am quite happy to accept your dictionary's definition of a sweeping statement. I now fully understand what you have in mind when you employ that term.

As you have obviously realized, that is not at all what I have in mind. I propose we call what I have in mind, a simple statement, in order to avoid all future confusion.

I trust you will find this satisfactory.

Turning, now, to your four negative examples of sweeping statements, I agree that many people are capable of expressing all sorts of stupid, insulting and unacceptable ideas and opinions. However, sweeping statements are, by no means, the only form of expression for such ideas and opinions.

Each example you indicate could be the subject of a 500 word thesis and still be just as stupid, insulting and unacceptable.

But how right you are in observing that "there is a difference between simple and simplistic".

Simplicity is the essence in all its pureness, uncontaminated and undistorted.

Simplism is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation.

I felt it was necessary to add that it is not because a statement is short and simple that the message it conveys is incomplete, less precise, or less important than a more complex and detailed work.

I tried to warn against the all too common error of considering that simplicity is easy, requires very little intellectual effort, and is done in no time. Whereas, far more complex and voluminous works require much greater intellectual input and considerably more time.

The work of "simplifying" is not a substitute for the more complex, detailed analysis etc. It is additional work which commences once the complex work has been completed and approved.

I used as an example, General Bigeard apologetically presenting his voluminous report to his boss with the words "Excuse us, my General, we did not have time to make it simple".

I hope I found the right words this time.

.

.

OOPS ... !

.

Yes, I meant a 500 page thesis ...

.

Dear George,

Thanks.

I try to externalise science not only the study of theism. For example, I am cautious about the possibility of 10 to 32nd power universies required to permit a universe were measurement is allowed to transition from a quantum state to a classical state. Although, I don't dismiss that proposition outright.

I happy to be called an atheist but a sceptic would be a better description. I am willing to revisit and re-test propositions I now deem unlikely. On the other hand, I would feel such an analyical process should be systematic: e.g., is there a creation agent. Yes, No? If yes, is that agent, God? Yes/No? If God, which god? I put, there is a serial order to be applied. We need to line up our ducks in the correct sequence.

Perhaps, the question is not, "Does god exit?", rather, (what was the initial measurement process (observation)? which first collapsed superposition to permit classical phenomena, "closed by the irreversible act of amplication" (Bohr)? Although, I would not agree to the notion the phenomena (calssical physics/physical reality) sets an absolute limit.

Rather from science, we can learn from understanding the collapse of wave functions and quantum superposition. Where QM and theology might meet is not in the Bible, instead, the first observation of supposition. If I were a thesist, checking for a god, I would look here, not scripture.

"If" a god is to play a role, it that of the first observer (more aligned to the classical world than QM)to create (big scale)phemonena. Even if one accepts such a theistic supposition, it is a long way from having the gods of the scriptures being manifestations of the measurement agent (observer) which amplifies (Bohr) QM phenomena into the classical world or resolves Schodinger-like gasanken at the beginning of the univserse.

A sceptic can "cross-over", and hypothetically work the "outside/otherside". However, I don't see runner, Sells or OUG et al. willing to do the same. I suspect many sceptics have read, studied and considered scriptures, yet, feel a stronger pull towards non-religious accounts of creation.

"..., I am cautious about the possibility of 10 to 32nd power universies required to permit a universe were measurement is allowed to transition from a quantum state to a classical state. Although, I don't dismiss that proposition outright."

Ooops. 20 to 32nd power universes.

I come to this thread very late, and so haven't read any of the comments, so sorry if I'm repetitive, though I doubt it.
Despite the author's stated intentions, the article strikes me as condescending; the overall tone is like a civilised anthropologist making first contact with a lost tribe; the religious community is welcome to join the scientific congregation as long as they toe the line.
The author, without doubt, is buying into the Habermas line--all thought is inclusive as long as it's 'enlightened'. Which is what eactly? According to Witgenstein, an analytic philosopher, just another language game; and based on dodgy premises at that: the premise that reality is as we perceive it, or as language describes it (which amounts to the same thing). But even if we concede that science offers an "incredibly powerful way of understanding the natural world" (one wonders at the need of the adverb, tantamount to 'miraculous'?), what then? What do we do with this 'incredible' tool? What does science say about how we should live, for instance? And is it wise to give science free reign to use its 'power,' when it evinces no sense of responsibility? I'm happy for the scientists that glory in their incredibly powerful way of understanding the world, but what of the scientifically 'illiterate' (poor benighted souls); the new philistines?

,

Those "new philistines" can catch up, that's what they can do.

Hard work hasn't killed those of us who have learned some biology. Facts of biology differ in no way from those of steam. Those who learn and work with it and apply it do useful things and those who "don't like it" can watch, slack jawed.

Alternatively they can start *demonstrating* miracles rather than claiming that fiction written decades to centuries after the alleged events is in some manner equivalent.

Or, as the fundies actually *are* doing, just fade into irrelevance, however bitterly.

Rusty

Dear Banjo,

I am sorry, but I cannot express more clearly - or simply, if you like - my critical comments on your description of the concept of religion (a couple of posts ago) than I did.

Dear Oliver,

>>I would feel such an analyical process should be systematic<<
I know already that this is your approach, and I have been trying to convince you, that the outcome of your “analytical process” to find out whether faith (a state of mind hinging on, but not reducible to, belief in God) is not simply Yes or No.

Recently I came across an article by a psychologist that you might find relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/why-religion-is-emnotem-d_b_611148.html .

Let my try another angle: a person who cannot swim (ride a bike, ski etc) can study the physical laws that enable others to swim and he/she can acquire some external, analytical if you like, knowledge of these skills but not the skill itself. I know, this is not a very good analogy - it is much easier to acquire the skill of swimming than that of religious insights, for many reasons, (e.g. because the latter depend on the subject’s psychological and cultural background of which there are many). So I prefer the analogy with sense (“a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus”, where “body” is replaced by “mind”).

I did not understand your part on phenomena quantum physics tries to explain, however I think the proper understanding, whatever it is, must be independent of your a priori outlook - theist, atheist, sceptic if you like - unless you want to reintroduce the infamous concept of “God of the gaps” and form your argument along that concept, as - I think - some theists as well as atheists still do. One can try to INTERPRET accepted physical theories from one’s own a priori world-view presuppositions, but one cannot use them to RESOLVE the ambiguities, enigmas, connected with that theory.

I might agree with your view of runner, however there are also a number of his mirror images in the atheist camp (including on this OLO; I am not going to name them).

All-in-all, I am repeating myself, and, as so many times before, we are going in circles.

.

Dear George,

.

That's OK. I was just concerned you may not understand what I was trying to say.

As far as possible conversions of opinion are concerned, I guess nobody postures as Billy Graham here, so there is little chance of that, whatever our convictions ( or "world-view presuppositions") may be.

.

Dear Rusty,
I don't think those fundies are fading away into irrelevance just yet; I'd suggest fundamentalism of one kind or another, that is dealing in "facts", is on the rise.
Did you catch the last ten minutes of the Science Show yesterday http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/ , on the apparent "monadology" of human biology. Consciousness (whatever that is) and our experience of the world is, it seems, some kind of miraculous (I use the word advisedly) process of synthesising a cacophany. Indeed the whole Show was about how humans impose, or "presuppose" patterns of recognition on phenomena. Empiricism remains a highly dubious foundation upon which to base our conclusions. Furthermore, those conclusions are perceived and described in terms of language, itself inherently ambiguous and unstable, as theorised by Saussure, late Wittgenstein et al.
This is not to defend fundamentalist beliefs, but to suggest a) that mystical scepticism is a legitimate response to the 'aporia' of human reality (which can manifest as blind clinging to a belief system that offers fundamental truths), and b) that dogmatic scientism is a similar beast if it does not acknowledge, indeed embrace, the aporia of human cognition as a means and object of investigation. It is not enough, however, just to describe and measure, especially if the instruments cannot be properly calibrated.
Moreover, scientific method cannot be embraced as a world-view because its faux-objectivity is also nihilistic without some human/ethical/aspirational rationale to reign in its omniscientific, directionless dialectical progression.
I would suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to go on searching for, or even creating, "meaning" in the universe. If we can coherently synthesise the "noise" of the human biota (not that "we" do it, it seems to be spontaneous) I don't see why we can't do so at the level of culture.
I realise these musings are just that; they amount, however, to "genuine" scepticism.

Dear George,
Thanks for the article. Does the fact that you direct me towards it mean that it roughly reflects your view or that you endorse it in some way?

I see that it comes from the Huffington Post, which also supports other articles from Zimmerman which have been reprinted this year on OLO. Does the HuffPost ever print articles from the other side of the debate?

Bugsy,
If you say that no biologist wrote that sentence, are you supposing that no biologist believes it to be true? If so, ought this not negate the sentence? If so, let’s declare the statement in its negative form –

‘Darwinian evolution coming to be accepted by the public as wholeheartedly as it has accepted the spherical earth and the sun-centred solar system is not inevitable.’

How many times did Jesus turn water into wine? Once, I believe. Who else could do it? No one, I suspect. St John described it as a ‘miraculous sign’, and the reason Jesus’ disciples put their faith in him.

May I ask you, how many times did the non-living chemicals combine to form the self replicating cell, which in turn became the evolutionary ancestor of other life?

How many times did a gigantic meteor crash into the earth causing the extinction of the dinosaurs?

How many times did Azaria Chamberlain allegedly disappear from her camp bed?

I am wondering about singular events in history. If in fact they are singular or very rare, perhaps unrepeatable, is this why you say that they are untouchable by science?

Dear George,

In my 26 June post, I was trying to demonstrate that I am am willing to to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion. Herein, I a try to be consistent.

The notion of faith as a practised skill is interesting and does fit in with the Huntington Post article to some degree. If one does belie someting that if false in a time when folk generally know no better than I would not call that a delusion. One the other hand, remaining circumscribed might increase the likeihood of confronting reinforcement schedules embedding non-facts.

Perhaps, it is drawing a long bow, but, the willingness to stay put, in one's home, and not trek the marketplace, does have micmic agoraphobia, to the degree believer does not go "outside". Albeit, generally, I would be disinclined to categorise religionists under the DSM IV.

I do reflect on what you cite in leiu of the systematic case. Thanks. However, it would seem logical to consider the existence of God "before" adopting a specific god.

Regarding Bohr's cited statement on the Copenhagen interpretation; on "phenomena", McFadden adds:

"Phenomena are the interaction between quantum objects and measuring devices. No independent relity is attributed to indepenedent quantum objects. There is no such thing as an electron or photon in the absence of measurement - they do not exist. The fundamental units of our existence are not atoms, electrons or photons but phenomena."

As with (alleged) heaven and earth, there is a need to see a demarcation between the real and quasi-real realms.

In my 26 June post, I was trying to demonstrate that I am am willing to to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion. Herein, I a try to be consistent.

Dan, you seriously need logic lessons. I said that only Berlinski wrote that sentence. Berlinski repeats it often to give himself some sort of strawman to attack, but only comes from Berlinski. Your conclusion that I believe that no biologists may believe it to be true is not discernable from the statement.

Some biologists may believe it to be true, but I can say with certainty that not all biologists believe it to be true. Some biologists don't believe in 'inevitability' when it comes to human affairs.

All your examples are either not necessarily singular events or they are rare convergences of relatively common events. In all cases they leave objective evidence behind.

" how many times did the non-living chemicals combine to form the self replicating cell, which in turn became the evolutionary ancestor of other life? "
Simple answer, we don't know yet, maybe many times. The microbes that formed the organelles may not necessarily have had the same ancestors, but that is yet to be determined. Perhaps multiple forms of life once existed and our ancestors ate them. Evolution happens a lot like that. One day we may know how common these types of events are, if we find life on other planets.

"How many times did a gigantic meteor crash into the earth causing the extinction of the dinosaurs?"

Gigantic meteors crashing to earth are a relatively regular event, and may have caused more than one mass extinction. The dinosaurs could only live once, but at least we know they existed, as they left a lot of evidence behind.

"How many times did Azaria Chamberlain allegedly disappear from her camp bed?"
While Azaria only disappeared once, she could only once. How many other babies have disappeared from their beds? Can we predict that other babies could disappear in the future?

It's all about evidence Dan.

A big difference between these other events is that Jesus' alleged feat is impossible to repeat and noone can perform such an act with ancient technology, that's what makes it a miracle.

Miracles Dan. Untouched and untouchable by science.

Dan wrote: “How many times did Jesus turn water into wine? Once, I believe. Who else could do it? No one, I suspect. St John described it as a ‘miraculous sign’, and the reason Jesus’ disciples put their faith in him.”

And of all the acts the alleged Jesus performed, all he could do were a few gimmicky things in front of a select few people.

Jesus had the chance to prove his godlike status by providing us with beneficial information about things such as electricity and important medical information such as: a bath every so often will prevent disease.

Instead, he confines himself to one tiny part of the world, lives a life almost identical to many messiahs before him, and effectively prolongs a primitive and savage mindset in mankind and stunts our progress by not only holding from us important medical information, but making things worse by blaming medical conditions on demonic possession.

This is often dodged by theists with the excuse that the people of Jesus’ time couldn’t understand advanced science or concepts that we can now understand, and aside from the fact that there’s nothing advanced about the idea of bathing regularly, what better way to prove you’re god than to record a complex scientific equation in scripture?

Oh, and Bugsy, Dan wanted you to say “yes” to his question so that he could then say that evolution therefore isn’t science. This despite the fact that he knows you meant that science can’t touch miracles simply because miracles, by their very definition, defy science. Very disingenuous.

Of course, you probably already knew this.

Dear Dan,
I did not “direct” you to the article I only thought you might be interested in a recent paper that raises some problems not with evolution theory as such but with some (naive to my mind) theist interpretations.

My creed, as expressed on this OLO a couple of times:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.

In othern worlds, scientific theories (evolution included) by their very nature cannot contradict a theist, especially Christian, outlook, unless either or both are interpreted with the purpose of finding a contradiction, i.e. unless science is seen as ersatz-religion and/or religion as ersatz-science (the latter having had some justification in the past, when no proper science existed).

The problems the article in Huffington post raises arise - in my opinion - from a naive understanding of the term “purpose” (in Creation) and confusing it with the term “design” as understood by science, and discernible by humans (scientists). There is purpose, and planning, in many things I do, but a three-year-old will not recognise it as such, unless I “revealed” it to him/her in a language appropriate to his level. The same with our Creator's mind: It is futile, to say the least, to expect that humans - scientists or not - should be able to discern (and fully understand) the mechanism of God’s creative activity. [Let me hasten to add, that I am aware that this paragraph does not make sense to an atheist.]

Dear, Oliver,

>>I am willing to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion.<<

QM is easy to understand if you know enough mathematics, and there is no known experiment that would falsify it. It is the interpretations or philosophical implications of the physical theory that constitute a problem, what I kept on referring to as the quantum enigma. On the other hand, religion is a very broad concept, and I am not sure what could play the role of mathematics on which all religions would hinge, like physics hinges on mathematics. There is always the subjective, cultural factor, and many valid perspectives, (c.f. the metaphor of “elephant and the six blind men“).

Fact, in my dictionary, is a “thing that is indisputably the case”. This indisputability depends on those who do not see a need to dispute it. This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street”. However, in a more abstract (philosophical) context it is not such a straightforward concept. The same for “non-fact”. (ctd)

(ctd)
I am not sure who you think does “stay put, in one's home, and not trek the marketplace”: teher are narrow-minded people in all sorts of cultural environments.

Your McFadden quote could be seen as saying that we do not know what is reality on its own: we only know of physical phenomena (interaction of reality with our SENSES AND measuring devices), and we can form a mental image of physical reality only through physical models/theories (where the concepts of "atoms, electrons and photons” etc belong) hinging on mathematical models - or, if you like, written in the language of mathematics - (where concepts like Hilbert spaces, probability etc belong). To my understanding it is not clear whether the crucial concept of QM - wave-function - belongs to the first or second realm.

As you know, I see also the numinous (“supernatural” to Dawkins and his ilk) as being approachable by humans only through models based on narrative mythologies, sacred texts of this or that religion (with various degrees of historicity), theology or philosophy in the widest meaning of the word.

So in this sense I also draw inspiration from my understaning of physical reality to a wider context of human experience, except I would not call it "applying the same methodology" for reasons explained above.

Dear George,

You wrote: "This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street""

Doubt as to the existence of any supernatural has a long history. I doubt the accuracy of your above statement. A “man in the street" could doubt and could also be afraid to express doubts. The fate of those in the medieval era who challenged the 'verities' of religious belief was not always pleasant.

Protagoras in the fifth century BCE expressed doubts as to the existence of a supernatural. As a Greek philosopher of note his words have been recorded. Men and woman of less note have not had their words recorded, but that does not mean that they didn't have doubts. However, I think you have no right to claim what was an indisputable fact for the voiceless dead.

My words will fade away with my death, but I had doubts as to the existence of any deity at the age of 7. I am sure that I am not unique in that.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"... I am not sure what could play the role of mathematics on which all religions would hinge ..."

I uderstand it is fear that underpins the supernatural and that it is Abraham's tale about the large idol smashing all the other idols in his father's shop during his absence, that underpins the existence of just one god.

The supernatural, in turn, appears to be the raw material drom which religions are produced.

Religions continue to irrigate the social structure of most communities, with the complicity and encouragement of the political leaders, both as an infliential element of social cohesion and harmony as well as an independent provider of essential health, education and welfare services.

In addition, as indicated in previous posts, religions assist the individual to support his (or her) "earthly woes" with the promise of "heavenly bliss" which, of course, is an additional servce that most political leaders find quite appreciable (the opium of the people).

Indeed, for the large majority of mankind, life is quite unsupportable without its daily dose of "opium". Others manage to abstain, at least until they reach their death beds.

.

Dear George,

When I compared religion and QM, I did so with insufficent clarity. I was referring to supra-realty. There is a point where beyond which classical physics doesn't work. Yet, QM effects can be measured, god cannot. Even as a skeptic, I will consider the supra-real. QM I see as the supra-real realm of the very tiny. Religion, on the hand, I see as cultural, wherein, the supra-real is devised, rather than measured.

McFadden also suggested that in the early decades of QM the Copenhagen interpretation limited (manifest) phenonmena to the real world and "anythig other than phenonmena is a philosophy or theology". I think that entanglement might take us beyond that limitation. Herein, it is at least feasible to construct a quantum computer (repetition) but not possibe to create a god (cannot be tested. In the former case, we can import (for want of a better word) from the supra-real to the tangible, yet, god is not malliable.

The collapse of the wave function is curious. As you would know, physicists usefully describe the action as a "coupling" between the meaurement devise and superposition. Yet, it is not clear where the collapse takes place given that measuring devise itself also embedded in the QM realm. In my primitive visualisation, I see magnitude cum observation, as a catalyst, after-which reality comes about. The problem with nailing things down is instability/fluctuations on the border.

While my understading is (counter intutively) that a finite outcome can occasion a finite result, thus, suggesting an infinitely complex entity could be a single entity; the existence of god leveraged on a cultural premiss does not seem substantial and does explain how god exists. As with finding the dividing line between manifest reality and the quantum realm, the determination of the first caused (god or else)is elusive. On the other hand,the possibility of a closed creation having underlying QM properties would seem closer than understanding the relationship between an alledged god and reality. Can we measure/know of our entanglement with god?

Dear George,

"does not seem substantial and does NOT explain how god exists."

Also, as a skeptic, I consider the multiverse explanation, as a convenient transient construct until something else comes along. I mention this, because I wish to point out, that I view scientific endeavours critically too, not just religion. Herein, I try to be consistent and fair.

Dear George,

The above is a correction. Cheers, O.

George,

Another correction: “… While my understanding is (counter intuitively) that an INfinite outcome (sum) can occasion a finite result.”

Sorry, to be so muddled today.

George,

<<Let me hasten to add, that I am aware that this paragraph does not make sense to an atheist.>>

Why would that not make sense to an atheist? To me, that paragraph was made perfect sense and I suspect it would to anyone who understands what gods or religions are.

One mistake I often see you make, is that you confuse the rejection of an idea/concept with the inability to understand it.

Theists are humans just like atheists, and therefore do not possess an additional sense that enables them to connect with something that atheists cannot. We do, however, all possess emotions. Yet not all who possess emotions possess the ability to discern them from knowledge or some alleged deeper connection.

On another note, I often avoid using the term “sophistry” to describe your arguments since you have shown yourself in the past to react badly to this charge whether or not someone has a point. But unfortunately, the following paragraph is such a blatant case of it, you leave me no choice...

<<Fact, in my dictionary, is a “thing that is indisputably the case”.>>

Which dictionary would this be?

I’ve checked different sources for definitions of “fact” I and cannot find one that makes the term seem so subjective. Most the definitions I can find refer to “facts” as being verifiable (objective) knowledge...

-A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred;
-A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened;
-A concept whose truth can be proved;
-Something that actually exists; reality; truth.

(http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define:fact&aq=f&aqi=g1g-s1g8&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact)

<<This indisputability depends on those who do not see a need to dispute it.>>

Here you are confusing the ability to dispute with the desire to dispute. Whether or not something is a ‘fact’ does not rely on the individual or their inclinations. By your logic here, the universe would not be here if we were not around to know it was here.

As much as theists may hate it, we cannot invent our own facts, I’m afraid.

Continued...

...Continued

<<This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street”.>>

Of all the examples you could have chosen, you selected this?

What about an everyday fact like: if I drop a rock it, it’ll hit the ground. This really is a fact, because it is verifiable and doesn’t rely on a subjective interpretation of what it means to drop.

Now, I can accept that NOT ALL is what it seems, but what you’ve done here takes that a step further in what appears to be an attempt to blur the line between knowledge and belief; reality and fantasy with a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning to make it appear as though NOTHING is what it seems.

And that, to me, is pure sophistry - in every sense of the word.

Dear George,
I think that if two people differ on a matter, then at least one of them must be wrong. Is that too simple?

Was it Einstein who said, ‘I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest is just detail’? Fully grasping the infinite is pretty hard for a finite mind. Yet I believe God did not leave us without statement to his creative activity as seen from that which has been made.

Bugsy,
You admit that some biologists believe that quote to be true, yet admonish Berlinski for quoting one biologist having said it. You’re a hard man to please.

We are in agreement that Jesus (or anyone) changing water into wine would be considered a miracle. Creating something out of nothing is, of course, a miracle; creation ex nihilo, the first miracle.

I asked those questions regarding singular or rare events as I assumed you were touching on the plank of repeatability as regard to a proper definition of science operation. I am still wondering why you said miracles cannot be touched by science.

You say it is all about evidence. Here we are also in agreement. What can we observe as evidence?

For Azariah’s disappearance, there were traces of blood and animal tracks left behind. Authorities in the case did call on the deliberations of scientists at the time.

For Jesus’ wine making event, anyone who was there could examine the water put in the jars, or the wine that resulted, or the resultant behaviour of those who consumed it. Evidence was not in lack at the time. If another miracle occurred today similar to that found in John’s gospel, perhaps the healing of a man born blind, why could we not investigate the claim using the normal tools of science, logic and observation?

As for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, even if it was true that their mass extinction was the result of a giant meteor strike with the resultant evidence left behind, the same event could not be repeated. Such is the nature of all historical events.

.

Dear George & Oliver,

.

AJ's comments seem quite pertinent.

Employing science as an analytical tool in order to explain or justify God and religion appears to be about as effective as shovelling a pile of sand with a pitchfork.

I am wondering if you would have any more success with art.

I do not mean to suggest you abandon your quest for the Holy Grail.

I am simply wondering if art may have more relevance to scientific enquiry than God and religion.

.

Dan, singular events do not constitute miracles. Science explains things and miracles by definition are inexplicable and must remain a mystery. If they get explained by science, then they are no longer miracles. All of the historical events you mention are definitely explicable. Except for the Jesus thing, unless he was a hypnotist. I've seen stage acts from cheap illusionists that were more impressive than what he was claimed to do. I wouldn't join their fan club though.

You have given me an insight into the nature of religion, and for that I thank you. It appears to me that religion requires miracles, requires mystery to justify the existence of God. Is this not so? If it is, then I can see why people think that religion must draw the line for science somewhere, and encourage ignorance about some things, so that God still has somewhere to live.

I have often heard the complaint from religious people, that once a 'miracle' is explained the world appears to them just a little more mundane. There are bigger mysteries our there than people suddenly healing themselves, non-religious people heal themselves through belief all the time. The placebo effect is a wonderful mystery that is repeatable and observable. Not yet explicable, but touched by science and 'poof', not a miracle anymore.

For a miracle to remain, it needs to remain untouched, and untouchable by science.

Dear Oliver,

If I understand you properly, you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that considers (assumes?) two physical realms: the macroscopic classical realm of our measuring instruments governed by Newton’s laws, and the microscopic, quantum, realm of atoms and other small things governed by the Schrödinger equation. Obviously a not very satisfactory way of seeing physical reality as split into two realms, the splitting depending on the measuring instrument. John von Neumann might be right to conclude that such an artificial splitting of “objective reality” necessarily involves the observer’s consciousness.

You are right to describe these things as “curious”, and whatever better interpretation there exists - a jury is still out on this - it will not involve anything “supernatural”, only probably a better understanding of human consciousness. For a theist it only indicates that not only the existence of God is enigmatic, but also that of our physical reality, if probed deeply enough, nothing else.

>>While my understanding is (counter intuitively) that an INfinite outcome (sum) can occasion a finite result<<
What you apparently mean is convergent, e.g. geometric, series in mathematics, a concept known to every HSC student but not so to e.g. Zeno with his paradoxes. This is unrelated to “infinity” as an attribute of God. The same about entanglement, which is a technical term from physics (QM). A self-explaining universe (see Paul Davies, The Goldilock’s Enigma, Penguin Books 2007, or James N. Gardner, Biocosm, Inner Ocean 2003), multiverse, or other speculations to bypass the enigma of a fine-tuned universe, are just that, speculations compatible with both belief and unbelief in God.

Another recent Huffington Post article that is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for your contribution to my debate with Oliver, but I am still not sure what in Oliver’s understanding of religion could play the role of mathematics in our understanding of the phenomena studied by physics. The supernatural, fear and other things you mention are more or less relevant to the phenomenon of religion, however I do not think you could build on them a universally acceptable understanding of religion, similar to that provided by mathematics for physical theories (c.f. the different perspectives of the specialist “wise men” in my metaphor, not to mention atheist and theist perspectives, etc).

>>Employing science as an analytical tool in order to explain or justify God (etc)<<
Exactly this is what I am trying to convey to Oliver. Nevertheless, his excursions into QM I find challenging on themselves, in distinction to art, aesthetics, where I do not feel at home. If your world-view is more inspired by art than by science, there are others for whom these roles are reversed. These are preferences that are independent of whether you see yourself as a theist or an atheist.

Aslo, I do not understand in what sense art (or “God and religion” for that matter) can be "relevant to scientific enquiry".

Dear Dan,

>>God did not leave us without statement to his creative activity<<
I agree, we Christians believe that He revealed Himself to us in the Book of Scripture AS WELL AS in the Book of Nature: it is the theologians and exegetes who are best suited to read and explain the Bible to us, whereas in case of the Book of Nature it is the scientists.

AJ Philips,

The dictionary I took the definition from is the one included in Mac OS 10.6.3, based on the New Oxford American Dictionary. Thanks for the other definitions saying more or less the same, as well as for explicit examples of what I had in mind when referring to everyday facts that are “universally accepted”, i.e. beyond dispute.

>>And that, to me, is pure sophistry - in every sense of the word<<
In my earlier post to david f I wrote “Very roughly speaking … an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. Well, sophistry must be one of the things I gathered under “etc”.

Dear Dan and AJ Philips,

I am sorry I could not express more clearly (for you two to understand) what I had in mind. I was hoping to clarify some things, and my intention was certainly not to attack; neither religious believers nor unbelievers.

Dear George,
it seems you and I have more in common than some of your other antagonists, the difference between us being that while I acknowledge the dubiousness of empirical knowledge, and the need to consider human fascination with the numinous (outside its ideologically constructed conventions), I stop short of resolving my scepticism in a belief system. I s'pose I'm your classic agnostic, or what today we disparagingly call a relativist--which however can be purposive as well as aimless.

Dear George,

I am not adequately informed to be dogmatic about QM interpretations. Yet, yes, I would see prima facie the feasibility of two realms, perhaps with a semi-permeable seam. Moreover, I would see observation to be a loose concept, wherein, being deduced by the environment might suffice. Like you, I see nothing supernatural about this. If true, it is just how things are.

On the other hand, I appreciate that cosmologists like the mathematics of the multiverse. The idea of every possible event occurring is not only fantastic but convenient. Overall, despite its predictive power, I suspect the various contemporary QM interpretations will prove to be stop-gap until more solutions are known.

Where QM might have role is allowing the concurrency of superposition of states overcome the otherwise enormous time intervals required of classical biogenesis.

I am aware of the Zeno paradoxes (and inverse Zeno paradoxes in QM). Also, I am aware of the more grounded (technical) application of infinities and entanglement. That said, these terms do allow us to reflect upon how an alleged god might be constituted and how said god is “entangled” with realms, including our reality: i.e., How does god relate and engage with creation(s)? I have read the Goldilock’s Enigma and appreciate its speculative nature. On the other hand, the notion of a self-sustaining, self-organising universe is a more testable proposition than god in heaven.

Once matter is known to be created spontaneously and casualty diminished and properties are time are better understood, we can contain existence, without extrapolation to external agencies. Herein, in the last eighty years, we have come closer to understanding the universe as the universe alone, even if solutions beg new questions. We may taken only "the first step on the journey of a thousand miles", yet with the supernatural, there is no footing for a first step.

I read the Huffington Post cite. Thanks.

Dear Banjo,

My recent sojourn into QM was to suggest to George; though a sceptic, I am not stuck in nineteenth century mechanics. Instead, I will engage realms other than overt (to us) realities. Here, science is starting to probe with good effect. Moreover, the empirical seemingly has fuzzy edges on matters such as the creation, biogenesis and consciousness. Yet, these ideas have the potential to be progressed. Conscripting science as a tool to measure religion, shows even an excellent tool does not work, suggesting no tool will. God doesn’t measure up in the sense that likes of Lord Kelvin applied measure.

Dear Squeers,

I agree the non-empirical exists and that old notions about reality are undergoing revision. Yet, we seem to be enjoined to these other realities, which are just that, other realities, not the supernatural. I think George would accept the last point.

If existence can be explained by fuzzy stuff in QM and particle physics, do we really need sustain a first cause, when there may never have been a cause? If there is no first cause, why do we need to have been created (by God) in the simple sense of creation?

Oliver:
<If existence can be explained by fuzzy stuff in QM and particle physics, do we really need sustain a first cause, when there may never have been a cause? If there is no first cause, why do we need to have been created (by God) in the simple sense of creation?>

It's hard for humans to escape inductive reasoning, which always leads us back to first causes, ultimately rationalised as a singularity. I think it makes more sense to consider future prospects. It's unlikely anything sophisticated triggered the phenomenal universe, and in any case if it did, that's a singularity. It's much more plausible, I think, that meaning is retrospective, that the past and present is somehow connected with the future as fait accompli. If so, there must be a connection between our (ongoing?) future apotheosis and the present, which would otherwise surely be nothing more than an indifferent stage in that ultimately transcendent development. Either we are stark raving mad, a la Schelling, or we're haunted by the future, rather than first causes.

George,

Thanks for letting me know where you got the definition from. On reflection, it wasn’t the definition I had a problem with (the definition was more or less right) it was fact that you had then interpreted it, and put a spin on it, in such a way that it made everyday facts appear to be subjective when they’re not.

<<In my earlier post to david f I wrote “Very roughly speaking … an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. Well, sophistry must be one of the things I gathered under “etc”.>>

No, actually, if you re-read what I wrote, it wasn’t your position I was referring to, but the argument you used. Sophistry is simply the use of arguments that are deliberately devised to appear plausible, but are actually fallacious and misleading.

Besides which, everything you mentioned to david f before the “etc” related to why one might PERCEIVE things the way they do, so I don’t think you get to just lump a description of how one might CONVEY things the way they do into the ‘etc’ when it suits you, unfortunately.

<<I am sorry I could not express more clearly (for you two to understand) what I had in mind.>>

I read you loud and clear, George, so I’m not sure what it is that you think you could have expressed more clearly. Could you clarify this?

It seems that you do a lot of apologising to me for not being able to express yourself more clearly, but you’re always so careful about how you word your posts that I don’t see how you could possibly be clearer.

Considering English is your second language and yet you speak it far better than most here on OLO, I certainly don’t think communication is a problem. No, I think the problem you face is that you’re arguing from the inherently flawed form of Christian apologetics known as ‘Presuppositionalism’ that - as every other form of apologetics does - falls down at its premise and ultimately fails.

Dear Oliver,

Thanks again for your challenging inputs into the question of compatibility (or not) of science and theism, notably Christianity. As to QM, I think we can agree that neither you nor I are experts on it, and that even those who could be called experts do not know how to interpret the "reality dependent on observer" enigma.

>>I would see prima facie the feasibility of two realms … observation to be a loose concept, … If true, it is just how things are. <<

I think I can understand you, it reminds me of the pragmatic FAPP (for all practical purposes) attitude of working, non-philosophising, physicists. For others, the inbuilt dualism is problematic, even with a “seam that is semi-permeable”. It reminds me of the soul-body dualism, where the semi-permeable seam goes along what is called the mind. As you know, the concept of soul in a scientific context is irritating; in the Copenhagen interpretation it is that fuzzy splitting of reality that some find irritating.

John Bell, who introduced the FAPP acronym, introduced also FAPPTRAP, warning against the “trap” of accepting an observation created splitting of reality. I think this Bohr’s splitting of reality is just a shortcut through what we do not (yet?) have a philosophically satisfactory explanation of.

I do not know what you mean by “the mathematics of the multiverse” but I am afraid multiverse theory, to explain (away) the fine-tuning of our universe, as fascinating as it is, could end up like phlogiston theory, invented to explain the nature of combustion. (ctd)