Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Dr.Drock]

Another of the mysteries but there we are creatures of free will that includes ability to make choices. We are not marionettes manipulated by invisible strings. The ability to make choices includes ability to choose wisely. Or choose wrongly. Without such choices there is no ability to experience the full range of human emotions--love, joy, anticipation, hope, great expectation, satisfaction in goals accomplished, etc. While it is obvious that other creatures also experience some degree of some of the emotions we experience, none are fully capable of making choicess beyond their immediate experience our outside their experience.

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

I doubt the ancients knew or considered all this in their day, but they had the intellect to know that humans were somehow capable of having dominion over all other creatures As is reflected in the Biblical allegory.

But the ability to distinguish good and evil of itself includes the ability to choose bad or wrong or evil as well. And when we choose not to love God enough to yield to his guidance, we won't choose as well. And little by little we thereby choose to screw up the perfect creation we were given.

Perhaps it is the incredible and unfathomable marvel that is the human brain and the human capacity to love, hate, choose, adapt, that gives extra credence to the concept of some kind of intelligent design working in the universe.

Still doesn't seem perfect to me. A perfect creation to me would only be choosing between a collection of good choices, not choosing good or evil.

How can there be a 'good' without a 'bad"? How can there be virtue without evil? All I know is that love cannot be ordered, but without it, there is little in life that makes any sense at all. And perhaps, metaphorically, before Adam and Eve chose to be God instead of loving/obeying God, there were no bad choices? And once they made that choice, they began the process of spoiling the perfect creation?

If there was no ability to choose wrongly, then we are nothing more than puppets with every thought, action, and emotion pre-ordained. As I know that is not the case, then I have to accept that the choices I make do make a difference in the immediate, or at least the future of us all.

To me not being able to choose wrongly would be perfection. We're a far, VERY far from perfect species. We could have perfect conditions around us. Perfect weather, no diseases, perfect resources, and we'd still be trying to conquer each other, we'd still be at war, etc etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still doesn't seem perfect to me. A perfect creation to me would only be choosing between a collection of good choices, not choosing good or evil.

How can there be a 'good' without a 'bad"? How can there be virtue without evil? All I know is that love cannot be ordered, but without it, there is little in life that makes any sense at all. And perhaps, metaphorically, before Adam and Eve chose to be God instead of loving/obeying God, there were no bad choices? And once they made that choice, they began the process of spoiling the perfect creation?

If there was no ability to choose wrongly, then we are nothing more than puppets with every thought, action, and emotion pre-ordained. As I know that is not the case, then I have to accept that the choices I make do make a difference in the immediate, or at least the future of us all.

To me not being able to choose wrongly would be perfection. We're a far, VERY far from perfect species. We could have perfect conditions around us. Perfect weather, no diseases, perfect resources, and we'd still be trying to conquer each other, we'd still be at war, etc etc.

Not being able to choose wrongly removes all freedom of thought, reaction, and action from the equation. It makes you a mindless puppet manipulated at will by some superior power. Yes, it could be perfect that way. But you would have no capacity to comprehend, appreciate, or enjoy it. I don't see how that would be better.

 

[amrchaos]

How can there be a 'good' without a 'bad"? How can there be virtue without evil? All I know is that love cannot be ordered, but without it, there is little in life that makes any sense at all. And perhaps, metaphorically, before Adam and Eve chose to be God instead of loving/obeying God, there were no bad choices? And once they made that choice, they began the process of spoiling the perfect creation?

If there was no ability to choose wrongly, then we are nothing more than puppets with every thought, action, and emotion pre-ordained. As I know that is not the case, then I have to accept that the choices I make do make a difference in the immediate, or at least the future of us all.

To me not being able to choose wrongly would be perfection. We're a far, VERY far from perfect species. We could have perfect conditions around us. Perfect weather, no diseases, perfect resources, and we'd still be trying to conquer each other, we'd still be at war, etc etc.

Not being able to choose wrongly removes all freedom of thought, reaction, and action from the equation. It makes you a mindless puppet manipulated at will by some superior power. Yes, it could be perfect that way. But you would have no capacity to comprehend, appreciate, or enjoy it. I don't see how that would be better.

It may not be better for us
But would not God have perfect servants for God?

I think that is what is meant by perfect creations from a perfect being.

If God wish us to follow his commandments, then why give us free will and let us disobey him.

I (understand I am not a theist and only assuming the theistic model for arguments sake) tend to think that it is not GOD that is given the commandments. That is a simple explaination, but there could be others reasons.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This one brings us back to the moral question of original sin. If the bible stands true, then people aren't reincarnated in different forms to live again on this Earth in Hindu fashion. Nobody who is currently alive was also alive during the time of Adam and Eve. Therefore, there's not a single woman alive today who, even if she really, -really- wanted to stop the snake from tempting Eve, or stop Eve from eating of the fruit, could have done anything about it. Every single woman alive today was completely powerless to do anything about Eve fucking up in the garden of eden.

How does a God who is infinitely wise, and loving, and just, sentence every woman to that sort of painful, often-deadly child birthing model for the crime of one woman that they were powerless to prevent?

I would say that we are not wrong to punish criminals. . . however. . . if someone commits murder, to you also imprison his children? Their children? How many generations of that persons offspring is it justifiable to punish for the crimes of their predecessor? And is it just offspring? What about siblings? Predecessors? Everybody who looks like 'em? Everybody in the same species? Should the entire human race get in line for the electric chair since, somewhere in history, there had to be -somebody- who did enough awful shit to justify the death penalty. If original sin is our model for justice, then every human should be punished for every crime committed by any human. Does this sound consistent with your view of justice?

There is profound wisdom to be found in the Bible, but much of it is evident only if one can free his/her mind from the literal and embrace the greater truths that are expressed metaphorically. symbolically, or allegorically.

In Exodus 34, for instance, we read various translations of a curious passage: "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generation."

This makes sense if we go back to the Creation story beginning in the second chapter of Genesis which was written at a much earler time than was the first chapter of Genesis. There we see the progression: the 'original' sin of Adam and Eve that began the process of spoling God's perfect creation for them. Then Cain and Abel in which the sin spreads into the family and further screws things up for them. And then into the larger community, (Noah) and finally into the entire world (the Tower of Babel.) All, in my opinion, are allegorical explanations for why things are the way they are, but the theme of sin, intended or unintended, runs through all, and there is consequence for all sin.

The lesson to be learned is that what God created is perfect. And it is our collective sin that spoils that perfection and it is accumulative and progressive which is why sin is bad. So we at different times have eroded our health and damaged genes to be passed on to our progeny; addictions affect the whole family and subsequent generations; and as a global society we at different times have destroyed the beauty and wonder, fouled the soil and water and air and food supply, and failed to do what we could to preserve much of what God gave us.

Sin is that which harms us and/or others whether intentional or not. The lesson of the Bible is that if we yield ourselves to God and do what He commands, we will not sin.and will not spoil his perfect creation. Otherwise, sin is inevitable.

How can something sin that was created perfect?

Good question, God gave us freewill and allowed us to make our own decisions. He gave adam and eve one command to obey and that was to not eat from the tree of good and evil. Adam and eve chose poorly and lost their right to perfection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me help you out you are struggling with your explanations of mutations. Mutations are copying errors that is why we currently have around 5,000 genetic disorders and diseases. Can you explain the mechanism that tries to repair these Dna copying errors so no mutation takes place ? Why would this mechanism exist ? Would a natural process evolution think of such a mechanism or would a designer think of such a mechanism ? I have studied mutations for many years on flies. Why flies because they have such a short lifespan and reproduce quick. We have witnessed countless numbers of mutations both the ones that happened naturally and the ones we induced through radiation and vaginal sponge baths. I have never seen a change that benefited the flies. I never observed a mutation that spread through the population. And every fly that experienced mutations had a shorter lifespan. Evolution needs lots of beneficial mutations to occur absent of neutral or harmful mutations and that's just not observed. No matter what your side does they will not be able to save neo darwinism it never happened. All you have to do is name the observed beneficial mutations agains't the harmful mutations. For evolution to occur you need a continual accumulation of beneficial mutations. That just simply is not observed.

When a beneficial mutation occurs - maybe a mutation that helps to camouflage the animal from predators - the animal (generally speaking) will thrive and multiply. When a negative mutation occurs, the animal won’t have as much luck with mating, and will die off (along with the negative mutation). Evolution works because of the concept of “survival of the fittest”. The recipients of the beneficial mutations continually win out, multiply, and proliferate, and the species will be continually "bettering" itself as time moves forward (all while changing in appearance, size, and temperament over long stretches of time).

A species will "perfect" itself if you give it a long enough time in a given environment.

.
.
.

You have just ruled out why most animals go extinct it is the enviornment changes so drastically no mutations not nothing could have saved them not to mention catastrophic events. Natural selection does work but what you and others here are not considering is the rarity of beneficial mutations.

Vast gene pools account for the diversity we see in each family not mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Although the concept of evolution in no way explains where all of this “stuff” came from originally (no one has the answer to that one), I don’t think it’s logical for people to claim that evolution doesn’t exist at all (to any degree). How can one explain the domestication of animals without having to acknowledge that evolution exists at least to some degree?

Check out the link below - this was a very interesting science experiment they performed in Russia. Over the span of 50 years a large pool of foxes were bred, then separated by temperament (aggressive vs docile). For the next generation, the aggressive bred with the aggressive, and docile with docile, producing a new pool of foxes. That pool was again separated by temperament and the process was repeated over and over again.

What was the result? After 50 years, the science experiment yielded two very different types of foxes. A type of fox that is always extraordinarily aggressive, territorial, and mean, and another that is always docile, friendly, and “pet” material. It doesn’t stop there, the two types of foxes even look different, and have different sized tails, different bone structure within the face, and have different fur patterns. It’s a rapid form evolution at work before our very eyes!


Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Microevolution does occur but kids are being taught both macroevolution and microevolution are pretty much one in the same and one leads to the other. Microevolution happens because of the vast information in genepools.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

Foxfyre – How are you so sure that we’re the only species “capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience”? I totally disagree with you with regards to this statement. Do you realize how incredibly intelligent and aware some of our fellow earth mates – such as dolphins – are?

No animal has the brain to match a human period.

 

[KevinWestern]

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

Foxfyre – How are you so sure that we’re the only species “capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience”? I totally disagree with you with regards to this statement. Do you realize how incredibly intelligent and aware some of our fellow earth mates – such as dolphins – are?

No animal has the brain to match a human period.

That may be true, but I was refuting foxfyre's assertion that there are "no other animals capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience".

Also, how do you know that man is superior? How are you absolutely positive that dolphins aren't in-fact more in tune with the universe and more intelligent than man in their own way. Aren't you only viewing intelligence from the lens of a human, after all?

Men consider themselves superior to all other living creatures (with regard to intellect), but how smart are we really? We destroy our planet recklessly, kill each other over the most ridiculous of reasons, ect, ect.

 

[Foxfyre]

To me not being able to choose wrongly would be perfection. We're a far, VERY far from perfect species. We could have perfect conditions around us. Perfect weather, no diseases, perfect resources, and we'd still be trying to conquer each other, we'd still be at war, etc etc.

Not being able to choose wrongly removes all freedom of thought, reaction, and action from the equation. It makes you a mindless puppet manipulated at will by some superior power. Yes, it could be perfect that way. But you would have no capacity to comprehend, appreciate, or enjoy it. I don't see how that would be better.

It may not be better for us
But would not God have perfect servants for God?

I think that is what is meant by perfect creations from a perfect being.

If God wish us to follow his commandments, then why give us free will and let us disobey him.

I (understand I am not a theist and only assuming the theistic model for arguments sake) tend to think that it is not GOD that is given the commandments. That is a simple explaination, but there could be others reasons.

According to the allegorical mythology, God created humans as perfect beings in every detail. But in order to give the supreme gift of love that makes all things worthwhile, it was necessary to give those humans power of choice. And as a result of them choosing wrongly--to take power themselves rather than leaving that to God--they became imperfect.

Love is such an unfathomable concept. We cannot order it. It comes from the free will through the process of living itself and as a result of the choices we make. Apparently not even God can make us love or not love. Without it, nothing is satisfying or worthwhile and without free will it is not possible. So in order to give us the gift of love, the greatest of all gifts, God also had to give us the ability to choose that which produces the opposite of love.

The universe is made up of all yin and yang, postive vs negative, up vs down, in vs out. existence vs non existence There is nothing that is without an opposite. One of the mysteries of the universe includes the question whether that is true of God himself.

 

[amrchaos]

Not being able to choose wrongly removes all freedom of thought, reaction, and action from the equation. It makes you a mindless puppet manipulated at will by some superior power. Yes, it could be perfect that way. But you would have no capacity to comprehend, appreciate, or enjoy it. I don't see how that would be better.

It may not be better for us
But would not God have perfect servants for God?

I think that is what is meant by perfect creations from a perfect being.

If God wish us to follow his commandments, then why give us free will and let us disobey him.

I (understand I am not a theist and only assuming the theistic model for arguments sake) tend to think that it is not GOD that is given the commandments. That is a simple explaination, but there could be others reasons.

According to the allegorical mythology, God created humans as perfect beings in every detail. But in order to give the supreme gift of love that makes all things worthwhile, it was necessary to give those humans power of choice. And as a result of them choosing wrongly--to take power themselves rather than leaving that to God--they became imperfect.

Love is such an unfathomable concept. We cannot order it. It comes from the free will through the process of living itself and as a result of the choices we make. Apparently not even God can make us love or not love. Without it, nothing is satisfying or worthwhile and without free will it is not possible. So in order to give us the gift of love, the greatest of all gifts, God also had to give us the ability to choose that which produces the opposite of love.

The universe is made up of all yin and yang, postive vs negative, up vs down, in vs out. existence vs non existence There is nothing that is without an opposite. One of the mysteries of the universe includes the question whether that is true of God himself.

I think you mean that in order to recieve the gift of love, we must have free willl. In other words, we can choose to accept or not accept that gift. I think the term has to be recieve because it is assumed that god loves his creation, but not all of creation has free will.

But how is it important to God that we recieve this gift or not? So far, the argument seems to be focused on human needs--But is not the issues concerning God based on what God wants? The human element in the equation seems a bit void unless there is something humans can provide god that nothing else can. That includes god.

I guess we left the thread topic sometime ago?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Foxfyre – How are you so sure that we’re the only species “capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience”? I totally disagree with you with regards to this statement. Do you realize how incredibly intelligent and aware some of our fellow earth mates – such as dolphins – are?

No animal has the brain to match a human period.

That may be true, but I was refuting foxfyre's assertion that there are "no other animals capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience".

Also, how do you know that man is superior? How are you absolutely positive that dolphins aren't in-fact more in tune with the universe and more intelligent than man in their own way. Aren't you only viewing intelligence from the lens of a human, after all?

Men consider themselves superior to all other living creatures (with regard to intellect), but how smart are we really? We destroy our planet recklessly, kill each other over the most ridiculous of reasons, ect, ect.

Ok fair question with an easy answer. Man can control the popoulation of dolphins. remember survival of the fittest.

You are painting with a broad brush.

 

[Foxfyre]

It may not be better for us
But would not God have perfect servants for God?

I think that is what is meant by perfect creations from a perfect being.

If God wish us to follow his commandments, then why give us free will and let us disobey him.

I (understand I am not a theist and only assuming the theistic model for arguments sake) tend to think that it is not GOD that is given the commandments. That is a simple explaination, but there could be others reasons.

According to the allegorical mythology, God created humans as perfect beings in every detail. But in order to give the supreme gift of love that makes all things worthwhile, it was necessary to give those humans power of choice. And as a result of them choosing wrongly--to take power themselves rather than leaving that to God--they became imperfect.

Love is such an unfathomable concept. We cannot order it. It comes from the free will through the process of living itself and as a result of the choices we make. Apparently not even God can make us love or not love. Without it, nothing is satisfying or worthwhile and without free will it is not possible. So in order to give us the gift of love, the greatest of all gifts, God also had to give us the ability to choose that which produces the opposite of love.

The universe is made up of all yin and yang, postive vs negative, up vs down, in vs out. existence vs non existence There is nothing that is without an opposite. One of the mysteries of the universe includes the question whether that is true of God himself.

I think you mean that in order to recieve the gift of love, we must have free willl. In other words, we can choose to accept or not accept that gift. I think the term has to be recieve because it is assumed that god loves his creation, but not all of creation has free will.

But how is it important to God that we recieve this gift or not? So far, the argument seems to be focused on human needs--But is not the issues concerning God based on what God wants? The human element in the equation seems a bit void unless there is something humans can provide god that nothing else can. That includes god.

I guess we left the thread topic sometime ago?

I would agree with you if I thought we had ability to choose whether to love or not. Of course there are many variances in definition for love--five different words with different defintiions used in the New Testament Greek alone. In Biblical terms, to love God was generally interpreted 'obey God.'

The love I am speaking of is an undefinable component of our human spirit/psyche/makeup or however we try to explain it. It is that love that lifts us, consumes us, infuses our very spirit and makes us creatures much different than we otherwise would be. The love we feel for a child, a spouse, a best friend, a parent totally unrelated to anything they can do for us. It is the kind of love that would cause us not only to risk injury, deprivation, or death for the benefit of another, but to actually choose that. The ability to experience/feel that kind of love from a Supreme Being.

We don't consciously choose that to have that kind of love. It just happens. It is part of who and what we are. We can choose to accept or reject the manifestations of that love offered to us by another. But we cannot make somebody else love us or not love us.

And I don't see that as veering off the thread topic either. The fact that such love exists, that it is a component of the universe in which we live, and is such a factor in who and what we are and why we do what we do, is another pretty persuasive piece of evidence for the existence of an intelligent design behind it all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had.

2. "Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature."
It's very clear from your posts that your reading is severly limited.
It is less than laudable to brag of your ignorance....don't you agree?

Is that all you do? Insult people?

a. Massimo Pigliucci is the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He has written: “science is a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet, the Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’” Of course, he is an ardent atheist. Comical.

c. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. As science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism.

d. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

f. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris [neuroscientist] recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . .

g. Emile Zuckerkandl [founder of the field of molecular evolution] Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


You see the kind of statements you make when you are uninformed:
"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."


In fear that you will miss the point, allow me: it is not religion that has attacked science....

None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs outside of his published research is the same as the relevance of the personal beliefs of the mechanics and engineers who write shop manuals for cars - zero.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Also to say that the velocity of light is constant so far as humankind has been able to observe is one thing and is consistent with the scientific knowledge that we have.. To say that therefore the velocity of light will be constant wherever it exists in every place that it exists is a statement of faith.

It is a postulate.

No different than a + b = b + a and no more an "article of faith" than the fact that if you leap off the Empire State building you will fall - even though we've never actually tested that particular scenario.

Gotta start somewhere.

The difference between religion and science is that science attempts to rely on as few posulates as possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had.

2. "Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature."
It's very clear from your posts that your reading is severly limited.
It is less than laudable to brag of your ignorance....don't you agree?

Is that all you do? Insult people?

a. Massimo Pigliucci is the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He has written: “science is a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet, the Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’” Of course, he is an ardent atheist. Comical.

c. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. As science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism.

d. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

f. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris [neuroscientist] recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . .

g. Emile Zuckerkandl [founder of the field of molecular evolution] Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


You see the kind of statements you make when you are uninformed:
"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."


In fear that you will miss the point, allow me: it is not religion that has attacked science....

None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs outside of his published research is the same as the relevance of the personal beliefs of the mechanics and engineers who write shop manuals for cars - zero.

Also you don't find discussions of great cuisine or magic acts or choices of decor or housecleaning tips discussed in mostn scientific journals or trade magazines. Magazines tend to adopt a particular focus and exclude unrelated subjects.

Einstein did not believe in a personal God. But he once said something to the effect that science, without religion, is lame and religion without science is blind. This goes back to his refusal to accept the label of Atheism for he embraced Spinoza's god that was the rational and observable recognition of an order to the universe that suggested some kind of intelligent guidance or design.

In other words, once you remove the fanatical concepts from each, science and religion can co-exist quite peacefully and far more rationally than either can exist without the other.

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect." --Freeman Dyson (master musician turned master physicist.)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To say that the velocity of light is constant is to make a mathematical statement. A simple one - yes - but mathematcial nonetheless.

Also to say that the velocity of light is constant so far as humankind has been able to observe is one thing and is consistent with the scientific knowledge that we have.. To say that therefore the velocity of light will be constant wherever it exists in every place that it exists is a statement of faith.

Is this what you are getting at?

First, there is the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: &#923 was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging. Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL! No, that's not what he's talking about. vaccum c is constant in locally flat space-time is true with or without lambda.


You are warm though. Consider the implications of a non-zero lambda when the universe is very small.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I certainly showed that I know more than you do about the multiverse theory, showed you to be a disingenuous fraud.

You can't even write down the mathematical equations behind it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You just won the award for 'Unintentional Humor."
Don't you realize that the theory is a phony attempt to avoid the possibility that that there is a God behind the creation of the universe?

Its actually just an application of quantum mechanical principles to the cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations - but hey, why let facts get in your way?

You probably don't even understand that scientists have even produced theories that aliens from outer space brought life here.

non-sequitor of the day

 

[PoliticalChic]

a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had.

2. "Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature."
It's very clear from your posts that your reading is severly limited.
It is less than laudable to brag of your ignorance....don't you agree?

Is that all you do? Insult people?

a. Massimo Pigliucci is the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He has written: “science is a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet, the Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’” Of course, he is an ardent atheist. Comical.

c. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. As science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism.

d. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

f. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris [neuroscientist] recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . .

g. Emile Zuckerkandl [founder of the field of molecular evolution] Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


You see the kind of statements you make when you are uninformed:
"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."


In fear that you will miss the point, allow me: it is not religion that has attacked science....

None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs outside of his published research is the same as the relevance of the personal beliefs of the mechanics and engineers who write shop manuals for cars - zero.

1. You are a petulant little fellow, pretend-scientist.

You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist/'

What a joke.

A minute after you conjecture, everyone would know you are a jerk.

2. Case in point:
a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.
[/quote]

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had."

You think you can insult me by referring to the fact that I can quote Berlinski.
Of course, I trap you by pointing out that you quote Einstein, and other scientists....
How many quote you?
Wonder why?


Then you go on to prove how accurate I was in saying, 'You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist,' by yammering 'you'd have no idea that i had...' na na na.'

Of course I would....because you know nothing other than what you have memorized.
That is, after all, the function of a pretend-scientist.

3. What could be more indicative of your inability than the glaring mistake you made in offering the 'multiverse' as an answer, then having it proven that you didn't know what the 'multiverse' is.

I'm perfectly happy to have readers judge your posts and mine.
How come you're not?

4. A six-year-old in chaps and a toy holster runs around shouting 'look, I'm a cowboy.'

But most of them grow up.

Then there's you: "look...I'm a scientist....I must be smart, huh?'

Not so much.

5. "Is that all you do? Insult people?"
No...I put folks like you in their place.
Feel the heat?


6. "None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs blah blah blah...."

You claimed '"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."

Are you upset that it is so easy to run rings around you?
You said only 'two'...so I added a bunch more.

What it proves is that you are a dunce: you shoot off your mouth without understanding what the parameters of the argument are.

7. How sad it mus be for you to have chosen a career based on the fear of your inadequacies being recognized.....then finding that your inadequacies being recognized.

Bummer.

I'd suggest that you take the same path as the hero in Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness,' but you wouldn't understand that....would you.


So, to review: in the future, if you wish to avoid similar spankings, a. don't begin an argument with a neg for not agreeing with you, b. be more civil with opponents, c. don't ever, ever, assume that others are not at least as smart as you are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had.



Is that all you do? Insult people?

a. Massimo Pigliucci is the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He has written: “science is a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet, the Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’” Of course, he is an ardent atheist. Comical.

c. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. As science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism.

d. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

f. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris [neuroscientist] recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . .

g. Emile Zuckerkandl [founder of the field of molecular evolution] Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


You see the kind of statements you make when you are uninformed:
"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."


In fear that you will miss the point, allow me: it is not religion that has attacked science....

None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs outside of his published research is the same as the relevance of the personal beliefs of the mechanics and engineers who write shop manuals for cars - zero.

1. You are a petulant little fellow, pretend-scientist.

You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist/'

What a joke.

A minute after you conjecture, everyone would know you are a jerk.

2. Case in point:
a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had."

You think you can insult me by referring to the fact that I can quote Berlinski.
Of course, I trap you by pointing out that you quote Einstein, and other scientists....
How many quote you?
Wonder why?


Then you go on to prove how accurate I was in saying, 'You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist,' by yammering 'you'd have no idea that i had...' na na na.'

Of course I would....because you know nothing other than what you have memorized.
That is, after all, the function of a pretend-scientist.

3. What could be more indicative of your inability than the glaring mistake you made in offering the 'multiverse' as an answer, then having it proven that you didn't know what the 'multiverse' is.

I'm perfectly happy to have readers judge your posts and mine.
How come you're not?

4. A six-year-old in chaps and a toy holster runs around shouting 'look, I'm a cowboy.'

But most of them grow up.

Then there's you: "look...I'm a scientist....I must be smart, huh?'

Not so much.

5. "Is that all you do? Insult people?"
No...I put folks like you in their place.
Feel the heat?


6. "None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs blah blah blah...."

You claimed '"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."

Are you upset that it is so easy to run rings around you?
You said only 'two'...so I added a bunch more.

What it proves is that you are a dunce: you shoot off your mouth without understanding what the parameters of the argument are.

7. How sad it mus be for you to have chosen a career based on the fear of your inadequacies being recognized.....then finding that your inadequacies being recognized.

Bummer.

I'd suggest that you take the same path as the hero in Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness,' but you wouldn't understand that....would you.


So, to review: in the future, if you wish to avoid similar spankings, a. don't begin an argument with a neg for not agreeing with you, b. be more civil with opponents, c. don't ever, ever, assume that others are not at least as smart as you are.[/QUOTE]


Do you have any science to discuss?