Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Waspie_Dwarf

Evolution is compatible with religion?

1,055 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

The problem (as I see it) is how one chooses to define 'God'. View God differently and the problem resolves itself.

Spinoza's God: http://www.waterwind.com/spinoza.html

I always saw Spinoza's God as more of a thought experiment myself, and it honestly seems to be just that. The first steps into today's atheist community who are based in science.

For instance, from the link:

The point is, we all come from our environment, live for a while, and return to it. Nothing magical or mystical; just nature and all its various expressions - most of which we do not yet comprehend.

A person is just a temporary expression of the environment that takes on certain characteristics such as consciousness, selfishness and a need for certain feelings of independence. However, because we each depend on our environment for air, food, companionship, etc, (as well as our parents for our genes and initial upbringing), we can never be completely independent of it. Nor would most of us want to be.

A society is a collection of individuals. It can be organized in a variety of different ways, and is always changing. A static society is virtually impossible, because its composition of unique individuals is always changing. Just like the atoms and molecules in our bodies are always changing - but always organized by our genes and certain processes into this thing we call "self."

Now, for the short time each of us exists, we are a unique, but dynamic collection of "hardware" and "software." Not only are the information, value and belief systems we hold constantly changing; the body and brain themselves are constantly changing. This is partly due to aging, partly due to stress, happiness and a variety of other factors we are only beginning to understand - and many others we may never understand.

No afterlife, no supernatural force. The only difference here between a Militant Atheist and a Pantheist is that the Pantheist calls the Universe a natural god that we are all part of, and theoretically we are all made of star stuff, and insists that the "spirit" or "soul" actually exists, which seems to contradict the "nothing magical" part of the theory.

It is just a pioneered approach to a modern view of atheism science from what I can tell, just shoehorning the God and Soul concepts on there, as a contradiction and not actually explained. Seems to me to just be a guess at what we know today form a humble naturalist point of view. Just anthropomorphizing mechanical processes that created everything in the Universe.

It strikes me that religious adherence is the only reason any sort of "God" concept exists in Spinoza's system at all. God seems to be completely unnecessary to his theory. It works exactly the same in science, excepting the God and Soul principles are treated as the "magical" components they actually are. Which is what Spinoza seems to have tried to avoid.

A quote from him really slams that home I think:

he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."

How is that not simply physics? Stack on a God concept, and we have Spinoza's God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Patent applications are not made to "prove evolution" but to support a claim to some substance or method that can potentially generate a profit.

I worked in patents for more than 20 years. About 1995 in an office reorganisation, our section of a dozen examiners got landed with proteins and sugars. A peculiarity of the International Patent Classification is that DNA and RNA are classified as sugars because of the ribose parts of the molecule. We had to learn a lot and pretty fast. Turned out it mostly was not so difficult.

Most of the applications for synthetic or natural proteins defined their inventions as sequences of the 20 coded amino acids, occasionally including citrulline and ornithine, which are metabolic products. The sequences could be anything from four to hundreds of amino acids long. So determining whether a sequence of amino acids was new or not was a simple if lengthy process of checking whether that exact sequence had been published before. Luckily this coincided pretty much with on-line searching of databases, trying to find a difference of one or a few amino acids between two proteins of 300 amino acid length by eye is simple in principle but difficult in practice.

A majority of patent applications for proteins included related sequences that were not claimed as inventions, together with the DNA or RNA sequence that coded each of them This could cover dozens of pages. Much of this stuff was superfluous but was added in belt and braces (suspenders) style so there could be no objection that the invention had not been fully described. It did not cost the applicants much extra anyway.

What we usually got in these were sequences from humans, horses, pigs, cattle, sheep, dogs, cats and sometimes drosophila (fruit fly). Organisms of economic or technical interest.

You generally had to look twice the see the differences among humans, horses, pigs, cattle, sheep, dogs and cats. In fruit flies it was easier to see the differences, but there were plenty of similarities.

In one memorable case, the application was for one of the proteins coded for by a growth regulating gene. It was about 300 amino acids long. We got the usual mammals and for some reason the applicants put in growth regulating proteins from wheat, rice, barley, maize and rye. The proteins from mammals were virtually identical, and the proteins from the grains were virtually identical. But about 70 amino acids from the start of the mammal and wheat proteins, there was a sequence of about a dozen amino acids which were identical, then after about another 150 amino acids, another sequence of five which were identical. I did not look any further. Thus two sub-sequences of amino acids were identical in humans and wheat in a protein that did much the same job.

It turns out that this is common, though I did not know it at the time. Growth regulating genes and proteins are highly conserved. In some respects, these represent the 'transitional fossils" that young Earth creationists are forever asking for.

I see the attempts at deflection of the question by accusing Darwin of sexism and racism and the slippery slope argument about eugenics. Eugenics can only survive in an intellectual climate that knows almost nothing of genetics. Darwin could have been a serial killer, but that has no effect on whether evolution is a fact or whether his theory was good as far as it went. Aside from that, the "modern synthesis" which formed between 1928 and 1940 acknowledges Darwin and Mendel, but is largely the work of a biologists like Haldane and Mayr and the mathematician and biologist Fisher.

Gosh that was interesting, you must have a fascinating job.

I am guessing the YEC's are now saying "well, you discovered similar amino acids in humans and wheat, but duh, they are obviously different, one is human and one plant"

amiright ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Nah, they invoke commonality of design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Nah, they invoke commonality of design.

LOL, wouldn't be surprised, I am thinking of when you show a YEC a transitional fossil and say "There is the gap filled"!! They answer with "Now we have two gaps where previously we had one"

I do wonder if they understand evolution at all. When Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright she said "Well where are the bones? I have only seen drawings, why don't we have fossils? If Evolution were true, the Smithsonian would be full of transitional fossils and evidence!!"

To which Dawkins simply replied

"The Smithsonian? It is, go have a look"

So she repeated herself. I mean crikey Moses. She did not seem to pick up on the fact that there was no "First Giraffe" no "First Horse" or that it was a very long process.

If anyone has the time, here is the interview, it is one giant creationist facepalm.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

LOL, I can't get needles myself, they send me very light headed. I used to have a fear of heights, which is not great as a sparky. I overcame it by meeting the fear head on and just diving in. Some moments of trepidation, but I persisted :D

;)

True on every level. We are equal in ability, but I am sad to say the many women have not been recognised for their amazing contributions to science, which really does suck big time. Ada Lovelace and Rosalind Franklin to mention a couple. I hope as details come out, that these errors are corrected.

:tu:

BOOM!!

nail+hammer.jpg

Oh you definitely have my attention, psyche sweetie darling!! :D :D

Don't forget Grace Hopper.

You know what annoys me totally, is that I had to look these women up. I am glad to do it, and be proud of them. I think this is great. And I'm fascinated to learn more about them.

I should have known more about them. Maybe it's me, and my lack of knowing them to put the blame on me. Or, is that they weren't worth the time of some teachers in my time, to teach about them as most male individuals?

That really gets me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

LOL, wouldn't be surprised, I am thinking of when you show a YEC a transitional fossil and say "There is the gap filled"!! They answer with "Now we have two gaps where previously we had one"

I do wonder if they understand evolution at all. When Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright she said "Well where are the bones? I have only seen drawings, why don't we have fossils? If Evolution were true, the Smithsonian would be full of transitional fossils and evidence!!"

To which Dawkins simply replied

"The Smithsonian? It is, go have a look"

So she repeated herself. I mean crikey Moses. She did not seem to pick up on the fact that there was no "First Giraffe" no "First Horse" or that it was a very long process.

If anyone has the time, here is the interview, it is one giant creationist facepalm.

Or they argue the fossil isn't really transitional, and the fossils are actually all fakes. Which is what I think Wendy was trying to say.

And generally, they don't. See Hawkin's post. They don't even have a basic grasp of it.

What you usually get is a very strange or straw-manned version of the theory, and lots of anomaly hunting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codenwarra

Let's not beat about the bush. Followers of young Earth creationists organisations have been brought up on a diet of lies, which go back to the foundation of the Institute for Creation Research in 1961.

Here are just a few about fossils.

1. Lie - The modern Wadjak skulls were found by Eugene Dubois nearby and at about the same level as the Java man fossils, originally told about 1979. It has been repeated from time to time, including several years ago in a book published by a journalist in the USA. Fact - Trinil where the Java man remains were found is about 105 miles from Wadjak, where the modern skulls were in a cave.

2. Lie - Lord Solly Zuckerman studied the "Lucy" fossils for more than 13 years. Originally told in 1982. Fact - The fossil was only found in 1974. Eight years is not more than 13, and it's doubtful that Lord Zuckerman ever saw the fossil, as he had mostly retired from science by 1971. The little fib was repeated throughout the 1980s.

3. Lie - All or most fossils were laid down in a global flood. Fact - The depth of sediments through which fossils may be found could not possibly have been deposited in the few hundred days the Bible says the water was up. The flood would have had to have been more like damp soil rather than water.

4. Lying claims about polystrate trees fossils. Fact -These carefully ignore the fact that where these occur the tree bases are usually at different levels in different sedimentary layers.

5. Lie - Scientists were fooled by a Chinese fraud fossil recently publicised in National Geographic. Fact. - No they were not, the fraud was detected by the first qualified person who looked at it. National Geographic is usually reliable but it is not a scientific publication.

6. Lie - Lack of fossil evidence disproves evolution. Fact. - Evolution was about the careful and very detailed comparisons of the anatomy of existing species with the few fossils known in the 1800s as supporting evidence. Since the 1930s it has been mostly about genetics.

There are other lies about genetics, the velocity of light, the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes, pointless lies about carbon-14 dating, thermodynamics and the probability of a protein forming at random. They are also very good at attacking the characters of dead scientists, Charles Darwin being a leading example (sexist, racist). They don't mention anyone living, since defamation suits can be expensive and the smarter frauds know that the person defamed would receive huge financial and legal support. They never try to instruct mining and oil companies about the "true" age of the Earth since steel capped boots up the backside can hurt.

After years of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that young Earth creationism is a fraud which is protected by free speech traditions in most developed countries. The money collected is in regular small amounts from the faithful, larger sums from YEC churches and from sale of magazines and other media. This fraud is supported by the largest conspiracy theory in the English speaking world, that virtually all scientists in all countries have been conspiring against them for more than 200 years. Some of them will imply this, though I have yet to see it stated explicitly.

The constant attempts to have their lies taught in schools is an attempt to keep the gravy train rolling nicely into the future.

Edited by Codenwarra
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Number three is one that always confuses me. It simply makes no sense in any shape.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

How can scientists believe evolution is compatible with religion?

I've come "late' to this thread, and haven't yet read the views posted, but my question would be; why would anyone see faith/belief and religion as IN- compatible with a scientific world view? Take out the issue of creationism, and you have no conflict at all.

Even including creationism, a person's beliefs are something independent from their knowledge. It would be quite possible for a scientist to have an excellent grounding in evolution and yet, for their own reasons, to have a faith based belief that god was ultimately responsible for all things.

In general, a person's attitude to faith/belief is independent from their knowledge, because no amount of knowledge can actually disprove, or prove, belief -based views . A good education will teach a person to think logically and rationally, and provide more knowledge on which to base beliefs, but education, in itself, does not diminish the reasons why a human being has faith or belief.

Science provides many good, rational, reasons why humans believe, but more significantly, demonstrates clinically the significant benefits of belief over disbelief, among humans.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

LOL, wouldn't be surprised, I am thinking of when you show a YEC a transitional fossil and say "There is the gap filled"!! They answer with "Now we have two gaps where previously we had one"

I do wonder if they understand evolution at all. When Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright she said "Well where are the bones? I have only seen drawings, why don't we have fossils? If Evolution were true, the Smithsonian would be full of transitional fossils and evidence!!"

To which Dawkins simply replied

"The Smithsonian? It is, go have a look"

So she repeated herself. I mean crikey Moses. She did not seem to pick up on the fact that there was no "First Giraffe" no "First Horse" or that it was a very long process.

If anyone has the time, here is the interview, it is one giant creationist facepalm.

I had allready watched that clip and Dawkins deserves a medal for not losing his temper with that woman. :nw:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Or they argue the fossil isn't really transitional, and the fossils are actually all fakes.

Ahh, that must be why her eyes glazed over when Dawkins ran through the lineage of man. ;)

Which is what I think Wendy was trying to say.

And generally, they don't. See Hawkin's post. They don't even have a basic grasp of it.

That is really sad, how can one see a sunrise as a wonder of God's creation, and not their own special star provided by nature that we are incredibly fortunate to be here to see.

What you usually get is a very strange or straw-manned version of the theory, and lots of anomaly hunting.

Indeed. The bizarre mix of dogma and scientific terms just ends up in a complete mess.

On another note, Creationists such as Ken Ham have come up with the bizarre theory that physics were different 6,000years ago!! In the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, Ham creates a concept called "historical Science" to which he deems current findings irrelevant as we did not witness them happening, just observations of processes in the present that are applied to the past, and then tries to say that reading the Bible is direct observation, and therefore a viable model superior to scientific observation as it would explain a 6,000 year old earth!!!

That is using made up stuff to support made up stuff!!!!!

I mean crikey Moses!!

I just do not see how such bizarre and different views are going to co-exist.

I mean, seriously, science and relgion are chalk and cheese.

fbowwu6.jpg3d9ODqD.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I had allready watched that clip and Dawkins deserves a medal for not losing his temper with that woman. :nw:

I agree, but I reckon this guy - Nick Cowan takes the cake. Teaching Maths, and says

"If there is a God, his word must infallible, unlike man, so the Bible must be true"

How do people with this level of thinking learn enough to tie shoelaces let alone teach math???

He would not be teaching my kids!! :D I would pull them out of his classes in a heartbeat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I've come "late' to this thread, and haven't yet read the views posted, but my question would be; why would anyone see faith/belief and religion as IN- compatible with a scientific world view? Take out the issue of creationism, and you have no conflict at all.

Even including creationism, a person's beliefs are something independent from their knowledge. It would be quite possible for a scientist to have an excellent grounding in evolution and yet, for their own reasons, to have a faith based belief that god was ultimately responsible for all things.

In general, a person's attitude to faith/belief is independent from their knowledge, because no amount of knowledge can actually disprove, or prove, belief -based views . A good education will teach a person to think logically and rationally, and provide more knowledge on which to base beliefs, but education, in itself, does not diminish the reasons why a human being has faith or belief.

Science provides many good, rational, reasons why humans believe, but more significantly, demonstrates clinically the significant benefits of belief over disbelief, among humans.

It is really quite simple. Faith in a creator means that the Universe and everything in it was created.

Observations and data insist this is a natural Universe.

That is like saying

2+2=4 - Observations and data tell us this

or with faith

2+2=856477 - God created that answer, do not question it, God is supernatural and has awesome powers so it is true.

Both are not true. Science and relgion co-existing has to allow for both answers. But only one can be right. If some wish to accept both is true, that is their personal view that they have to deal with. In the real world, facts are expected and will take prevalence.

Please attempt to keep your reply under 200 words and refrain from personal anecdotes.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Yeah, Ken Ham is in Kentucky where my girlfriend is from, and I happened while visiting her family for the 4th of July get to sit down and eat BBQ with the fellow who provides lumber for his Ark Park thing. Even though they are very much Chhristian they found the entire thing ridiculous.

I watched the debate and was flabbergasted by how cartoonist Ham came off.

The other big name, Kent Hovind, is from my home town. Went to school next door to his creationist park, and have interacted a few times with his son.

He was imprisoned actually just up the road from where I work.

It is something how they have created their own sort of pseudo scientific ideas to make their beliefs seem scientific.

Hovind has his ice shell around the Earth. Which somehow allowed life to flourish and reach extreme ages and plants to grow.

Then there is the idea God created the world as is with the appearance of age. The fellow who proposed it, that I don't remember the name of at the moment, even said that Adam would have been created with waste in his bowels.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Number three is one that always confuses me. It simply makes no sense in any shape.

Heathen ! Dont you realise the devil put the fossils in there like that to test the faithful ?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

You know, I have never actually encountered that in real life, only in satire.

A lot of the claims made are silly enough that I can believe it, but I wonder of its a spin off of the created with the appearance of age I mentioned earlier.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

It is really quite simple. Faith in a creator means that the Universe and everything in it was created.

Observations and data insist this is a natural Universe.

That is like saying

2+2=4 - Observations and data tell us this

or with faith

2+2=856477 - God created that answer, do not question it, God is supernatural and has awesome powers so it is true.

Both are not true. Science and relgion co-existing has to allow for both answers. But only one can be right. If some wish to accept both is true, that is their personal view that they have to deal with. In the real world, facts are expected and will take prevalence.

Please attempt to keep your reply under 200 words and refrain from personal anecdotes.

I have been trying to explain this, at length elsewhere ( in a more 'occult ' context ) . Where some are claiming that 'science' and 'magick' can be reconciled.

The thing is, their 'magick' is based on a time when the 'science' of that time ( and indeed the 'religion' ) where all the same thing and all had validity . back then you could not only justify religion and magic with the 'science' of the times ... it was the science of the times.

Since then, we had this thing called the 'scientific revolution' :-* , creating a type of 'dualism' .

They dont really get me .... anyway, even though I cited the first part of the first chapter of probably the most central of all western 'magical' writings.

" Seeing there is a three-fold World, Elementary, Celestiall, and Intellectual, and every inferior is governed by its superior, and receiveth the influence of the vertues thereof, so that the very original, and chief Worker of all doth by Angels, the Heavens, Stars, Elements, Animals, Plants, Metals, and Stones convey from himself the vertues of his Omnipotency upon us, for whose service he made, and created all these things: Wise men conceive it no way irrationall that it should be possible for us to ascend by the same degrees through each World, to the same very originall World it self, the Maker of all things, and first Cause, from whence all things are, and proceed; and also to enjoy not only these vertues, which are already in the more excellent kind of things, but also besides these, to draw new vertues from above. Hence it is that they seek after the vertues of the Elementary world, through the help of Physick [=medicine], and Naturall Philosophy in the various mixtions of Naturall things, then of the Celestiall world in the Rayes, and influences thereof, according to the rules of Astrologers, and the doctrines of Mathematicians, joyning the Celestiall vertues to the former: Moreover, they ratifie and confirm all these with the powers of divers Intelligencies, through the sacred Ceremonies of Religions. The order and process of all these I shall endeavor to deliver in these three Books: Whereof the forst contains naturall Magick, the second Celestiall, and the third Ceremoniall ... "

anima-mundi-illustration.jpg

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/magic/Agrippa1.pdf

( There ya go .... a tiny personal anecdote and an edit to keep it under 200 words :whistle: )

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

You know, I have never actually encountered that in real life, only in satire.

A lot of the claims made are silly enough that I can believe it, but I wonder of its a spin off of the created with the appearance of age I mentioned earlier.

Poe's law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Yeah, Ken Ham is in Kentucky where my girlfriend is from, and I happened while visiting her family for the 4th of July get to sit down and eat BBQ with the fellow who provides lumber for his Ark Park thing. Even though they are very much Chhristian they found the entire thing ridiculous.

LOL, glad they at least made some coin out of his nonsense! It has to be good for something!! :D

BTW, we Aussies apologise for Ham :innocent:

I watched the debate and was flabbergasted by how cartoonist Ham came off.

I was stunned at his constant appeal to authority. His entire argument seemed to consist of the whacky "physics were different 6,000 years ago" and just running clips of people who are scientists with a belief in God and support creationism. When he stated that young people should follow these "role models" I thought he well stepped over the line, and well deserved to be destroyed by Nye.

The other big name, Kent Hovind, is from my home town. Went to school next door to his creationist park, and have interacted a few times with his son.

He was imprisoned actually just up the road from where I work.

It is something how they have created their own sort of pseudo scientific ideas to make their beliefs seem scientific.

Hovind has his ice shell around the Earth. Which somehow allowed life to flourish and reach extreme ages and plants to grow.

I have read about Dinosaur Park.

Hovnid is even ousted by other creationists I believe LOL. I do not understand why he thinks "Science" is just making stuff up and calling it official. No doubt inspired by the Bible.......

Then there is the idea God created the world as is with the appearance of age. The fellow who proposed it, that I don't remember the name of at the moment, even said that Adam would have been created with waste in his bowels.

Never heard that one!! Crikey, that would have to win "most whacky theory to date" Wouldn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Heathen ! Dont you realise the devil put the fossils in there like that to test the faithful ?

Method.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

I think many creationists believe in what I would call micro-evolotion, that is change within a type of animal or plant. If you look even at man, you will find dissimilar characteristics among various people groups or races, even though we supposedly came from a single ancestral type. So many believe that inherent within a species or genus is the plasticity necessary to allow survival within different environments. The Sahara is quite different form the Amazon or the Arctic and different physical characteristics often make or break life in such extreme places.

You can take the domestic dog, or the common goldfish, both of which have been selectively bred for millennia, a chihuahua does not resemble a puli, or a dachshund, or a poodle, yet they are all recognizable as dogs (or perhaps a mop in the case of the puli). A comet, veil tail, black moor, lion head or oranda goldfish are all quite distinctive, yet are still all goldfish, so it is obvious that within a species a certain plasticity exists. The problem many have is with macro-evolution: the shrew became the pro to-simian, which became the lemur, then the monkey, then the lesser ape, then the great ape and so forth all the way up to man. As if there is some unbroken proven chain of evidence for such changes. (Yes I know they do not propose a direct lineage.)

The other side of the coin is that many scientists of today and yesterday believe in God. That even included Darwin. He was not out to banish the thought of God, he was just trying to make sense of the natural world.

Whether the two disciplines can ever be reconciled completely is unlikely, because both sides in some cases have drawn lines in the sand. But it less clear to say that belief in one means one cannot believe in any part of the other. After all if we knew all things, then WE would be God, and I'm, not seeing too many omniscient people around these days.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Well to be fair, thetc "Created with Age" idea is completely logic proof.

Hovind senior got shunned due to his beliefs over taxes. The evangelical branch I grew up around wanted nothing to do with that, probably because they knew that it would get the government to come in and examine them.

Hovind junior got shunned due to his adopting presuppositinalism into his style.

Do have to say it's difficult to tell which of these people really believe it and how many use it as a scam.

Ham I think believes it, Hovind senior I think might believe it, might be just a scammer.

I used to do a show at a broadcast studio, how I met Hovind junior. The director there told me that Hovind Jr. had come to him confessing he didn't believe it but felt trapped into it. Personally I doubt he feels trapped and is fully aware of the scam.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I have been trying to explain this, at length elsewhere ( in a more 'occult ' context ) . Where some are claiming that 'science' and 'magick' can be reconciled.

The thing is, their 'magick' is based on a time when the 'science' of that time ( and indeed the 'religion' ) where all the same thing and all had validity . back then you could not only justify religion and magic with the 'science' of the times ... it was the science of the times.

Since then, we had this thing called the 'scientific revolution' :-* , creating a type of 'dualism' .

They dont really get me .... anyway, even though I cited the first part of the first chapter of probably the most central of all western 'magical' writings.

" Seeing there is a three-fold World, Elementary, Celestiall, and Intellectual, and every inferior is governed by its superior, and receiveth the influence of the vertues thereof, so that the very original, and chief Worker of all doth by Angels, the Heavens, Stars, Elements, Animals, Plants, Metals, and Stones convey from himself the vertues of his Omnipotency upon us, for whose service he made, and created all these things: Wise men conceive it no way irrationall that it should be possible for us to ascend by the same degrees through each World, to the same very originall World it self, the Maker of all things, and first Cause, from whence all things are, and proceed; and also to enjoy not only these vertues, which are already in the more excellent kind of things, but also besides these, to draw new vertues from above. Hence it is that they seek after the vertues of the Elementary world, through the help of Physick [=medicine], and Naturall Philosophy in the various mixtions of Naturall things, then of the Celestiall world in the Rayes, and influences thereof, according to the rules of Astrologers, and the doctrines of Mathematicians, joyning the Celestiall vertues to the former: Moreover, they ratifie and confirm all these with the powers of divers Intelligencies, through the sacred Ceremonies of Religions. The order and process of all these I shall endeavor to deliver in these three Books: Whereof the forst contains naturall Magick, the second Celestiall, and the third Ceremoniall ... "

anima-mundi-illustration.jpg

http://www.hermetics...ic/Agrippa1.pdf

:tu:

Nice post mate, I have not made it all the way through that document yet, but thought I would reply in the meantime, the old language slows me down a bit ;)

But I see where you are going, and how they were indeed one and the same, branching of tentatively to eventually form belief systems and science. As you point out, this was the best information we had at the time - it was considered fact - and as such, a very important part of our historical record.

What more amazes me is that people retain these old ways with such reverence. I agree such aspects of history were vitally important to allow the journey we have taken to arrive at today.

A lot of people do not seem to pick up on that even I would have been religious 500 years ago. It simply was out best understanding at the time. We have well moved past that. Adherence to known principles is good, we should never take something at face value, or without decent evaluation. But is something proves itself, we should recognise that. I don't understand why so many hang on so tightly to ancient principles that are simply outdated.

( There ya go .... a tiny personal anecdote and an edit to keep it under 200 words :whistle: )

If you can show how to do that to the fellow I pointed that comment at, a great many of us would be in your debt :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Oh, and you have to note that none of the scientists Ham used had much to with biology.

I think one was a micro biologist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I think many creationists believe in what I would call micro-evolotion, that is change within a type of animal or plant. If you look even at man, you will find dissimilar characteristics among various people groups or races, even though we supposedly came from a single ancestral type. So many believe that inherent within a species or genus is the plasticity necessary to allow survival within different environments. The Sahara is quite different form the Amazon or the Arctic and different physical characteristics often make or break life in such extreme places.

I find the term "Micro Evolution" as valid as "Historical Science" it is like the cartoon I posted, here is the conclusions, now lets find the evidence.....

Both are just made up terms that muddy the waters and make zero sense. It is jst creationism trying to find another hole in science to hide God in, but those holes are becoming an endangered species as time moves on.

You can take the domestic dog, or the common goldfish, both of which have been selectively bred for millennia, a chihuahua does not resemble a puli, or a dachshund, or a poodle, yet they are all recognizable as dogs (or perhaps a mop in the case of the puli). A comet, veil tail, black moor, lion head or oranda goldfish are all quite distinctive, yet are still all goldfish, so it is obvious that within a species a certain plasticity exists. The problem many have is with macro-evolution: the shrew became the pro to-simian, which became the lemur, then the monkey, then the lesser ape, then the great ape and so forth all the way up to man. As if there is some unbroken proven chain of evidence for such changes. (Yes I know they do not propose a direct lineage.)

That is why Ken Ham is such a disgrace, he is an Australian.

We have the Tasmanian Tiger, a product of convergent evolution, it looks like a canine, but is a marsupial. Geographic distribution, DNA and transitional fossils secure the scientific evaluation, and make the Bible redundant. When man learns to "let go" of God, I feel we have a much better chance of uniting the species for better common goals that would benefit us all.

The other side of the coin is that many scientists of today and yesterday believe in God. That even included Darwin. He was not out to banish the thought of God, he was just trying to make sense of the natural world.

Darwin had no belief in God, he wrestled with the fact that his wife was.

In the same breath, science has no absolutes and one cannot prove a negative.

This does not in any way allow for God to have an "equal" chance of existing as compared to a natural Universe.

In order to overcome this conundrum, some of us adopt terms like "Teapot Agnostic" or "Toothfairy Agnostic"

noun; compounding

a person who believes that the existence of god is as likely as the existence of the tooth fairy. “A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought god's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about both, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Hence the phrase Tooth Fairy Agnostic.” -Richard Dawkins

I can't prove or disprove god but the likelihood that he does exist is similar to the likelihood that the tooth fairy exists, so I am a tooth fairy agnostic.

LINK

Whether the two disciplines can ever be reconciled completely is unlikely, because both sides in some cases have drawn lines in the sand. But it less clear to say that belief in one means one cannot believe in any part of the other. After all if we knew all things, then WE would be God, and I'm, not seeing too many omniscient people around these days.

The LISA mission is measuring gravitational waves to further prove Einstein's theory of relativity.

I would say that does not make these men Gods, but learned men, who do know. If I believe anything, it is that there is a rational answer for every single question, time is needed to work them out is all.

They can never be reconciled for the reason that I expressed using equations. They come to different conclusions and only one answer is required.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.