Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do you think Humans came to be?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Well now I don't think that Evolution and religious belief are at all contradictory. Has anyone ever heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Or read the Hyperion Cantos where his beliefs are featured prominently?

    Amazon.com: Christianity and Evolution (9780156028189): Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Books

    Teilhard was a paleontologist and a priest and his writings dealt with the evolving cosmos and the Omega Point, etc. so on and so forth:

    Teilhard de Chardin - Publications

    It is sort of a false dichotomy to say you either have to "believe" in evolution or religion. It's not like you can obtain a Ph.D. in oceanography, be versed in the scientific method, acknowledge the science behind evolution, and then become the Presiding Bishop of a major denomination, oh wait: The Origins of Life: An Episcopal View : NPR

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by BenRoethig View Post
      Exactly how did a...
      Exactly how does God/Allah/Supreme Being/Vishnu/Thor/Flying Spaghetti Monster do... whatever it is that he does?

      To answer your question - brainpower.

      Did we catch breaks at exactly the right time every time?
      I don't understand this. Why is it necessary if you have a large population of a species? Some of them are bound to catch the right break. The right time? What's the wrong time?

      Why didn't other species with similar advantageous skill sets emerge?
      We killed them off or killed their food before they did.
      HD Ready?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
        Well now I don't think that Evolution and religious belief are at all contradictory. Has anyone ever heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Or read the Hyperion Cantos where his beliefs are featured prominently?

        Amazon.com: Christianity and Evolution (9780156028189): Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Books

        Teilhard was a paleontologist and a priest and his writings dealt with the evolving cosmos and the Omega Point, etc. so on and so forth:

        Teilhard de Chardin - Publications

        It is sort of a false dichotomy to say you either have to "believe" in evolution or religion. It's not like you can obtain a Ph.D. in oceanography, be versed in the scientific method, acknowledge the science behind evolution, and then become the Presiding Bishop of a major denomination, oh wait: The Origins of Life: An Episcopal View : NPR
        Some of his ideas were borderline weird. Put some Darwinian evolution theories, add in roman catholic theology, mix the two and voilà: from the big bang to the second coming of Jesus its just a long evolution. From matter to Heaven. And His work was condemned postumously by the Vatican.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Oscar View Post
          Some of his ideas were borderline weird. Put some Darwinian evolution theories, add in roman catholic theology, mix the two and voilà: from the big bang to the second coming of Jesus its just a long evolution. From matter to Heaven. And His work was condemned postumously by the Vatican.
          Yes I am aware that his works were condemned, but my point being that here was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist, thus a person could be both religious and a trained evolutionist.

          Also I am not a Catholic, so I don't have to listen to the Vatican. :)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            Yes I am aware that his works were condemned, but my point being that here was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist, thus a person could be both religious and a trained evolutionist.
            The problem with your point of view is that you look at scientifical evidences first and then shape your religious belief around it. What the Vatican was condeming was not so much his work as a scientist but his way of distorting religion so as to fit in Darwinian evolution.

            We used to bend scientific rules so as they suit our religious credence, now its the opposite.

            Also I am not a Catholic, so I don't have to listen to the Vatican. :)
            Why, you should. ;)

            Comment


            • #66
              C'mon fifty trillion to one odds on God existing? That's far beyond the United States national deficit by a factor of fifty.

              Let's go fifty to one (forgive me if the United States is fifty trillion, btw, I think the first 'real' instance of a 'trillion' has been manifested by the USA.... Wait was the first 'real' instance of a 'trillion' the Weimar? I am silly...)

              A good bet, I never win the lottery... By 'I' I mean "I," so anyway who is "'I'"? I always thought it meant 'me' as in; "'God" would forgive anything I would do... But "God" wouldn't forgive anything 'you' would do.

              A subtle distinction, but nothing to sneeze at...

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                Yes I am aware that his works were condemned, but my point being that here was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist, thus a person could be both religious and a trained evolutionist.

                Also I am not a Catholic, so I don't have to listen to the Vatican. :)

                Francis Collins is another example of a Theist/scientist.

                But he's basically commiting intellectual suicide with what he has to say.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #68
                  If God wanted Humans to come from a multiple-genesis, then we did. If God wanted Humans to come from Africa, then we did. If God wanted to intelligently design Humans, then he did.

                  What sort of question is this?

                  If you ask me, we all come from Africa. What freaking difference does it make?

                  What are we doing now?

                  Does God love this?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I think the subject of Abiogenisis is a good subject too, - How living cells actually come about.

                    Did god do it?
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      This was posted 'way back in July, & there were several (sensible, IMHO) responses to it dating to just recently, but all of them missed the point a bit.

                      Exactly how did a weak hairless ape with poor senses, small litters, and young that are not able to fend for themselves for the lifetime of most predators come to be the dominant species and develop concepts that have nothing to do with survival? Did we catch breaks at exactly the right time every time? Why didn't other species with similar advantageous skill sets emerge? Whatever your personally theory is, you have to take a leap of faith because the calculators say we should have been very much extinct during the hunter-gather days.

                      a) Temporal statistical standpoint: The present human population & its present phenotypic, genetic & behavioral characteristics are present phenomena & exist without argument. The odds against this being a fact are statistically zero. Unity is certainty. Calculators aren't necessary. Statistically speaking, to step back even a second in time & argue the odds against present reality, from some unobtainable previous temporal standpoint, is statistically impermissible & meaningless. It's not mathematical good sense to to try to calculate the previous odds against the fly you just swatted being in the exact place & time it actually was when you swatted it. It was there, it was then & you swatted it. Selah. "What are the odds against us surviving to breed & evolve into our present selves?" You can't use the word "are" in that sentence & make any real sense. You have to use the word "were" & behold, what "is" jumps all over your argument if you try that. Plus, Nature prevents you from getting then to find out. What are the odds against giraffes evolving into looking weird & having valves in their carotid arteries? Guess.

                      b) Explanations: Weak? Small litters? Long-term helpless young? How about increasing intelligence, marked innate aggressiveness & gregariousness (quantity is a quality in itself) combined with increasing inventiveness, toolmaking & use & environmental control. (Note that those are potential explanations of the existence of the present facts, not an argument that calculating the odds might be a fruitful endeavor)

                      c) Occam's Razor: Not a perfect tool, but it's in the kit. Evolution is a theory. That isn't, as it's most often used, a a form of detraction. A theory is, of course, a tested & repeatedly supported hypothesis. As such, it approaches, as close as Science can, to a fact that can be used as a premise. There's always room in real Science for amendments, refutation or replacement based on further observation & testing, but while you got it, use it. You may be wrong, but you're pretty sure you're not. That isn't the case with either creationist "theory" (which is the Middle Eastern mythology that metastacized into my daughter's high school textbooks) or Intelligent Design "theory" which holds the statistical silliness above desparately to its bosom as a fundamental premise. Macroevolution as a series of random events forced into non-random patterns is predictable, observable & explicable as a natural process. Darwin & Wallace were brilliant predictors, but they didn't have the tools to discover that MRSA, for example, evolved from normal staph bacteria through repeatedly stressing their environment with enough enough antibiotics from multiple sources to give them an evolutionary whack without killing all of the critters, leaving the resistant beasties among the population alive to fissiate. Couple that with about a zillion generations per very short time. Voila! Observable macroevolution. The sugar coats of the MRSA varieties make it look (in terms of percentage composition) about as much like normal Aureous as a rhinocerous looks like a chickadee. Remember, speciation is really no more than Human decision-making. What is it? Canis Lupus or Canis Canis Lupus? Homo Neanderthalis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis? So, back to old Willie Occam. What's more reasonable, based on your life experience, magical intervention or a natural process of some sort?

                      Prof

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        You are all figments of the illusion I call 'reality', as is the concept 'God'.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          You are all figments of the illusion I call 'reality', as is the concept 'God'.
                          I was afraid someone would say that some day. Noooo! I'm melting! All my beautiful wickedness!

                          Pro...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Evolution if true, would be a miracle too

                            The Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance


                            The "odds" of evolution occurring by chance are so infinitely small that it is a miracle in itself that such things are still taught as if they were a "fact" of science.

                            The following excerpts are from: "A Closer Look at the Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss. They illustrate why evolution is (for all practical purposes) a Dying, if not Dead, theory.

                            "At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty ping pong balls. As biochemists have learned more about the complexity of life, it has become increasingly apparent that thousands of specific and complex chemicals are required for any form of life to survive.

                            Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000. By comparison only 1020 grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile and 10 billion times more (1030) would fit inside the entire earth. So, the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes is infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.

                            There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

                            Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

                            "Page" July 17th

                            "The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

                            "The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

                            "Page" August 7th
                            Emphasis in Original

                            Further references provided in book.

                            See also The Facts of Life

                            The Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Pfft. Add energy to complex molecular chains, stir for a million years.

                              Bingo.

                              Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility.
                              Where do you get this tripe?

                              -dale

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                hehe I do not believe creation or ID but statistically evolution is a stretch too-

                                Originally posted by dalem View Post
                                Pfft. Add energy to complex molecular chains, stir for a million years.

                                Bingo.



                                Where do you get this tripe?

                                -dale
                                Evolution is my top candidate but I think the explaination could be even stranger. Reality is never what it seems to be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X