The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SL00b humans can engineer these senses you're so fond of with abilities far beyond those God designed.

The "sense" you speak of is mere physical reflex, the physical ability to create mechanical motion through electric impulse. That's not sensation. I'm talking about the mental process of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling--and preeminently, being aware of what you sense. Life entails being aware of sensation. A robot can process nothing more than electrical instructions very rapidly. It doesn't process thought or emotion.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The "sense" you speak of is mere physical reflex, the physical ability to create mechanical motion through electric impulse. That's not sensation. I'm talking about the mental process of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling--and preeminently, being aware of what you sense. Life entails being aware of sensation. A robot can process nothing more than electrical instructions very rapidly. It doesn't process thought or emotion.

Just so you know, I originally proposed you're conflating "sense of self" with "soul," and every post you've made on that topic since has affirmed that proposition.

The brain "can process nothing more than electrical instructions very rapidly," too. The only difference is that some of those electrical instructions stimulate chemical production, which creates emotion. We're only just beginning to unlock the biochemistry involved, but so far we've been able to do a pretty good job of explaining the results without having discovered a previously unknown organ which can be accurately be described as a "soul."

As far as awareness of what is being sensed and being aware and reacting to it, that is duplicated in human machines, in a wide variety of applications. Check out a CIWS mount in action some time.

Originally Posted by SL00b Conscious or unconscious, the brain is still in control, so thanks for conceding the point. "Soul" has no part in it.

No concession here. Show me by your science that the conscious functions of the brain are not the effect of human will, but the cause, or do you concede that there's a soul?

Originally Posted by kostya Thanks for the link, so that I could base my argument on something you could recognize as based on the sources you accept. And, interestingly enough, this source is very much biased against religious people, as you could no doubt notice.

I would say it's biased against religious explanations, not religious people. And rightly so, since they invariably fail empirical tests.

Of course, it would disqualify prayer from being any evidence without really knowing what real prayer is.

Who gets to decide what "real" prayer is? Sounds like the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

But this example is truly outstanding: Then as one follows the link to "Tiktallik" he easily sees what it actually is: Now a "transitional link" is NOT just an "intermediate between very different types of vertebrates". It would be such "intermediate" as would show signs of being "transitional" form one species to another. For example, not just being able to walk on its fins (there are fishes known to do that yet still remain fishes), but having their fins partly transformed into what would later, when completed, become a reptile's leg. ...There is nothing of the kind in that article about Tiktaalik, although a lot of speculation that it "could be" this and that and "could later develop" this or that. Frankly, suggesting what it "could later develop" into is at least not enough to call it a "transitional species". And your highly reliable source points to it as a "proof to evolution and transitional" link. Are all your sources like this? But without being exact over the point of transitional species one can easily qualify ALL existing species and classes as "transitional" between one another.

Nice cherry picking. If you read right after your quote it says

The mixture of both "fish" and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits: Fish fish gills fish scales fish fins "Fishapod" half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region Tetrapod tetrapod rib bones tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle tetrapod lungs

Which pretty clearly qualifies as a transitional species. You can't just adopt a term used by evolutionary biologists and then redefine it so it fits with your world-view.

And yes, you could easily argue that all forms of life are "transitional" or at least potentially so.

This is NOT how C.Darwin viewed these things, but we can help mr. Darwin a bit, can we not ? I don't actually understand why they are so shy in their efforts to help mr. Darwin. They could easily do with correcting the adopted classification into something, which would right away declare species to be "transitional" between one another. There's no force can forbid them do it as they are "vast majority" by your account of it.

How do you know how Charles Darwin viewed things? He's been dead for quite a while. Furthermore, who cares what Darwin thought? We're arguing about the modern theory of evolution, not some static bit of information published 150+ years ago.

Originally Posted by bluegospel No concession here. Show me by your science that the conscious functions of the brain are not the effect of human will, but the cause, or do you concede that there's a soul?

I concede nothing, because you've failed to demonstrate a working definition of "soul," much less anything that confirms said definition.

Also, you've reversed your cause and effect. "Human will" is caused by the conscious functions of the brain, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by reed9 How do you know how Charles Darwin viewed things? He's been dead for quite a while. Furthermore, who cares what Darwin thought? We're arguing about the modern theory of evolution, not some static bit of information published 150+ years ago.

Indeed. There have been a number of updates to evolutionary theory since Darwin. He certainly does deserve his place in history, but it's not like he immediately understood everything about how evolution operates. Unfortunately, most of the time when people argue about evolution, they're still arguing with Darwin, as if the last 160 years or so never happened.

For example, Darwin proposed that evolutionary changes occured in very small increments over millions of years. The fossil record has informed us that this is not the case... evolutionary changes can be gradual, but large changes tend to happen in sudden spurts of activity, typically in the aftermath of some cataclysmic event that produces huge new survival opportunities for the survivors, due to an overabundance of resources and lack of competition for them.

For example, the dinosaurs largely held a lid on evolution for millions of years, because they took up so many resources in the ecosystem and were so difficult to compete with, thereby limiting the survivability of differentiating species. Then along came a meteor, the top was blown off the ecosystem, and then-tiny mammals were in perfect position for a genetic explosion thanks to a lack of competition in the resulting world of opportunity.

This explains why the fossil records for transitional species are so difficult to find, because transitions happen, in geological timescales, very, very quickly. And yet, we're finding some, so the theory is sound.

Hmmm... no idea how to vote for my choice so I'll plead the 5th and voice my own case without a vote.

I've always believed religion is a man made ideology and that truly understanding "God" or whatever you call the divine, if you do believe in one, involves going on pure faith and trying to understand the limits of mankind's true understanding of what God is and isn't and how you fit into the picture.

For me, I believe God allowed the Big Bang to happen, the universe is the age scientists claim it is, and God not only part of the universe as it's creator but an extension of it's mind and imagination as well as it's consciousness. I do not believe there is a "right way" to worship God as the name of God is merely a term limited by culture and regionalism. I believe God can speak with us on an unconscious level, but rarely does it choose to venture into the conscious level because mankind would not understand the message, unless it can determine how "ready" we are. I also believe God allows the universe and events to play out as they do to allow growth and independence of the person to evolve and flourish rather than be dependent on the divine only, and to make us understand we are a small part of something huge and nearly infinite, and that we will never have all the answers even if science can propose to say everything.

As far as the heaven, hell, and saved vs lost issue... I believe if we accept God we accept also our limitations, our fallibleness, and our inability to comprehend things beyond our understanding. I believe heaven isn't a place per say but a reuniting back with the great collective consciousness of the universe, while Hell per say, is a separation out of the collective consciousness.

I believe science is full of mistakes, flaws, bias, and misunderstanding, but it gives a good try to paste a picture of whats going on within a reasonable limit, though it claims to be limitless.

I believe there is life out in the universe and when it becomes our time to understand and join the neighbors out there in a peaceful relation, we'll get a bigger picture of things. I believe as there are good and bad people, there are good and bad non-Earthly lifeforms out there as well.

Originally Posted by reed9 How do you know how Charles Darwin viewed things? He's been dead for quite a while. Furthermore, who cares what Darwin thought? We're arguing about the modern theory of evolution, not some static bit of information published 150+ years ago.

I thought we'd come to this at last as this is a key point in how that fantastic theory changes into "fully proved fact" right before the eyes of the "uninitiated".

Now the original theory is not something too complicated to understand.
Just according to the model of how the species changed from one to another it is absolutely inevitable that we should find a GREAT ABUNDANCE of such transitional species showing various degrees of being transitional.

-- Seeing how difficult it is for transition to take place,
-- seeing that not just any freakish change will for sure start such "transition",
-- seeing how MANY of individuals it must take to fill the "gap",
-- at last, viewing the "ready" species as an end-result of such transitions, it is not for me to tell you guys that the amount of transitional species at various stage of transition should be no less than that of the "ready" species.

Once again, as it happens when people want VERY MUCH to present things as evidence to something definite, you have to apply your thinking to see the difference between facts themselves and what they allege these facts to be.
What do we have when we do?
We understand it, that the estimation of just HOW MANY transitional species are to be found is not estimating between 10 in the power of 20 or 50 or whatever.
It is a more clear difference between 9-20 fossils whose "transitional" character is highly questionable, on the one hand, and the expected (yet never found) "abundant proof" of transition as actual way in which species came to be formed, on the other.

Now here, I assume, is how you make peace between the original theory and facts (quoth SL00b):

For example, Darwin proposed that evolutionary changes occured in very small increments over millions of years. The fossil record has informed us that this is not the case... evolutionary changes can be gradual, but large changes tend to happen in sudden spurts of activity, typically in the aftermath of some cataclysmic event that produces huge new survival opportunities for the survivors, due to an overabundance of resources and lack of competition for them.

"Sudden spurts of activity"... Fine! The abundance of transitional species to demonstrate this? No?
Then let me update you on this one: the "most advanced, bleeding edge" evolutionists go as far as suggest that the changes were ... instantaneous. Just so, and who needs the transitional species any more! I think you must seriously consider this.

Cause many even among evolutionists, such as follow these new discoveries from beginning of the story to its end, admit to fossil record's being as incomplete as it was in Darwin's times. Not that they think this destroys the theory, yet they admit to the facts.
Others, I assume, don't care much since to them evolution is just "as good as fully proved", given that they don't want God and that's all.

And what exactly is YOUR position in this regard?

No offense to anyone but I see Atheism as a path to avoiding the issue of belonging within the universe and trying to say everything in the universe can be explained by modern science even if there is proof the science is flawed, immature, or irrational in it's conclusions, when in reality they know they are wrong but have an unwillingness to admit the wrongfulness they have chose to embrace. You have also the hardcore zealots of Atheism who attack religion constantly and push anti-religion as an actual religion.

I'll dare to say it... there are many Atheists who behave as if they are in an actual religion and feel they must spread their gospel of anti-God, anti-chruch, anti-religion to all, and all must follow them blindly lest they be doomed forever to a hopeless struggle against fate believing in something they think is not there nor has ever existed, and that Steven Hawking's theory that the universe sprang forth from the Big Bang with no viable reaction, and that it just happened for no reason is the almighty word, and science MUST be right, and want to force and enforce this view on society (and people claim zealous religious Christians are bad...)

I'm sorry but Steven Hawking has been wrong on various occasions and has often recanted many of his findings because they were wrong. Even with his great mind doused in physics, he has his limits too. There is always a chance he DID screw up a calculation somewhere and he made a goof up.

People think I'm atheist as well being non-religious, but I correct them. I'm not an atheist, I'm just non-religious. There is a difference.

I'm actually more in tune with Nihilists than I am anything else.

Originally Posted by kostya He didn't "redesign" because of sin. But sin makes things bad.

This is nonsense. Your original statement was that whatever design flaws were in the human body were there because of sin. Therefore, God must have made changes after the Fall. Now you back off and say that there were no changes to our bodies after the Fall. Consequently, whatever design flaws there are were there pre-Fall. You can't have it both ways. Either stop making inane comments, and stop shucking and jiving when pressed, or start being intellectually honest and admit the consequences of your statements.

Originally Posted by kostya I thought we'd come to this at last as this is a key point in how that fantastic theory changes into "fully proved fact" right before the eyes of the "uninitiated".

Hypothesis turns to theory/fact by evidence. Of course it changes with time. Science is not static, it changes with the evidence. It is no criticism of science to say that it changed its mind, that is its virtue. Darwin was meticulous and thorough and compiled a massive amount of evidence before publishing, and the fact that many of his insights have not been overturned by the evidence is a testament to his thoroughness. But he was ignorant of modern discoveries like DNA, and so of course his idea was incomplete.

Now the original theory is not something too complicated to understand. Just according to the model of how the species changed from one to another it is absolutely inevitable that we should find a GREAT ABUNDANCE of such transitional species showing various degrees of being transitional.

You're way too stuck on transitional fossils. There are plenty of them, but even with NONE, the evidence from other areas is overwhelming. Given the unique circumstances necessary to preserve fossil evidence, it's exciting we have as many examples as we do.

Now here, I assume, is how you make peace between the original theory and facts (quoth SL00b): "Sudden spurts of activity"... Fine! The abundance of transitional species to demonstrate this? No? Then let me update you on this one: the "most advanced, bleeding edge" evolutionists go as far as suggest that the changes were ... instantaneous. Just so, and who needs the transitional species any more! I think you must seriously consider this.

No, they do not say "instantaneous". When they talk about sudden spurts of evolution, they're still talking in the period of millions of years. (The cambrian "explosion" was over a period of 10-15 million years.) You're arguing against a straw man.

Cause many even among evolutionists, such as follow these new discoveries from beginning of the story to its end, admit to fossil record's being as incomplete as it was in Darwin's times. Not that they think this destroys the theory, yet they admit to the facts. Others, I assume, don't care much since to them evolution is just "as good as fully proved", given that they don't want God and that's all.

An incomplete fossil record isn't a problem for evolution and doesn't weaken the proof. Here's a nice list of things that would actually present a problem for evolution if found. Let me know when you have proof of any of those.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 No offense to anyone but I see Atheism as a path to avoiding the issue of belonging within the universe and trying to say everything in the universe can be explained by modern science even if there is proof the science is flawed, immature, or irrational in it's conclusions, when in reality they know they are wrong but have an unwillingness to admit the wrongfulness they have chose to embrace.

No one with any knowledge of science claims it isn't flawed or that science can explain everything. It's well known that most scientific claims turn out to be wrong. Indeed, I find that to be an argument against religious claims. Even doing our utmost to reduce bias, to be meticulous in our methodology, to verify our results, we end up wrong most of the time. Religious claims don't even make the effort and you expect them to be correct?

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 You have also the hardcore zealots of Atheism who attack religion constantly and push anti-religion as an actual religion.

Religion wields enormous influence and political power. So long as religious beliefs motivate political action, be it Islamic suicide bombings or Christian "kill the gays", I will fight against it. So long as religious belief revels in obscurantism and anti-science, I will fight against it. It isn't about being contrarian or elitist, it's about the real harm caused by irrational beliefs. (Or for a non-religious example, the anti-vaxxers.)

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 I'm sorry but Steven Hawking has been wrong on various occasions and has often recanted many of his findings because they were wrong. Even with his great mind doused in physics, he has his limits too. There is always a chance he DID screw up a calculation somewhere and he made a goof up.

As I said before, so long as you are doing good science, being wrong is not a vice. Indeed, being mistaken can be as informative as being correct in science. No one claims Hawking is infallible or that our current conception of cosmology is the end all be all. Scientists are excited by evidence that overturns our previous assumptions. That means there is something new to learn, that means progress and new areas of research. It's a wonderful thing to be wrong in science. What we are committed to is not the results, but the method of inquiry. Flawed though it may be, science is the only method we have discovered that reliably leads us to approximations of the truth. But all scientific truth is provisional. There is no dogma in science, any result can be overturned and having celebrity status, like Stephen Hawking, is no protection.

Isaac Asimov penned one of the best description of the scientific world view I've ever read. Please read it.

Originally Posted by kostya "Sudden spurts of activity"... Fine! The abundance of transitional species to demonstrate this? No? Then let me update you on this one: the "most advanced, bleeding edge" evolutionists go as far as suggest that the changes were ... instantaneous. Just so, and who needs the transitional species any more! I think you must seriously consider this. Cause many even among evolutionists, such as follow these new discoveries from beginning of the story to its end, admit to fossil record's being as incomplete as it was in Darwin's times. Not that they think this destroys the theory, yet they admit to the facts. Others, I assume, don't care much since to them evolution is just "as good as fully proved", given that they don't want God and that's all. And what exactly is YOUR position in this regard?

For the assertions in bold: are these from the same source that told you we use 10% of the brain? Citation or they never happened.

Also, please stop ignoring reed9's links for transitional fossils. You keep acting like there are none, and he's been trying to make you notice how wrong you are for a while now.

Do you know how rare it is for a fossil to be preserved in the right manner, in the right location, so that humans can stumble upon them? Do you know how much more common this process would be for a species that lived three million years, versus the transitional species that eventually got crowded out through natural selection after 10,000 or so?

It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to ignore mountains of evidence in order to hold on to the notion of your precious god.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 I believe science is full of mistakes, flaws, bias, and misunderstanding, but it gives a good try to paste a picture of whats going on within a reasonable limit, though it claims to be limitless.

It does?

Originally Posted by SL00b "Human will" is caused by the conscious functions of the brain, not the other way around.

As I just said, prove this and I'll concede. Otherwise, thank you for your concession.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 No offense to anyone but I see Atheism as a path to avoiding the issue of belonging within the universe and trying to say everything in the universe can be explained by modern science even if there is proof the science is flawed, immature, or irrational in it's conclusions, when in reality they know they are wrong but have an unwillingness to admit the wrongfulness they have chose to embrace. You have also the hardcore zealots of Atheism who attack religion constantly and push anti-religion as an actual religion.

I don't know of anyone who believes everything in the universe can be explained by modern science. There are tons of areas of science where the answer is, "We don't know, but this is our best guess." Does dark matter exist? What about life on other planets? Or even intelligent life? Under what alternative conditions is life even possible?

And there are many other areas where we don't even know what questions to ask. As I've said before, the more you learn, the more you learn what you don't know. Unlocking one secret gives you access to several more locked doors behind it.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 I'll dare to say it... there are many Atheists who behave as if they are in an actual religion and feel they must spread their gospel of anti-God, anti-chruch, anti-religion to all, and all must follow them blindly lest they be doomed forever to a hopeless struggle against fate believing in something they think is not there nor has ever existed, and that Steven Hawking's theory that the universe sprang forth from the Big Bang with no viable reaction, and that it just happened for no reason is the almighty word, and science MUST be right, and want to force and enforce this view on society (and people claim zealous religious Christians are bad...)

So you think irrational worldviews are healthy for society as a whole?

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 I'm sorry but Steven Hawking has been wrong on various occasions and has often recanted many of his findings because they were wrong. Even with his great mind doused in physics, he has his limits too. There is always a chance he DID screw up a calculation somewhere and he made a goof up.

Agreed, but I don't see how this is a problem. Quite the opposite. The fact that he could honestly admit a mistake is refreshing, and is a strength of science, not a weakness, because it allows for our knowledge to improve.

When was the last time the Pope admitted a mistake?