The Faith & Religion mega Thread

There's too much symbiosis between various plant and animal pairs for me to believe they weren't created.

I've seen the odds against DNA not being a creation posited as something like more than the number of grains of sand on this planet or maybe it was the number of atoms in the universe. I can believe either.

Creation is more believable than evolution. The origin of zygotes is preposterous to believe evolved in a universe where entropy is law.

Life only reproduces it's own kind. No new kinds have ever been observed by modern science. Dogs produce dogs. Trees produce trees. Ants produce ants. Humans produce humans. Bacteria produce bacteria. Eels produce eels. Birds produce birds. Mutations produce death.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Mutations produce death.

Also heroes in half shells.

Originally Posted by mrmazda There's too much symbiosis between various plant and animal pairs for me to believe they weren't created.

So of any and all possibilities. "Some all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal invisible spirit man did it" is the best we can come up with?

Originally Posted by mrmazda I've seen the odds against DNA not being a creation posited as something like more than the number of grains of sand on this planet or maybe it was the number of atoms in the universe. I can believe either.

In my view you can't have it both ways. Either the scholarly experts in the field(s) will someday figure out OOL or they won't. If we assume as you do that they/we don't and won't, and that we so surely don't now, then how can you know enough to rule out anything to settle on just one possibility as the final answer? Also, I'd like to know who compiled those odds and compared to what? Can you cite please?

Originally Posted by mrmazda Creation is more believable than evolution. The origin of zygotes is preposterous to believe evolved in a universe where entropy is law.

I understand that Creation is more believable for you, but even according to this poll thread, most don't think like that in 2023. One of thhe possible causes of that shift in POV is that those that actually grasp how entropy works in our Universe, is somewhat similar to the difference between Climate and Weather. Those terms are to differentiate between the Global average, and the local and momentary conditions.

In the concept of entropy, there is more than one type even aside from Local and Global. Some processes are reversible and some are irreversible. Without reversible forms of entropy, at least locally, no heat engines could ever work. See the Carnot Cycle. Ultimately, zygotes are a natural result and consequence in the evolution of sexual reproduction.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Life only reproduces it's own kind. No new kinds have ever been observed by modern science. Dogs produce dogs. Trees produce trees. Ants produce ants. Humans produce humans. Bacteria produce bacteria. Eels produce eels. Birds produce birds. Mutations produce death.

This is a common fallacy among fundamentalists. The definition of what a "kind" is was extremely rudimentary not only just 2000 years ago but even until very recently well into the 19th Century and gathering inertia since finally coming to a breakthrough tipping point with the discovery of RNA and DNA. This was amplified and extended greatly once it became possible to map genomes. There are hybrid species including canines and birds as well as a few others, that unlike most mules are not inherently infertile. Look up CoyWolves to know more.

SOME mutations produce death but a sufficient number of beneficial mutations make species survival far more likely than without such mutations. Many mutations are caused by or subject to the process of adaptation. There is a reason that marsupials only exist in abundance in Australia. The ancestors that survived adapted to local conditions and were isolated genetically for sufficient time to differentiate. This would have happened to humans had the length of time been long enough between rising sea levels that cutoff the Asia-North American land bridge and the arrival of Columbus.

Don't forget that over 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. It should be obvious that the process of speciation diversity is a fundamental attribute of life adapting to continue to survive in changing as well as isolation conditions. There is currently no known place on Earth where some form of life doesn't exist. In fact it is a major problem for researchers who can only study OOL by removing and maintaining that removal of any life forms. I rather dislike having to quote from the Jurassic Park movie but the dialogue came from the real world, "Life finds a way".

I am mildly curious why you don't think God created Evolution as the mechanism for life to spread, multiply, and adapt.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Mutations produce death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening

Atomic gardening is a form of mutation breeding where plants are exposed to radiation. Some of the mutations produced thereby have turned out to be useful.

Originally Posted by enorbet I've seen the odds... In my view you can't have it both ways. Either the scholarly experts in the field(s) will someday figure out OOL or they won't. If we assume as you do that they/we don't and won't, and that we so surely don't now, then how can you know enough to rule out anything to settle on just one possibility as the final answer?

Knowledge of everything isn't required. I've seen enough evidence in support of it, and because of it, to know the Bible contains no errors. Like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler & Newton, I have faith in It.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1,3 KJV

Also, I'd like to know who compiled those odds and compared to what? Can you cite please?... Ultimately, zygotes are a natural result and consequence in the evolution of sexual reproduction.

You should have figured out by now I'm not a catalog of cites. I don't remember who. I've seen no better way to explain OOL, or how the first two zygotes that "evolved" ever managed to find each other, know how to feed, and survive. The complication seems to approach infinity even in an amoeba, with every living cell containing enough DNA that if could be stretched out in a straight line would extend for miles. Life is a continuing miracle, living and breathing from a bunch of atoms combined in such complicated yet strictly defined arrangements that work because of the laws of physics.

I am mildly curious why you don't think God created Evolution as the mechanism for life to spread, multiply, and adapt.

Because it's devolution, not evolution, except "evolution" type 6, which isn't evolution, but natural selection. Survival is due to luck, and optimal combinations of what's left of the original bits as entropy eliminates the bits comprising those that don't. God created 6,000 years ago. That's not enough time for a whole lot of type 1-5 evolutions that millions and billions of years believers believe.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Daniel 12:4 KJV

This is where mankind has been since 1844.

Got it. Once you accept the Christian Bible in whatever manner you interpret it as The Highest Possible Authority, 100% accurate on every subject, no progress is possible, no falsification is possible, everything else is "less than", unassailable so case closed. Right?

Originally Posted by enorbet Got it. Once you accept the Christian Bible in whatever manner you interpret it as The Highest Possible Authority, 100% accurate on every subject, no progress is possible, no falsification is possible, everything else is "less than", unassailable so case closed. Right?

A wealth of possibilities exist for subjects not addressed. It's a big planet, & bigger universe. There's a lot that might be learned.

You may be forgetting that 100% of scientists are not in agreement with evolution and/or old earth. The numbers are bigger among those whose existence depends on not bucking the system and not disturbing the supply of money for research grants. Those who are officially retired from academia, or are otherwise unassociated with it, are more divergent, because as a population they are more independent.

Originally Posted by mrmazda I don't remember who. I've seen no better way to explain OOL, or how the first two zygotes that "evolved" ever managed to find each other, know how to feed, and survive.

Why two? All the most primitive life forms reproduce by division. Sexual reproduction is a relatively recent inovation.

The complication seems to approach infinity even in an amoeba, with every living cell containing enough DNA that if could be stretched out in a straight line would extend for miles.

That's because amoebas aren't really primitive either. We think of them as primitive because they are single-celled and we are multicellular. Obviously that's a huge difference. But an amoeba already has a nucleus with multiple chromosomes, and separate mitochondria to provide power from oxygen. That's not primitive at all. The really primitive life forms like bacteria have none of these things, just a single circular chromosome stuck to the inside of the cell membrane, containing the minimum amount of DNA that is needed to code for for their various enzymes. When you are talking about the evolution of life and deciding if it is even possible, that's the kind of life you need to consider.

Life is a continuing miracle, living and breathing from a bunch of atoms combined in such complicated yet strictly defined arrangements that work because of the laws of physics.

I absolutely concur. But that has nothing to do with the question of how life evolved. The miracle is that God created the kind of universe which was compatible with the way that life works.

Mrmazda I'm not forgetting that 100% od scientists don't agree on anything more complicated than the sum of 1 + 1. 100% agreement on subjects as complex as OOL would be a disaster, a signal that either Science had utterly failed at it's most essential methodology or that we had learned all there is to learn, neither of which is likely to ever happen.

Naturally, there is more discrepancy on OOL (not Evolution though) than many other subjects because just for one reason the only Life we know of so far being currently all but Earthbound, is on Earth. All of the observable data we have is all here in one isolated environment. The number of scientists that conclude earth is less that 4 billion years old is very small, and all of them "to a man" are compromised by fundamentalist religious beliefs, AFAIK.

While it is possible to consider and debate just how accurate radiometric dating really is, the relative percentage of error has never exceeded 10% and that is a hugely overstated degree. Ten percent of 4 billion is nowhere nerar 10,000 let alone 6,000. Young Earth is simple denial having zero basis in any objective evidence and in the face of centuries of massive data supporting radiometric dating, astronomical comparison and derivation, etc etc etc. Young Earth is only slightly less ridiculous than Flat Earth.

I guess that's why I don't think that "science" equals any sort of "certainty." And, that it is not obliged to provide any such thing.

I will readily accept "evolution at the species level" as a readily-observable scientific fact. But I perceive the existence of many constraints on this process which plainly act to keep it tightly in check. (Just as some pregnancies end in "miscarriage.") I therefore anticipate the existence of some other grand mechanism which we have not discovered yet – and which we have never today seen in action.

I actually have a hardback copy of Origin of Species, and I have actually read(!) the whole thing. Darwin chose his title very carefully. When he engaged in "scientific philosophy" speculations, it was clear to his intended audience what he was doing and what the implicit rules and understandings were. For instance, to say, "I see no apparent contradictions," means precisely what it says. And, doesn't say.

It's okay to "step out on a limb" when exploring topics that can't be validated by actual experiment. That's what "scientific philosophy" (or "the philosophy of science") is all about, and that's why we pursue it. It's very powerful, as long as both you and your audience agree as to what you are now doing and where the agreed-upon limits are. (In many topics, such as much of "nuclear physics," there is no other way because we cannot "observe.")

Now, beyond that. I think that it is utterly silly to assert that we know the answers to any of the (as I call them ...) "Big Kahuna Questions.™" We don't, and we probably can't. But that should never stop us from trying. And for pursuing every scrap of "scientific inquiry" that we think is available to us.

"God," I would like to believe, "wouldn't have it any other way."

Personally, I will never agree with you that "the Bible is the infallible, totally inspired Word of God and thus the Source of All Truth." However, if you say that it is, I will not engage you. Nothing good could ever come from any such engagement. (One of the most prescient observations made in that Book is that you can "sin against your brother," and be in the wrong for doing so even if you are "right." This pragmatic idea applies to all sorts of instances. "Know when to quit – or, not to engage at all.")

Hello again, sundialsvcs, old friend. Once again we agree on the general terms you laid out in post #11290, with the only points of contention being steails oc Evolution, specifically speciation, and perhaps what constitutes sinning against one's brother". Speciation has been observed. Depending on what one's understanding of "kind" (not at all a specific term let alone a scientific term) there are not only examples in micro forms like tens of thousands of generations of viruses, with control groups btw, but also in much more complex groups like canines, birds, and others.

As for "sinning against one's brother" I'm rather fond of the Sicilian proverb, "Only a true friend will tell you when your face is dirty". If that isn't completely clear, indulge my expansion that is not because a true friend will disrespect you, it's because a true friend respects you enough to realize, just as he would, the friend would want to know what he can't readily see exactly because he would desire to rectify the condition.

Additionally once a falsehood, and especially a very old, thought resolved falsehood begins to once again gain any traction, especially among those in power over whole communities, it seems to me it is one's duty to "call them out" to "nip it in the bud".

Please consider this is happening right now. I read that it is a potentially global turn of events, but naturally I am most familiar with it in the US. Exactly because of a fundamentalist trend, including rejection of rules of evidence and denial of the scientific method we get situations like this -

Originally Posted by Lauren Boebert - from numerous news sources from many sides Two days before her primary election, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, 35, preached to churchgoers at an event, "The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church." "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. This is not in the Constitution, it was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does," she told the Colorado Springs crowd on Sunday.

That this congresswoman apparently hasn't even read let alone understood (unless of course she is just lying) the very first amendment in the US Constitution, is as appalling as the conditions in George Orwell's novel 1984 relating to actual "Doublethink" as egregious, ridiculous, and dangerous beyond reckoning as "War is Peace". This cannot be allowed to stand. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the example so often quoted as the responsibility implied by and the need for certain specific limits in Freedom of Speech, pales by comparison.

Originally Posted by enorbet That this congresswoman apparently hasn't even read let alone understood

She understands better than most.

no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES. February 29, 1892. 143 U.S. 457

Mrmazda, while that may well be a US court ruling in the State of New York it is not in the Constitution and even if it were there is a HUGE difference from outlawing action against religion and the tenets of 1st Amendment. She is correct that the government isn't to direct "Church" but she is dead wrong that "Church" is supposed to direct government. It is specifically stated and in no uncertain terms they are to be separate. To call that junk is either crazy or evil or both. To state that it is not in the Constitution is either the rankest of ignorance or a baldfaced lie.

Incidentally that court ruling was NOT on a point of religion but on a business contract dispute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/143/457

BTW are you familiar with The Jefferson Bible?

@enorbet: We remain friends who have never met. My regards ...

Perhaps it is precisely because of "people like Lauren" that our Founders prohibited it in the First Amendment. After all, they were thoroughly familiar with the institution of "The Church of England," which of course still exists and still very much holds power – elsewhere. They fully recognized the influence that "organized religion" could have upon "the government of state." They resolved that these two must forever remain separate, and they put it in writing.

Even though "Emperor Constantine" is long dead, and his Roman Empire no longer exists, his Roman Church still exists – and it still has a reigning Emperor. In days gone by, it could and did cause "world wars" – the Crusades – merely by promising "indulgences" consisting of the forgiveness of sins. (And also, "offering such things for sale.") Within the confines of the Vatican City, to this very day most countries still have embassies. Yes, they are still that powerful in the daily affairs of men. Constantine had no idea.

Originally Posted by enorbet but she is dead wrong that "Church" is supposed to direct government.

You misunderstand her meaning of "Church", which was God's people, not any of the many religious institutions that exist, such as the Church of England, from which the Puritans were escaping to reach the new land. Individual people comprise the government, therefore as such people go at God's direction, so should be going the government. God can't be separated from His people. The constitutional authors never conceived that it wouldn't be His people making up the majority of the new government that they based in huge part upon Biblical principles.