LOL
6of9 - I wrote this long-ass reply to Francois basically defending you, but it was boring and I deleted it since I figured you could take care of yourself. By golly, you did.
Take care, man
rem
Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!!
by Francois 163 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
pseudoxristos
Im not sure if this point has been brought up yet, but at what point in the process of evolution does God start to consider the creature that will eventually become man, worthy of an after life?
Will those that are less evolved share the same afterlife with man of today?
Will man of today share in the same afterlife of a future evolution of himself?
The atheist view seems more reasonable.
pseudoxristos
edited to add signature.
Edited by - pseudoxristos on 6 July 2002 22:21:55
-
gravedancer
Im not sure if this point has been brought up yet, but at what point in the process of evolution does God start to consider the creature that will eventually become man, worthy of an after life?
Will those that are less evolved share the same afterlife with man of today?
Will man of today share in the same afterlife of a future evolution of himself?
The atheist view seems more reasonable.
Great observation. A believer in both evolution and God is almost drawn to conclude in reincarnation and the divine consummation of all life forms (to me as a tree-hugger a very attractive prospect indeed)
On another note:
If one observes the progress being made with regard to genetics one is confronted with some inevitable questions. Without getting too deeply into it lets consider the fact that we have mapped the entire human genome. We know from here it will progress to:
- Genetic cures
- Human Cloning
- Manufacture of Artificial Genes
- Creation of life
One's beliefs can steer one to a number of different reactions. For instance a supporter of creation and religion might conclude that we are interfering with creation and Gods purpose. An atheist might have similar conclusions but believe that we are interfering with nature. Another atheist might believe that since evolution is the survival of the fittest and that since evolution is accelerating this is just the next stage in our evolution.
All of this speculation is a great fantasy.....but unfortunately at this time I have to leave it as that.....a fantasy. Perhaps Tinkerbell really is God!!
-
Satanus
My research and experiments have taken me in the direction of similar tentative conclusions as francois. As lonewolf incitefully pointed out
the real problem with the faith was the stranglehold the religious leaders had on it, so much so that new research, etc., had no chance to be assimilated. They had convinced themselves that they already knew all that was necessary to know and that the ancient traditions were sufficient.
The end result is, of course, that the people that follow it live in conditions that are the same as hundreds or even thousands of years ago and those nations in its grasp stagnate.
If we can remove religion from god research, we will have less obstructions. Still, skepticism is a virtue.
Grave
It's interesting that you see how the discussion logically leads to reincarnation.
If belief in a god was so vitally important, there wouldn't be this gigantic lack of proof. I am quite comfortable with people of atheist persuasion. I don't see the belief in a god as an important element.
SS
Edited by - saintsatan on 7 July 2002 0:52:5
Edited by - saintsatan on 7 July 2002 0:53:15
Edited by - saintsatan on 7 July 2002 1:35:57
-
QUANTUM
Well, I must say to francios and some of the others. I don't think you read or understood my last post. I was under the impression that we were all using the same set of rules when defining our positions where evolution is concerned. Many started to go there own way by bringing into to the diatribe philosophical clap trap....the Ancient GREEKS would be rolling in uncontrolled laughter. They wrote the book on extremism and none of you come close. Give it up!
From purely a Biblical stand point, my argument cannot be contested. If you bring in personal unsubstantiated philosophy, then you should go some place and play with your bubble blower alone. I for one do not give a diddle for some lame argument based on a persons "OWN FEELING" about something. There are no original or virgin thoughts. Only those which have been through the fire of trial and repeated examination have any right to be entered for further analyzing. Puny thinking is for the pro JW boards.
When it comes right down to it, few of you have any real education so you resort to "PERSONAL VIEWS" which demonstrate the brain washing you endured...but not too well. A few try to put on a masquerade of education but you finally resort to children stories and bubble gum when you run out of three and four letter words. I felt the dialogue was moving quite extraordinary considering the interference by some of the nurslings.
QUANTUM!!!
-
Francois
Gravedancer - OK, I'm willing to take your word for his outstanding attributes. One can tell there's an intelligence in there operating, but it is effectively occluded by the method of its delivery. And I wasn't referring to your "mine is bigger than yours" fonts. Yes, it's true I've gotten a couple of wires crossed.
Island Woman - Alright now. "Artistic Tinkering" wasn't it? I think that the drive to anthropomorphize God is irresistible - and likely leads to inaccurate results. We are the micro-mortal-subinfinite subset attempting to describe the macro-immortal-infinite set and are thus doomed to failure IMHO. It is charming to think that God set up an automatic smart molecule and from time-to-time makes artistic interventions in the outworking of its programming. I don't know that it's an essential concept for the present discussion, but anything is possible. But if that's the case, I don't understand then why he doesn't clean up the programming flaw that produces cancer.
Um, let me clarify something of my thinking. When I say God did, or does, this or that thing, I don't mean that the person of God did it himself. I mean an agency of God did this or that thing. I don't personally believe that God is an interventionist; that God busies himself with intervening in the affairs of any of the umpteen zillion, quadrillion, billion planets where there's life coupled with will. The ancients had a habit of ascribing to God everything they didn't understand, which was damn near everything. Thus for them, God was the lightening, the tornado, the volcano, the orgasm, the eclipse of the sun, and you name it. It took millenia for the human race to get over its superstitions - and that's an imcomplete job up to this very day. Don'tcha think? We should know better than this.
And Thoreau was right IMO, in that if a man's bowels trouble him, he sets about reforming the world. Everything seems to have to be of origin outside the observer. And so it's a quaint concept that discovering ultimate reality involves enquiring within - at least here in the West.
Quantum - Get with the program. Don't scream in people's faces.
6/9 - Sorry for the flubup. And I'm not claiming some inside track to God. I notice that any time anyone claims to have found some singular spiritual discovery, the science-only & "only if you can measure it" crowd of reductionists/determinists has a fit. This is supposed to be bridging, not forcing deterministic techniques on everything that moves. Like nailing Jell-O to a wall. Have you thought that transactions that border the never-land between the purely physical and purely spiritual just might not admit measurement? Face it, even the best of the science boys can't tell you both the location and the velocity of a particle simultaneously - damn, there are limits everywhere you look. Please don't attribute to me things I don't say and positions I don't take.
Francois
Edited heavily by me this morning attempting to correct for the misidentification. I mustn't stay up past my bedtime like that.
Edited by - Francois on 7 July 2002 7:29:38
Edited by - Francois on 7 July 2002 8:47:40
-
SYN
This has to be one of the most interesting threads I've seen for a while....
-
gravedancer
In a recent statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II lent the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to the theory of evolution, saying that ". . . fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."
Further remarks seem to indicate that the Pope was espousing "theistic evolution," the theory.
What is interesting is WHY the Catholic church has felt/seen the need to adjust its teaching and adopt Theistic Evolution (which is being argued in favor of in this thread). Did they have a debate such as this one?
Talkorigins has hoisted similar threads such as this one. An example can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar99.html
-
Francois
SYN - Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's rare to find a pretty non-pejorative and calm conversation between these two camps. But it's been too long delayed. I just don't see there sould be any argument between science and religion. I wonder if I should say science and spirituality? Once you get an organized religion into the picture, now you've got to start defending your organization's take on things. And organizations don't take kindly to being found in error...to the point of putting you to death for it when they had the power.
I don't seem to be able to get an answer from the creationist's camp about the fact that religion has yet to win an argument with science. Religion has never won a debate with science. Never. Remember the story about the guy who developed the barometer? Filled a glass tube with mercury and turned it upside down into a bowl of the stuff, automatically creating a vacuum in the top of the tube. The Church went ape-shit. "No such thing as a vacuum. God is everywhere. This is heresy. Burn him." Of course, there was indeed a vacuum in the top of the tube, but it went against what the organization said and so the best way to deal with unpleasant fact is to do what the JWs still do today - get rid of the evidence.
And the number 0? Church went ape-shit. The earth orbits the sun? Well, you know...
Who among us doesn't believe that if the Borg had the power they'd put apostates to death? I believe it. I'd bet money on it. The words "under God" are in the pledge? Get that tip of the camel's nose out from underneath the tent flap. It's too important, this keeping the state out of religion. Unless you'd like to return to public burning of heretics and apostates, that is.
Francois
-
gravedancer
Wish Amazing would jump in soon as I know he was a fan of "Darwin's Black Box" from Michael Behe. In the book Behe advocates the possibility of God. I know that there have been counterpoints raised against the work also.
Have you read the book, Frank?