Amos

Methinks that too and it is therefore that there is no greater than ours. My reason for this was that the accomplishments of our civilization are far greater than those of any other and we have the inspired masterpieces to prove this.

You know what the bummer is? That indeed they are us, but we are not they!

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

excreationist

But what about Genesis 3:3 which says "...God told us not to eat the fruit of that tree or even touch it; if we do, we will die"?
So it seems that Eve could understand the concept of death (or at least that it is undesirable) *before* she touched the fruit.

Amos

</strong>

No thanks </strong>

"Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of us all? </strong>

OK then lets make a distinction between the environment and nature. I am trying to agree with Dawkins in that nature does not have a purpose but that "all sorts of life" that is found in nature does have a purpose and therefore has some sort of intelligence. </strong>

The problem in the evolution/creation debate is the anthropomorphism of God. If we could ask an amoeba if it was the center of its universe it would say yes because without 'it' the universe would no longer be. The only reason we are not the centre of our universe (God) is because we live beside ourselves and are not in charge of our own destiny. This leads to anthropomorphism.

I understand the term natural selection but lets not give it a mythical connotation. </strong>

Genes are physical and have no purpose, not even to procreate or a boner would have a bone in it. It is the mind that drives the will and to achieve this the mind is divided in two. Very simple and this is true for all sentient beings. </strong>

You should agree and without life forms nature does not exist. </strong>

I actually can't believe that I wrote that. If I did it was an error because the placement of sand on a beach has nothing to do with natural selection by any streth of the imagination. </strong>

Conditions are not always favorable because the ability to adapt must prove itself. Many human civilizations have become extinct because they failed to adapt and humans do have intelligence.
I hold that our mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe and that could be why intelligent tribes became extinct.[quot]<strong>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos:
The answer to the creation-evolution debate is to recognize the creator within the species. If religion is wrong in their explanation of God it is much better to attack religion and not the intelligent design found within creation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is an (intelligent) creator within the species then why are large numbers of species simply wiped out?

How do you explain cancer for example? The sign of the intelligent creator at work within the species? What does this say about the creator?
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Be carefull, I hold that each member of a species has the potential to become God and is the creator/co-creator of his/her own world and so our intimacy with our own creator (inner man) will keep us healthy. No that does not explain everything, but then, I don't claim to know everything.

I am done with this and will be gone for about 2 weeks.

Amos

It says, or should say, "lest you know that you will die." This just means that they will have a memory. Without a conscious mind there can be no memory and so you will no know about your future death.

excreationist

What translation is that? The KJV says:

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

How do you know that it should say "lest you know that you will die"? Did God tell you?

Eve recalled what God had said before she had touched any fruit. She *already* had a memory. Those who aren't conscious of their future death can still have a memory - e.g. mice, etc. Eve recalled what God said about a possible future death so I guess she was already conscious before she had eaten any fruit. She wasn't aware of good and evil though - or her nakedness.

happyboy

so, amos....from what i've gathered, in your estimation, the bible is all symbolism, we made God, not the other way around....so, what exactly are you? a mystical theist? an atheist? an agnostic? just wondering.

happyboy

E_muse

If you are not presenting any sort of a rational arguement then how do you propose to prove me/us wrong?

Well, Jesus said that it is what comes out of man that defiles him, not what goes in. So, if we are inwardly defiled how do we know that God is not defiled? That's the theological arguement.. however...

You have said that evolution/creation arguements are guilty of anthropomorphizing God. However, this is exactly what you seem to be doing because our idea of who God is must be determined by observing ourselves (humans).

Well firstly, you are simply continuing to commit the same logical fallacy.

If you separate the environment and nature (as you did living things earlier) then the same logical conclusions apply. If environment is not a part of nature (and it is the environment that is the unconscious sieve in "natural selection") then the environment is not natural and therefore unnatural.

This is obviously a ridiculous conclusion but it is based on your reasoning, not mine. I'm saying that everything that exists can be considered natural.

But you are taking this even further!! You are completely anthropomorphizing God. God no longer just has human-like characteristics, humans need to discover that they are God!! So if someone asks, "What is God like?" you would say, look at yourself. What is that if it is not anthropomorphizing God?

This just doesn't make any sense Amos.

Firstly, it is just moe anthropomorphism!

Secondly, we can't ask an amoeba such questions and thirdly, you are here giving amoeba human-like characteristics (anthropomorphism) suggesting that such an entity could conceptualize such notions.

Anthropomorphism is born out of (in part) the fact that we can only really conceptualize things and communicate things in terms of our earthly experience. People therefore refer to God (an external and independent being) in terms of human thought and action.

However, you totally anthropomorphize God by suggesting that he is to be completely understood on the basis of personal introspection and that we are him.

You arguement is therefore contradictory.

I'm not Amos, and neither is anyone else. You were the one who suggested that atheists such as Dawkins were referring to nature having a mind because they use the term 'selection'. I have told you that this is not what they mean and are simply referring to unconscious sieving.

You seem to be confusing language use with conceptual issues. Anthropomorphic language only means that language commonly applied to humans is applied to non-human entities in describing their behaviour. However, conceptually, people are not confusing the two and the use of anthropomorphic should not be taken to indicate that non-human characteristics are being handed out to non-humans. Dawkins, who uses the phrase, 'natural selection' explicitly points out that nature has no mind and no minds eye.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos:
I would say that nature is the negative stand against which the various forms of life make selections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you are separating 'life forms' from 'nature'. Are you suggesting that life forms are unnatural? Surely they are a part of nature?

So are you seriously arguing here that if something is physical then it has no purpose ?!?!

This statement is simply ludicrous. Genes contain all the coded information that makes up the particular organism of which it is a part. It therefore serves a very real purpose for without genes biological entities wouldn't exist!

You are not even clear on what you mean by nature. You've separated 'life forms' from nature and now you've done it to 'the environment' that just about rules out everything we experience from being a part of nature!

If you mean that nothing in the outside world would exist without life forms then I would assume that you are nearing some form of Solipism gently stirred with some diluted pantheism (God isn't all (pantheism) but only expressed in living things) all topped off with lashings of gnosticism.

Nature can be applied to anything that is thought to be natural, full stop.

I'm afraid that it has a lot to do with it. Waves are not intelligent and yet they 'sort' stones on a beach into some sort of order according to size.

When a volcano erupts, killing hunderds or thousands of people, the population has been sifted. Some have been 'selected' to survive whilst others have not. It is that simple. Even a child should be able to understand it.

As this seems to be confusing you, please bear in mind that when I use the term 'select' in conjunction with the actions of unconscious natural phenomena I am not inferring that said phenomena have some kind of 'mind' or 'will'. I am referring to 'sieving' or 'sorting'.

Many non-human civilizatons have become extinct too.. such as the Dodo. I don't suppose they lived with the concept you propose.

I think you need to familiarize yourself more with what evolution proponents are actually saying otherwise it simply makes you look silly.

Happyboy has suggested this and even provided a link but you have refused to read the information available.

You've come here to prove people wrong (as you stated to me) but then show no real desire to make the effort to understand what it is they are arguing.

How can you know that you can prove a position wrong if you don't know what that position actually is (and you clearly don't).

Why be careful? If you can't understand what you can see then how can you judge on what you can't see?

So much for proving us all wrong! Don't start what you can't finish otherwise you'll just lose people's respect and tolerance.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

On another thread the subject came up concerning the philosophical neutrality of the scientific method.

In the other discussion, I used the example of Richard Dawkins, who, in The Blind Watchmaer clearly states that prior to the publication of 'Origins' he could not imagine himself being an atheist. However, he also says that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

In short, there are no inconsistencies between evolutionary theory and atheism. Indeed, it may even be a welcome friend confirming what cannot otherwise be logically proven.. that God, for the atheist, does not exist. If someone didn't need God prior to Darwin, they certainly don't after him!

However, evolutionary theory has, without a doubt, proved a potential threat to traditional forms of theism.. particularly the predominant monotheistic religions.

Under the Biblical view, creation is formed in a state that is 'very good' and complete. Imprefections in creation are explained in terms of a fall from an initial state of perfection.

Obviously evolutionary theory seriously draws these ideas into question. Evolution presents us with the fact that there is no complete form of creature and that imperfections are an inherent and necessary part of the mechanism.

Theists have had to re-evaluate their view of reality, what it means for their understanding of their God and how certain Holy Books, such as the Bible should be read and understood.

I doubt very much for example that Biblical theists have been left feeling 'intellectually fulfilled' by the revelations of evolutionary theory in the same way that atheists are claimed to be by Dawkins.

I think this is substanciated further by the fact that attacks on evolutionary theory are more likely to come from theists and it is theists who are more likely to misunderstand the theory.

It therefore seems that the theory is far from being philosophically neutral.

TalkOrigins and some atheists on these boards, such as Albion, are anxious to point out the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. However, on other occasions in debating on these forums most metaphysical naturalists will point to the findings of methodological naturalism as a defence for the confidence they have in their philosophical outlook. Furthermore, I will often find myself reminded of how few academics (such as scientists) actually believe in God.

So I seem to identify an inconsistency of arguementation.

When defending their metaphysical stance, many atheists will point to the findings of methodological naturalism (the scientific method) as a defence of their stance. I will also be reminded of how few academics (especially those involved in the sciences) believe in any form of God these days (suggesting that the sciences may be dominated by a metaphysical naturalistic philosophical outlook). If one points out scientists (some pioneers) who have believed an answer will come back such as, "So what? Not many do now and there are few believers amongst academics full stop. What do you think that should tell you?"

However, there also seems to be a desire to separate evolutionary theory from the idea that it is dominated by a metaphysical naturalistic outlook?

Something appears to be a little confused.

pz

Not really.

Evolutionary theory contradicts stupid theology, or theology that is wedded to specific explanations of the natural world. For instance, primitive religious explanations that were locked in to godly causes for things like thunder or the seasons or why the fishing was bad last Tuesday were doomed by better material explanations. If you want to explain the material, natural world, it is obviously better to use material, natural mechanisms.

Smart theology tries to confine itself to ideas that aren't touchable by science. You can see that in the papal statement about evolution: it was conceded that evolution is an accurate description of the real world, but threw in a few words about immeasurable intangibles like the human 'soul' or 'spirit'.

Dumb theology tries to claim that the Bible is literal, word for word truth, and is always going to collide with the better informed observations of modern science. In that sense, science isn't philosophically neutral -- it does say very rude things about stupid ideas that don't fit reality.

Amos

That's not an estimation but a position I can defend. The mechanics of evolution are described in Gen.1, 2 and 3 with the declension God, Lord God and like god. Adaptation for the survival of the fittest is part of it and so was human mind as a wasteland before it was called to order.

I am just a man and don't really fit any of your boxes.

Dawkins and Darwin were self proclaimed atheists and rejected the anthopomorhic God of literalism. I reject that also but am not enslaved to another ideal. To either accept God or to reject God (or deny God as you might say) is to have an image of God to either be accepted or rejected. I do not have an image of God but know the difference between God and the image of God.

I do not reject evolution, or adaptaion, or mutation, or creation but try to explain that ceation is the leading edge of evolution.

Right, I do reject that natural selection has anything to do with selection and if it is a sieving process we deny the lower forms of life, such as oxidation, which I think is one of them. So that sieving idea was a bullshit answer.

E-Muse, genes do not 'have' a purpose but contain a blueprint that is made by the 'blueprint maker' so they can be 'of' purpose. Would our concept of 'aging' not qualify as proof for this? or do the all mutate in the same way?

I forgot to tell you that your argument is twisted and not worth my time to reply.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>