Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[Chrysaor]

Sorry this post is long, but it's the theory I've been setting up for a couple pages.

Imaginary numbers are real, they just follow different rules, so we put them in a separate category from real real numbers, because we can make rules for them and put them in that neat little heirarchy bob wrote up.

I think this is an interesting read.

I want to talk about the heirarchy of science a bit.

In the Universe, as I see it, scientifically we establish a hierarchy for deducing everything observable in the Real World. You have Observations, what we see on the surface, not very helpful on its own. Below that you have biology explaining what is actually moving things within us, very mechanical and descriptive. Below that you have Chemistry, describes why these interactions happen, what's happening on a smaller level. Below that you have Physics, describing the inner workings of the smallest particles that drive the actions. Then guiding Physics most intimitately you have Mathematics.

So,
Universe
. . . |
The Real World
. . . |
Observations
. . . |
Biology
. . . |
Chemistry
. . . |
Physics
. . . |
Mathematics

And so, Bob and Q you would then agree that beliefs in God fit somewhere in Appearances only. That's why all this biology talk with dinosaurs makes it pretty clear that Cat Fuzz is defending a position he doesn't have any information for. ( No offense Cat, but the simplest answer is usually the right one, and overturning all of science and changing the half life of carbon seems pretty complex to me.)

So, because a belief in god is not substantiated by the rest of the heirarchy it tries to fit into, then it is in effect, wrong. Agree?

So getting back to mathematics, let's see if we can't examine what works at the most basic level and build off that.
Now look at this, talking about direct applications of imaginary numbers to mathematics:

Although such direct applications of complex numbers to the real world are few, their indirect applications are many. Many properties related to real numbers only become clear when the real numbers are thought of as sitting inside the complex number system. Therefore, complex numbers aid in the understanding even of things that are described by ordinary, familiar real numbers.

It's like trying to understand a shadow. The shadow lives in a two-dimensional world, so only two-dimensional concepts are directly applicable to it. However, thinking of the three-dimensional object casting the shadow can aid in understanding it, even though three-dimensional concepts don't have any direct application to the two-dimensional world of the shadow. Likewise, complex numbers may not be directly applicable to a real world measurement any more than a three-dimensional object is directly applicable to a 2-dimensional shadow, but they can still help us understand it.

Source

My conjecture is that the hierarchy works a little bit like the math table. Something like this:

Universe
. . . |----------------------|
The Real World . . . The Imaginary World
. . . |
Appearances
. . . |
Biology
. . . |
Chemistry
. . . |
Physics
. . . |
Mathematics

Now read the above quote with a few words switched around:

Although such direct applications of the whole universe to the real world are few, their imaginary applications are many. Many properties related to the real world only become clear when the real world is thought of as sitting inside the whole universal system. Therefore, the whole universe aids in the understanding even of things that are described by ordinary, familiar real world science.

It's like trying to understand a shadow. The shadow lives in a world of scientific method, so only scientific concepts are directly applicable to it. However, thinking of the (real + imaginary world = universal) object casting the shadow can aid in understanding it, even though universal concepts don't have any direct application to the scientific world of the shadow. Likewise, universal concepts may not be directly applicable to a real world measurement any more than a universal object is directly applicable to a scientific shadow, but they can still help us understand it.

Here I use the word Universe as the present moment, life and everything effecting it. I also am not saying the Imaginary world is unreal, but that is is like Imaginary numbers, real and useful, but that it does not follow the same set of rules. Science starts with appearances and observations and therefore has no right to establish a hierarchy in the imaginary world. Just like Cat and Christians shouldn't try to validate God in a scientific world.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Religion has helped to prove science. I saw a show a couple weeks ago where old religious text had dates on them; the authors wrote the date down when penning them. It was probably the dead sea scrolls, but not sure. As a test, people had the findings carbon dated. They analyzed several of them, not just one.

When the results of the dating came back, they all were correct. The dating can only give you a range of dates, but the dates on the scrolls all fell within this small range. They also noticed that it was the high end of the dates that were correct, not in the middle somewhere.

Carbon dating used to be somewhat unreliable, but they have it down to a science now (pun). I just thought it was funny how religion helped to prove a science.

 

[GoAt]

as stated before is previous posts. if the earth is 6000 or even 50,000 years old, then the speed of light would have to be alot faster than what we have measured it (and it is accurate)
seeing as the stars we see with our eyes and the aid of telescopes and the light the emit tells us how far away somthing is.

Q to finish this up plz.... my brain just farted

 

[bobtheking]

Chrysaor:
i agree that the reasons for belief in god fits under observations. i just think that occam's razor applies perfectly here, and now really the only main thing that science doesn't have a simple logical explanation for is our origins, and there is no reason to believe the arbitrary, complex, unlikely answer.

i don't quite get the paralell with imaginary numbers and an imaginary universe though. just because they have similar characteristics doesn't mean the reason they came to be (through definitions of other things vs. ???) is the same. imaginaries also have a lot of applications that are not theoretical at all. one example is quaternions, which i use for my game dev stuff a lot. the definition goes:

a + b i + c j + d k

where i, j, and k are imaginary. this is extremely useful for representing rotations.

GoAt, the speed of light and the half life of the elements were just the two quick examples i could think of off of the top of my head. there are loads more things that would have to be different from their exhasutively determined and verified values if the universe were to be 6,000 years old.

this is also what i was saying about how science is always reinforcing itself. by having multiple ways to determine the age of anything, the more ways that agree the more times each of the methods have been verified.

to prove the speed of light is other than 3e8 m/s, you would have to prove TONS of other things to be different as well, like planck's constant which appears in quite a lot of places.

i welcome cat fuzz to try and prove these wrong because any challenge to science is always good. if he succeeds, we will know that we need to go back and look at everything, and if he doesn't he will reinforce those theories to all of us (most importantly himself) like the many many people that came before.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

And so, Bob and Q you would then agree that beliefs in God fit somewhere in Appearances only.

My conjecture is that the hierarchy works a little bit like the math table.

Now read the above quote with a few words switched around:

Science starts with appearances and observations and therefore has no right to establish a hierarchy in the imaginary world.

i would say by conjecture and switching words around, you are telling me what i think, and you are trying to come up with something that seems halfway plausable.

I’ve avoided using math to prove my point, because I know most people haven’t had a lot of math. Instead, I’ve tried to use reason.

According to some of you, god had a plan all along to explain everything. This sounds to me like he knows what’s going to happen before it happens. If so, why wait to lay down the ground rules (ten commandments)? It sounds like god knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept of incest, but he allowed this mistake to happen and then waited a long time before trying to correct this mistake, or saying enough is enough, if you will.

I’m hearing about how religious people said it was plausible for noah to collect all these animals, even penguins and polar bears, even creatures that inhabited regions similar to rain forests, creatures that live high on the mountain tops, and this must mean he herded all the dinosaurs onto the arc as well. I’m sorry to tell you, but the logistics are far from reasonable. The arc would need to be a lot larger to accommodate all the creatures, including these enormous dinosaurs. Not to mention that it’s impossible to round up all these animals in any reasonable time, and most surely unreasonable to think he got lucky enough to not miss a single species.

It’s unreasonable to think dinosaurs all ate plants and that the bible omitted tales of these great creatures that were supposed to have walked among mankind. It’s unreasonable to believe in science to get you through your life, but to ignore it when it goes against a belief system you hold onto without any “real” proof.

Christains say you have to believe that christ died for you sins on the cross to go to heaven. Yet, retarded people who have no idea what you’re talking about and have sinned are left with what? Children who have sinned and have no concept of a god are left with what? People who have sinned but never heard the word of god because they live in a tribe in Africa are doomed. Then I suppose you’ll say that there are stipulations where these people can go to heaven. That tells me that there is no definite rule; loopholes if you will. God is sitting there looking at a mentally challenged person at the pearly gates and saying, “Hmm, well you have enough mental capacity to know that you did something wrong, but you can’t quite grasp the concept of a savior, so you’re lucky enough to walk through the gates. Now your friend over there is past the limit that we’ve set here, he sort of understands a savior, but doesn’t quite believe, so he’s going to have to go to hell.”

Then you have the bible referring to god as if he was a male. It seems convenient to me that man penned the bible and god is a man. Then it seems strange that the bible was written so vaguely that even when many people believe in it, they believe it’s saying different things. And who is to say this religion is right and others are wrong? Billions of hindu and muslims believe differently than christians, but christians are right and they are wrong. Not only that, but your specific belief is right and others aren’t, even when they do believe in the bible.

The concept of these loopholes, which include the whole incest thing, seems patently ludicrous. It’s not reasonable at all. I’m just trying to use reason to prove my point, not a bunch of math that I can easily manipulate.

 

[GoAt]

christianity was NOT the first religion, though ask many christians and they think it is.

therefore, if it wasnt the first one, then why is it the right one?

 

[QUALTHWAR]

likewise, accounts of a flood that destroyed mankind were in print long before the noah account.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

christianity was NOT the first religion, though ask many christians and they think it is.

therefore, if it wasnt the first one, then why is it the right one?

Nobody ever said that Christianity was the first religion. Anyone even remotely familiar with the Bible would know this.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

It seems to me that it would be best to bring baby animals on board the Ark to save space. Besides, recent evidence suggests the Ark was much bigger than previously thought. In addition, there were fewer different kinds of animals back then. I'm sure he only brought one variety of elephant on board, for example and the different varieties of animals we have now are a result of micro-evolution.

Add to that that there was no need to bring aquatic animals on board since they could just swim around the whole time during the flood.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

It seems to me that it would be best to bring baby animals on board the Ark to save space. Besides, recent evidence suggests the Ark was much bigger than previously thought. In addition, there were fewer different kinds of animals back then. I'm sure he only brought one variety of elephant on board, for example and the different varieties of animals we have now are a result of micro-evolution.

Add to that that there was no need to bring aquatic animals on board since they could just swim around the whole time during the flood.

I know about the fish thing, which is why i haven't mentioned it. Even with 'baby' animals, it's a stretch. Moreover, even if there were more creatures, there were still millions of species. It's not plausable.

 

[Chrysaor]

Q, It's the whole point of an argument to use what you know about the other person's stance to validate your position. If I think both positions are right to a certain extent, then it is the body of my argument find middle ground.

I don't believe god had a plan. I do believe that everything in this universe happens for a reason, and everything in the future would be determined by the actions of the past. The reality is when they happen, and everything before or after can be seen from that. I don't call that a plan, I call it cause and effect. I don't feel that the actions of the "imaginary world" validate the bible. I just feel that it is at the core of some beliefs in god.

Life is not science, it's chaos. I'm not ignoring science, it doesn't apply.

I was not trying to manipulate math, but use it as a practical metaphor.

Bob, I agree bringing in Occam's razor is important. Seems like the simple answer is that we just are. Trying to find all the hidden developments and intricacies of why that is leads away from the obvious conclusion. My relationship with god is cheifly based on understanding the present. Whether there's a force called god that touches all of the things I'm analyzing day to day or not, that really doesn't matter. The simple point of life is to understand it in one moment, not in the entire span of time. That doesn't require the belief or the disbelief in god, and I don't think any of this thread has anything to do with whether we are content in our lives. It's all superfluous.

The imaginary numbers thing isn't flawless, just an example. You ever see that Seinfield where George does everything he would normally never do, and finds a great deal of success in it? I think where the imaginary world finds its application is in helping people deal with things that normally never would happen (death especially, loves gone wrong, etc) or weren't expected. You can find a scientific reason for the way someone died, or you can come to a logical deduction of why someone fell out of love with someone else, but that doesn't really get at the heart of the situation. "God" helps me understand that everything in your life happens for a reason, to shape us, and that these are also not merely the results of chance, but happening because they have a patterning reason behind them as well. But it's not logical, it's illogical, and usually unwanted, and this mechanism is what drives the imaginary world and actually helps people understand with life.

Mechanism is really the best word to describe what I feel god constitutes, it's not a conscious entity, but a set of processes that work in a certain aspect of our experience.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm


Dino and human tracks together.


Did man and dinos live together? This site has info.

http://www.creationevidence.org/cem...reationevidence.org/fa_questions/dinoman.html

 

[bobtheking]

Life is not science, it's chaos. I'm not ignoring science, it doesn't apply.

but it does. life is not chaos, its just so incredibly complex that we can't analyze it. every decision and thought you and i have is the result of eletric fields and chemical reactions.

I was not trying to manipulate math, but use it as a practical metaphor.

i understand, i just don't see the metaphor very clearly.

Bob, I agree bringing in Occam's razor is important. Seems like the simple answer is that we just are. Trying to find all the hidden developments and intricacies of why that is leads away from the obvious conclusion.

i disagree with this, 'we just are' is not a potential answer, and if it is almost all of humanity should feel pretty stupid. but i highly doubt this. that would be the simplest answer, but i don't think it qualifies. when i determine the simplicity of a theory i go off of what is required for us to be here. so:

evolution:
simple, things well suited to their environment live, those that aren't, die. throw in some random mutations and you have evolution.

creation:
very complex because it requires you to define god, no doubt a complex being, and requires him to define all the living organisms on the planet.

my main problem with creation is it is just totally arbitrary.

My relationship with god is cheifly based on understanding the present. Whether there's a force called god that touches all of the things I'm analyzing day to day or not, that really doesn't matter. The simple point of life is to understand it in one moment, not in the entire span of time. That doesn't require the belief or the disbelief in god, and I don't think any of this thread has anything to do with whether we are content in our lives. It's all superfluous.

this is something else entirely and i have no problem or even any opinion of it. it almost sounds like you've made up your own version of buddhism from what little i know of it. as far as i can gather buddhism tells you how to think, not what to think like most other religions including christianity. its another way of approaching problems in a different domain, just like science. like i said before i personally will not be using such a thought process, but if it helps you by all means.

 

[Chrysaor]

Archaeology is really frustrating sometimes, because in order to get to the truth, we have to throw out all these wild cards that don't fit the equation. There's really little to discredit or explain some of them except for the fact that they are so extreme it makes absolutely no sense that they'd be authentic.

Those tracks are in America, did Adam and Eve's line get to America by land bridge or boat? Whatcha think?

 

[bobtheking]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm


Dino and human tracks together.


Did man and dinos live together? This site has info.

http://www.creationevidence.org/cem...reationevidence.org/fa_questions/dinoman.html

these prints have not stood up to scientific investigation very well. they aren't even sure if they are human prints, there are some odd features, and IIRC some were also found to be doctored. there is also a lot of damage from erosion.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_paluxy.htm

...even the Institute for Creation Research has issued a statement asking creationists not to use this as a basis for arguing that the earth is young.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

Blah

 

[Chrysaor]

I should have deleted that "Life is not science, it's chaos. I'm not ignoring science, it doesn't apply." bit. We are in agreement regarding "life is not chaos, its just so incredibly complex that we can't analyze it." This is why I feel that science may at some point or may already possess the knowledge to explain why everything is, but I don't see how the T.O.E. is going to be applicable to daily life. Who here things string theory gives them a great deal of inner peace?

Basically with the math metaphor, I was trying to show that there are less well understood processes that when considered, applied, and included in the real world make for a more complete worldview for some people.

So if "nothing" were required for us to be here, then wouldn't that be the simplest answer? Science and religion are both geared towards understanding that nothing, and by that create everything. 1 < Infinity, and therefore simpler.

Keep in mind, for some people, Creationism is easier, one man, makes everything, end of story, no need for science. Science has the edge because its story erodes the other, and Creationism is silent, it's just faith.

When I stumbled upon Buddhism a year ago, it really validated a lot of my feelings, and I completely recognized a lot of the ideas. But they weren't all the same, and I think any path to greatness must be taken alone. So I looked at it, and took in what I did, validating some things, removing others, like scientific method. But, you are right in regards to it being a method for how to think, not what to think. Like I was telling Q earlier, once I achieved this realization, it was clear to me that this mechanism, this god, was at work, and simultaneously, I found a great deal of peace. So that's why I dont' feel it matters whether you believe in god at all or not. It's whether you are content with the mechanisms you do recognize in your life as explaining it in a satisfactory manner.

 

[Chrysaor]

I like how all the links Cat Fuzz presents have "bible" or "creation" in them, and the links bob respons with have "atheism" in them.

Trouble is there isn't anyone out there who's unbiased.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

How come I haven't seen these pics on any place that didn't have bible.com on the end or a creationist examination of history. I've seen these people in a catholic magazine in Highschool. Even if you don't buy it, they are interesting to say the least. Though I believe I read in a recent examination that the tracks were probably made by a Mammoth, an animal that early man hunted.

I know enough about Dinasuars to know that the earliest remains of a creature even remotely similar to man were found long after the Creatatious(spelling always sucks on this one) Period ended. But I've always toyed with the notion of some organisms survivng through apparent extinction. Surely it is possible that not all the dinosaurs died out and some lingered on. Take Crocodiles for instance. There was a Dinosuar that was structurely similar to the Croc only much larger. Perhaps Crocodiles are the evolutionary ancestor of a titanic decendant. My point is, there are thousands of equally logical explainations to explain those tracks IF they happen to be proven to be caused by a large reptile. Only one answer that they are proof of some biblical reference proving God exists is quite a jump. "Dinosuars walked with man, that means the bible is 100% correct and God is watching you". I don't see how one explains the other.

 

[bobtheking]

I should have deleted that "Life is not science, it's chaos. I'm not ignoring science, it doesn't apply." bit. We are in agreement regarding "life is not chaos, its just so incredibly complex that we can't analyze it." This is why I feel that science may at some point or may already possess the knowledge to explain why everything is, but I don't see how the T.O.E. is going to be applicable to daily life. Who here things string theory gives them a great deal of inner peace?

Basically with the math metaphor, I was trying to show that there are less well understood processes that when considered, applied, and included in the real world make for a more complete worldview for some people.

now i see what you mean by the math metaphor, but again i don't think its accurate. imaginaries are very well understood.

basically what you are saying is to have this secondary world that is kind of like a placeholder until science can describe everything that happens? or something.

When I stumbled upon Buddhism a year ago, it really validated a lot of my feelings, and I completely recognized a lot of the ideas. But they weren't all the same, and I think any path to greatness must be taken alone. So I looked at it, and took in what I did, validating some things, removing others, like scientific method. But, you are right in regards to it being a method for how to think, not what to think. Like I was telling Q earlier, once I achieved this realization, it was clear to me that this mechanism, this god, was at work, and simultaneously, I found a great deal of peace. So that's why I dont' feel it matters whether you believe in god at all or not. It's whether you are content with the mechanisms you do recognize in your life as explaining it in a satisfactory manner.

which is what i agree with. for me its science.

I like how all the links Cat Fuzz presents have "bible" or "creation" in them, and the links bob respons with have "atheism" in them.

Trouble is there isn't anyone out there who's unbiased.

i actually hesitated about posting that link, but i figured everything cat posts is "www.bible.org" and "www.creationwins.com" i should get my turn. at least its about.com, which is credible, hard to say for the atheism section though.