Talking Religion...

[Brewtus]

Not sure one can make the leap (without more) that string theory implies spirituality, though anyone who's read my babbling on matters science/religion should know I'd be inclined to agree with the assertion... ie - my discussion some time ago with Brewtus on the "Official Bible Thread" about what a person's spirit might be, if it exists.

That was a good discussion. If I recall correctly, in the end I won everyone over to my position that a "soul" doesn't actually exist and was made up by mankind to make people feel better about dying. Right? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[JCOSU86]

Possibly not.

 

[Bleed S & G]

That was a good discussion. If I recall correctly, in the end I won everyone over to my position that a "soul" doesn't actually exist and was made up by mankind to make people feel better about dying. Right? Anyone? Bueller?

Ehh, I think thats why heaven exsits.. makes a loved ones death easier to handle. Not so much why the soul exsits.

In Quantium Physics, there is a "watcher" which many think would be the "soul" but, you are right, there is no way to prove a soul exsits.

Then again, there is no hard proof evolution is true either - dosen't mean I don't think it's real though.

 

[Brewtus]

Ehh, I think thats why heaven exsits.. makes a loved ones death easier to handle. Not so much why the soul exsits.

Well without the existence of souls there's not much use for heaven.

Then again, there is no hard proof evolution is true either - dosen't mean I don't think it's real though.

What do you mean by "hard proof"? Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not a concept that still needs more evidence to be accepted as true. The fine details and some of the mechanics still need to be understood, but the idea that populations evolve over time and that all living creatures share a common ancestor (such as humans and apes), is a fact.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That was a good discussion. If I recall correctly, in the end I won everyone over to my position that a "soul" doesn't actually exist and was made up by mankind to make people feel better about dying. Right? Anyone? Bueller?

Something like that... :p

 

[Gatorubet]

What do you mean by "hard proof"? Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not a concept that still needs more evidence to be accepted as true. The fine details and some of the mechanics still need to be understood, but the idea that populations evolve over time and that all living creatures share a common ancestor (such as humans and apes), is a fact.

How do creationists account for the DNA nexity of humans and apes?

Why wouldn't God just make different creatures with DNA that was totally different? Do creationists deny the evolution of a three toed horse to the modern horse we have today despite the fossil record showing the slow change from three toes to a hoof? What does your side say about that?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

nexity?

I think you made that word up.

 

[Ttown]

Where did the very first thing that ever was come from? What did it evolve from ?

I repeat my question

 

[Gatorubet]

nexity?

I think you made that word up.

Nonesense. That's just blootherianistic tofooisminism.

 

[Brewtus]

I repeat my question

If your position is that God must exist in order to create the universe and life on Earth, then you still need to explain what created God. Using God as a "first cause" explanation doesn't really explain anything since you need to keep adding another creator ad infinitum.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

How do creationists account for the DNA nexity of humans and apes?

Why wouldn't God just make different creatures with DNA that was totally different? Do creationists deny the evolution of a three toed horse to the modern horse we have today despite the fossil record showing the slow change from three toes to a hoof? What does your side say about that?

I am not a scientist. Nor do I pretend to be. I'm a layman. Very much so.

I hesitate to make a post because in general I don't find discussions on the topic fruitful, but I think you have a misunderstanding on the creationist rejection of macro evolution. Again I would rather not debate the veracity of claims, but you asked a question about how a creationist would view the situation.

Creationists believe what you're talking about is an example of micro evolution: natural selection producing a variation of species within a kind. While the hooved horse is different from the three toed variety they are both still the same kind (think genus). Creation believe that the horse that got off the Ark would have had all the genetic information to allow for variety of horses since.

I know that this isn't a perfect example, but take a look at it this way. Wolves and chihuahuas are both dogs (same kind). A wolf though has enough genetic information though that through breeding could eventually produce a chihuahua. However, no amount of breeding could produce wolves from chihuahuas. In this way wolves have more genetic information than chihuahuas. So to compare either there was common ancestor of the same kind or it is possible that the three toed horse was indeed an ancestor of the more common hooven variety of today. I haven't ever studied the horse genus though.

The big take away is that a creationist doesn't deny micro evolution or specieization, it does deny that one kind can become another.

On the DNA, I think it's evidence of a common designer. Sure God could have done it in a way to make it more obvious, but I find DNA to be a beautiful and complex creation the way it is.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I'm reading a book and there was a line in there that caught my eye last night.

Solid objects, on a quantumm physics scale, are 99.9999% light & energy.

Meaning, everything vibrates and everything is "spirtual".. thoughts?

I'm in the middle of the first chapter, so I don't know the point he is driving home quite yet, but I can kind of see where it's going.

Ehh, I think thats why heaven exsits.. makes a loved ones death easier to handle. Not so much why the soul exsits.

In Quantium Physics, there is a "watcher" which many think would be the "soul" but, you are right, there is no way to prove a soul exsits.

Then again, there is no hard proof evolution is true either - dosen't mean I don't think it's real though.

Brother, I am honestly really not trying to be mean or condescending, but you are dead wrong. Why not read REAL science books about physics and evolution instead of new-age drivel? Real physics is so much more beautiful than this new-age caricature you seem to have read about. And there are MOUNTAINS and MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution.

There are some very good popular science books that also contain real science, not sensationalist drivel. You don't have to be a math wizard or a molecular geneticist to read them.

Please don't get defensive. I am not attacking you, merely pointing out that the sources you seem to be getting your scientific information from are apparently highly deficient.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I repeat my question

In the beginning, The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Heaven and the Earth. It says so right there in the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[buckeyegrad]

If your position is that God must exist in order to create the universe and life on Earth, then you still need to explain what created God. Using God as a "first cause" explanation doesn't really explain anything since you need to keep adding another creator ad infinitum.

Actually, there is such as a thing as "first cause", in fact there must be one. The principle of nihil ex nihilo requires there to be a first cause. Now granted there is room to debate what the first cause is, but there has to be one because our existence requires it.

The idea that there cannot be a first cause comes from a major error by John Stuart Mills. Misunderstanding Aristotle, he argued that everything must have a cause and therefore there is no such thing as a first cause. However, Aristotle's "rules" of logic did not establish that everything must have a cause, but rather that every effect must have a cause. Therefore, a cause does not have a cause preceeding it.

Ultimately, something has to be self-existing. If it is not God, it must be physical reality, or something else not yet perceived/conceived.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

Actually, there is such as a thing as "first cause", in fact there must be one. The principle of nihil ex nihilo requires there to be a first cause. Now granted there is room to debate what the first cause is, but there has to be one because our existence requires it.

The idea that there cannot be a first cause comes from a major error by John Stuart Mills. Misunderstanding Aristotle, he argued that everything must have a cause and therefore there is no such thing as a first cause. However, Aristotle's "rules" of logic did not establish that everything must have a cause, but rather that every effect must have a cause. Therefore, a cause does not have a cause preceeding it.

Ultimately, something has to be self-existing. If it is not God, it must be physical reality, or something else not yet perceived/conceived.

Why can't it be Zeus? Jupiter? Amon Ra? Hunab Ku? Baal? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? King Henry VIII?