RE: Evolution vs. Religion

RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 3:27:20 AM)
Here's one observation that might surprise a few people who like the creation myth: "Genesis (1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass" Plants are made on the third day [of creation] before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all." I wish it was original but it's taken from the Sceptic's Annotated Bible, which is a really cool site (IMHO) and can be checked out here. In a genuinely non-discriminatory (ecumenical?) approach, Sceptic's Annotated versions of the Quran and the Book of Mormon are available too. I'd appreciate it if some one could make sense of the puzzle for me.

Awareness -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 4:22:58 AM)
Dude, the sun gets created in Genesis 1:3. That's pretty much the first thing that happens. "Let there be light" is pretty unmistakable. The lights in the firmament which are subsequently created after the grass (4:20 people can giggle here) are stars, planets and all of the other astronomical bodies. Given that Day and Night are referenced in Genesis 1:4, I think trying to imply a lack of consistency on the basis that there's no light to drive photosynthetic processes is an incredibly weak argument. I don't mind scepticism, but stupid scepticism where people parrot the thoughts of others without thinking things through is every bit as devoid of logic as the religions they despise.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 4:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, that means gravity does not work inside a black hole? I thught that was the essence of a black hole. Additionally, i cannot imagine an example where effect can precede cause. Seems illogical. Once the black hole forms it definitely still exerts gravity beyond the event horizon. Below it? We really have no idea. As to effect preceding cause the best know example is Hawking radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation Okay Ken, maybe i missed it but i did not read that Hawking radiation was an effect that preceded its cause. Why is the radiation emitted? The why is immaterial its the when that maters. Specifically the radiation is emitted before the black hole loses the corresponding mass.

Termyn8or -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 5:01:22 AM)
Black holes don't emit anything except gravity. And gravity, I don't know if it's really emitted or not. It's not a matter of somethng that can be described easily. It's not a wave nor a particle, but it is a constant. I am not going to debate that at this time. T^T

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 5:20:53 AM)
D'uh! Please don't read me too literally. Most of the things that come into existence in Genesis are either "made' or "created". A few things like grass herbs fruit trees are "brought forth" from the earth. The whales and "every living creature" are both made and brought forth. The suggestion was made to try and tease this out - which you're welcome to do if you want. 'Brought forth' suggests to me some kind of process or development. I would have thought the context (an Evolution vs Religion thread) might make that clear but obviously I was incorrect. And if I feel the need to criticise religious texts seriously I can think of much more incisive arguments than something this flimsy thx. [:D]

eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 8:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Dude, the sun gets created in Genesis 1:3. That's pretty much the first thing that happens. "Let there be light" is pretty unmistakable... The sun was created after the plants and stars for the explicit purpose of giving "light upon the earth." quote: ORIGINAL Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 8:16:17 AM)
Light was created in Genesis 1-3 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 9:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Light was created in Genesis 1-3 I was responding to a claim that the creation of light implied creation of the sun. My reading of the text is that they were created separately: light, then sun. Do you disagree?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 10:39:42 AM)
Day and night were created before anything else, light and dark, those things required for growth of plant life, which is all he created before he called for the earth to bring forth whatever plant life it was going too. The sun and moon were created in the "arch of the sky" (firmament) 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. The sun wasnt deemed needed for plant life, but to merely mark the calendar.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 11:05:40 AM)
quote: Okay Ken, maybe i missed it but i did not read that Hawking radiation was an effect that preceded its cause. Why is the radiation emitted? The why is immaterial its the when that maters. Specifically the radiation is emitted before the black hole loses the corresponding mass. Whoa, just a minute, Ken. Hawking radiation emerges as thermal energy. That alone merely describes the wave frequency. If mass is being lost it is because matter is being converted to energy. The Law of Conservation of mass/energy applies. Mass is lost because of nuclear instability. Too many neutrons vs protons. So, the loss of mass is the effect of instability of the nuclei. The loss of mass may result in the emission of radiation but that is also the consequence of nuclear instability. Doncha think? There is still a cause that precedes the effects.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 11:27:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Okay Ken, maybe i missed it but i did not read that Hawking radiation was an effect that preceded its cause. Why is the radiation emitted? The why is immaterial its the when that maters. Specifically the radiation is emitted before the black hole loses the corresponding mass. Whoa, just a minute, Ken. Hawking radiation emerges as thermal energy. That alone merely describes the wave frequency. If mass is being lost it is because matter is being converted to energy. The Law of Conservation of mass/energy applies. Mass is lost because of nuclear instability. Too many neutrons vs protons. So, the loss of mass is the effect of instability of the nuclei. The loss of mass may result in the emission of radiation but that is also the consequence of nuclear instability. Doncha think? There is still a cause that precedes the effects. you're confused. The energy is emitted then the mass of the black hole decreases. For an object that operates in our physics to radiate energy it must either lose energy or mass (Conservation of Mass/Energy) when it radiates the energy. However the black hole first radiates the energy and then loses the mass (violating both causality and Conservation).

eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 7:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL eihwaz [...] My position, and that of several others, is that belief in a 'Creator God' and evolution are not necessarily incompatible (apologies for the double negative) [...] [...] Darwinian Evolution is a description of activity limited to a particular time and space for which there is abundant evidence all around, i.e. the time of life on this planet. When you talk of a creator god you go beyond those limits into philsophy and cosmology. So, in that sense I agree that one can believe in a creator god and accept the evidence that supports Evolution. However, when you get beyond the narrow confines of Evolution and venture into abiogenesis and then cosmology it seems to me you have two conflicting hypothesis: (a) there is a creator god, or (b) the universe is eternal, i.e. matter and energy always were. I see no reason to pick (a) when (b) is just as plausible, if not more so because it retains the realm of Nature. IMHO, the origins of life and the universe are susceptible to scientific explanations albeit understanding of the latter may be limited by an epistemological horizon beyond which science can discern nothing. A creator god and an eternal universe are mutually exclusive only if the former is constrained by time. However, one can posit -- metaphysically -- that the universe is eternally generated or emanating from the creator god. quote: ORIGINAL vincentML [...] In 2001 we saw religious zealots attack our homeland. We had a President who said he answered to a "higher father." And. we were treated in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary debates to seeing the candidates raise their hands to disclaim belief in Evolution. [...] Yes, this is unseemly and scary. Totalistic belief systems deriving their authority from claims of alignment with or access to an absolute -- whether 'God' or dialectical materialism -- tend to subjugate science and rationality -- in fact, reality itself -- to their own myths. Examples are not only Creationism and its repackaged/rebranded version Intelligent Design, but also Marxian genetics in the USSR, and "applied biology" under the Nazis in Germany.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 7:23:14 PM)
quote: IMHO, the origins of life and the universe are susceptible to scientific explanations albeit understanding of the latter may be limited by an epistemological horizon beyond which science can discern nothing. By establishing the limit you are establishing a knowledge gap, unless i am especially dense to your pov. It is like telling Galileo he will have to wait on the invention of the telesope before he can see the moons of Jupitur. Sooner or later the telesope will be invented. You will have to elaborate a bit on "epistemolical horizon" before i can give you a better response. Speak s l o w l y please. [:D] quote: A creator god and an eternal universe are mutually exclusive only if the former is constrained by time. However, one can posit -- metaphysically -- that the universe is eternally generated or emanating from the creator god. Or that the universe is eternally generated by eternal mass/energy. Why invent a god? We already have mass/energy.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 7:42:49 PM)
quote: you're confused. The energy is emitted then the mass of the black hole decreases. For an object that operates in our physics to radiate energy it must either lose energy or mass (Conservation of Mass/Energy) when it radiates the energy. However the black hole first radiates the energy and then loses the mass (violating both causality and Conservation). FWIW, Ken, i found this: An effect preceding a cause (in time) is called non-causality. Non-causality has been discussed at length in the scientific community. To propose that non-causality is possible, tends to make a the very definitions of the words “effect” and “cause” a paradox. If you define the word "effect" as: “Something that inevitably follows an antecedent such as a cause or agent“, then stating that an effect has occurred prior to its cause makes the effect not an effect at all. Similarly, if you define the word "cause" as: “Something that brings about or results in an effect”, then stating that a cause has occurred subsequent to an effect makes the cause not a cause. The last serious scientific discussion of non-causality was started by Steven Hawking, when he theorized that matter was destroyed, when it entered a black hole. Scientists had, previously, believed that the matter was not destroyed; instead, the matter was added the mass of the black hole. Even this subtle loss of mass↔energy implied a loss of information about the universe that tended to break down the cause - effect temporal order of the universe. Scientists tried for many years to prove Steven wrong. Steven, himself, later discovered theory to be wrong and published a short paper that retracted the theory by stating that the information about the matter was smeared across the event horizon of the black hole. HERE

thishereboi -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 4:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Here's one observation that might surprise a few people who like the creation myth: "Genesis (1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass" Plants are made on the third day [of creation] before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all." I wish it was original but it's taken from the Sceptic's Annotated Bible, which is a really cool site (IMHO) and can be checked out here. In a genuinely non-discriminatory (ecumenical?) approach, Sceptic's Annotated versions of the Quran and the Book of Mormon are available too. I'd appreciate it if some one could make sense of the puzzle for me. So they are ok with the idea that he created every plant on the earth, but they don't think he was smart enough to figure that part out?

PeonForHer -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 5:32:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle the Sceptic's Annotated Bible, which is a really cool site (IMHO) and can be checked out here Hell's bells. I've just been reading what, according to the Bible, God thinks about violence. The more hideous brutality, the better he likes it, apparently. Wow. I hadn't realised just how much vicious, insane drivel there was in the Bible.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 3:28:14 PM)
4/25/2011 8:32:35 AM quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I've just been reading what, according to the Bible, God thinks about violence... I hadn't realised... 4/25/2011 4:13:41 PM quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My memory of Bible teachings when I was a kid is tinged with horror - of utter cruelty [sm=mrpuffy.gif] K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 4:16:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 4/25/2011 8:32:35 AM quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I've just been reading what, according to the Bible, God thinks about violence... I hadn't realised... 4/25/2011 4:13:41 PM quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My memory of Bible teachings when I was a kid is tinged with horror - of utter cruelty [sm=mrpuffy.gif] K. You astound me, Kirata. Seriously, was that your idea of a neat bit of hole-picking in my comments? You actually went in search of two different posts, then carefully pasted two quotes into the same comment, in order to come up with that? You're so tricksy, and in such a desperate way, it makes me chuckle. See that line you cited? You lopped off two words. The correct quote goes "I hadn't realised just how much . . . ." In other words, I always knew that the Bible contained horror, but I hadn't realised till I'd read the pages to which I linked just how much horror it contained.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 4:36:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer In other words, I always knew that the Bible contained horror, but I hadn't realised till I'd read the pages to which I linked just how much horror it contained. Oh I'm sorry... I didn't realize that horror and utter cruelty came in different sizes. [:D] K.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/25/2011 4:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle the Sceptic's Annotated Bible, which is a really cool site (IMHO) and can be checked out here Hell's bells. I've just been reading what, according to the Bible, God thinks about violence. The more hideous brutality, the better he likes it, apparently. Wow. I hadn't realised just how much vicious, insane drivel there was in the Bible. There is also much good in there. Why only take the bad from it? Look for the good. Kinda like life.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875