Creation and Dinosaurs - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 269 Old 06-11-2009, 10:15 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Out of curiosity, does evolutionary theory/abiogenesis hold that all life developed from the same kind of original self-replicating organism, or several? I'm pretty sure all the pictorial models I've seen of the evolutionary tree came down to one organism, but is this the case? And if so, why do they believe it; wouldn't it be "easier', odds-wise, for the variety of life to have developed from organisms that were different to begin with? Or is there some reason the perceived conditions at the time would have only allowed for one very specific kind of life-form to survive?

In other news, Creation magazine's new feature: Do Sky-Fairies Have Butts?
No one really knows. If you know anything about chemistry, you could read up on abiogenisis, which is the name for the study of the origins of life. (You could wade through it without any chemistry knowledge too, it's just a little more difficult.) The questions about it are quite fundamental, we really have no clear idea how it happened, much less the answer to your question. But some of the experimental information is very interesting indeed.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#182 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 12:28 AM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Smoke ring, I'm not sure what sort of evidence you're looking for. Do you think people didn't look at the ground before science was invented?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
There is another place in Alberta on a mountain/foothill of the Rockies which has thousands of fossils of extinct sea creatures on the surface. It looks like someone dumped a load of shale there. I can't remember the period, one of the ones before life came out of the oceans. What is really interesting is that the site is so rich it's been able to change scientists' view of evolution. It used to be thought it was like a tree, with a few species and types developing more variations and little branches. So in that view, generally there would be fewer species in the past and more as time went on.

But in fact, the fossils on that site show that there were more species and variation then than there are at the present time (even disregarding our recent mass extinctions.)

The site is again a case of particular geological formations, where sediment would have washed down a slope constantly into an ocean bed, causing prime fossil creating conditions. Those creatures were also ideal for becoming fossils, as many had shells. Now it's on a mountain, and subject to all kinds of erosion, and the rock breaks up in layers as sedimentary stone tends to do.
The Burgess Shale. It is so very very cool.

Quote:
Out of curiosity, does evolutionary theory/abiogenesis hold that all life developed from the same kind of original self-replicating organism, or several? I'm pretty sure all the pictorial models I've seen of the evolutionary tree came down to one organism, but is this the case? And if so, why do they believe it; wouldn't it be "easier', odds-wise, for the variety of life to have developed from organisms that were different to begin with? Or is there some reason the perceived conditions at the time would have only allowed for one very specific kind of life-form to survive?
We don't know yet.
Delicateflower is offline  
#183 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 01:35 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
No, I don't think people didn't look at the ground; I just think that speculating that all the dragon legends were based on fossils is problematic. Most fossils are buried; of the ones found on the surface or accidentally dug up, most are not vertebrates; most of the vertebrates are fish; most of the non-fish vertebrates aren't dinosaurs; most of the dinosaurs aren't complete, and only a small percentage would be recognisably from a huge nothing-we've-ever-seen-before animal, much less one that could be described as having species-specific dino characteristics.

Now, I recognise that from your point of view that is still far more likely than humans and dinosaurs coexisting; but it is still not an obvious, unproblematic answer (and one that is ultimately anthropological rather than scientific).

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#184 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 09:24 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
No, I don't think people didn't look at the ground; I just think that speculating that all the dragon legends were based on fossils is problematic. Most fossils are buried; of the ones found on the surface or accidentally dug up, most are not vertebrates; most of the vertebrates are fish; most of the non-fish vertebrates aren't dinosaurs; most of the dinosaurs aren't complete, and only a small percentage would be recognisably from a huge nothing-we've-ever-seen-before animal, much less one that could be described as having species-specific dino characteristics.

Now, I recognise that from your point of view that is still far more likely than humans and dinosaurs coexisting; but it is still not an obvious, unproblematic answer (and one that is ultimately anthropological rather than scientific).
I doubt all dragon legends are in any way based on dinosaurs. The history of dragons is not actually what a lot of people thing, earlier ideas of dragons were often not quite what we tend to imagine today. For example, many couldn't fly. Many were more snake-like, and I think there might be even a few descriptions with fur.

But it seems to me that stories and myths are full of monsters, and many have only a tenuous connection to real creatures. I don't think we need to look to any real creatures to discover where Grendel came from, for example - he comes from people's nightmares.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#185 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 10:11 AM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
No, I don't think people didn't look at the ground; I just think that speculating that all the dragon legends were based on fossils is problematic. Most fossils are buried; of the ones found on the surface or accidentally dug up, most are not vertebrates; most of the vertebrates are fish; most of the non-fish vertebrates aren't dinosaurs; most of the dinosaurs aren't complete, and only a small percentage would be recognisably from a huge nothing-we've-ever-seen-before animal, much less one that could be described as having species-specific dino characteristics.

Now, I recognise that from your point of view that is still far more likely than humans and dinosaurs coexisting; but it is still not an obvious, unproblematic answer (and one that is ultimately anthropological rather than scientific).
but you don't have to be seeing complete T-rex skeletons twice a week to form the basis of a myth. People are people, human nature doesn't change. Anyone who finds a really weird bone is going to talk about it, speculate about it. They'll take it to their shaman, who'll probably use it in ceremonies and show it to people, and if they're worth they're shamanistic salt they'll use it to elaborate the stories they tell. Urban legends don't need to be urban. Dragons are like the prehistoric version of that guy who wakes up in the ice bath with "call 911" written on the mirror. (that was pre-internet, it spread verbally).
Delicateflower is offline  
#186 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 10:40 AM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Quote:
Out of curiosity, does evolutionary theory/abiogenesis hold that all life developed from the same kind of original self-replicating organism, or several? I'm pretty sure all the pictorial models I've seen of the evolutionary tree came down to one organism, but is this the case? And if so, why do they believe it; wouldn't it be "easier', odds-wise, for the variety of life to have developed from organisms that were different to begin with? Or is there some reason the perceived conditions at the time would have only allowed for one very specific kind of life-form to survive?
We don't know yet.
Out of curiosity, how can we not know yet, but yet you say it's been proven beyond a doubt?

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#187 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 10:47 AM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
Out of curiosity, how can we not know yet, but yet you say it's been proven beyond a doubt?
what has been proven beyond a doubt?
1littlebit is offline  
#188 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 11:09 AM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
what has been proven beyond a doubt?
It was said earlier that the idea that everything is here due to evolution has been proven beyond a doubt.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#189 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 11:11 AM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
everything that is here... as in here right now is due to evolution or everything as in the earth and everything on it is due to evolution?
1littlebit is offline  
#190 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 11:20 AM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't know which she was referring to. All I remember is that at some point in this thread she said that evolution (not just small changes, but to result in the variety of species we have today) has been proven beyond a doubt. I'm assuming she meant that it is proven that everything started from a micro-organism. But that's part of why I'm asking for clarification.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#191 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 11:44 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
I don't know which she was referring to. All I remember is that at some point in this thread she said that evolution (not just small changes, but to result in the variety of species we have today) has been proven beyond a doubt. I'm assuming she meant that it is proven that everything started from a micro-organism. But that's part of why I'm asking for clarification.
First of all, the thing that "we don't know yet" was refering to the origins of life, the field called abiogenisis. It's not really, at this point, part of the study of evolution. Of course theoretically, they are related. However, there is not enough information yet to make the connection between the two fields. Abiogenisis is in many ways a very young field, with a lot of questions, and it presents difficulties not present for the study of evolution. In many ways, it is as closely related to chemistry as it is to biology.

Evolution is a different area of study. It is a theory about how, and why, organisms change over time. If you were speaking VERY loosely, you could say that as scientific theories go, it is "proven beyond a doubt." Personally, I don't like that language, because it does not accurately reflect the nature of scientific theories or study, and it ultimately causes more confusion.

We never talk about a scientific theory being "proven." This is because science uses inductive reasoning, in which conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises. Based on observations or inspiration, a scientist will develop a theory. He or she then does further data collection to test the theory. Ideally, the theory will be used to predict an as yet unknown phenomena. The more data that supports the theory, the stronger it is. But at any time, new data could mean that the theory needs to be revised, or thrown out. The explanation could be something totally different. So we can never PROVE the theory. And in many cases, including evolution, everyone knows the theory is incomplete and will likely have changes made as our understanding increases. (Unlike in math, which uses deductive reasoning.)

So where does evolution stand? It is considered to be a very strong theory. It not only is supported by the data, it is predictive, and it explains many other areas of biology that were at one time mysterious. It has become fundamental enough in the sciences that at one time, it would probably have been labeled a Law, like the laws of motion. (That has gone out of fashion, for obvious reasons.)

But it does no good to conflate two different area of work. Much of the confusion over evolution and silly criticisms of it come from a serious misunderstanding of what it is actually saying. It refers to a very specific set of ideas, it doesn't talk about the origins of life itself, nor of the universe.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#192 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 12:24 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Thanks!

It would be interesting to further discuss the idea though of how abiogenesis is related to the theory of evolution. Because if everything evolved into it's current state of being, and you continually follow the trail backward, where do you end up? Do you say that everything evolved from one thing, or from several? I've seen it taught both ways, and am just curious at looking into the ramifications of the different theories. I do see them as two separate areas of science, but they seem so interconnected at the same time that its hard to see how you can have a well-explained theory of evolution without tackling what everything started from. Did I make any sense there?

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#193 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 12:35 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i don't know how the universe was created, where it came from or w/e. i don't have any desperate need to know. sure it would be interesting but i don't know for sure and there is no way i can know.

what i don't understand is why people say that b/c we don't know or can't prove it then it must be God. (not that your saying that.. this is just something i have always wondered) why must it be god? i don't understand why people believe this with absolute certainty. neither do i understand being absolutely certain it wasn't god. is it even remotely possible for someone to know for sure that they are correct and prove it? when it comes down to it isn't everyone just taking a big leap of faith?
1littlebit is offline  
#194 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 12:51 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
when it comes down to it isn't everyone just taking a big leap of faith?
That's what I've always thought.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#195 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 01:14 PM
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
what i don't understand is why people say that b/c we don't know or can't prove it then it must be God. (not that your saying that.. this is just something i have always wondered) why must it be god? i don't understand why people believe this with absolute certainty. neither do i understand being absolutely certain it wasn't god. is it even remotely possible for someone to know for sure that they are correct and prove it? when it comes down to it isn't everyone just taking a big leap of faith?
I think that it is not taking a leap of faith if you don't believe, or are not sure whether there is a god. Just accepting the science for what it is doesn't show any indication for a god. That is a human explanation to answer the age old questions. I think people who believe in god are basically saying, "the universe is so complex it could not have possibly come into being on it's own, therefore it must have been created by something even more complex that did come into being on it's own." That is not a satisfactory answer to the big question. It is just displacing the question onto something else. The question is still there. It takes faith to believe in something even more complex then the universe that there is no proof of or logical explanation for. It doesn't take faith to analyze the science and simply accept that we know how some things occurred, we can speculate on other things, and we are open to go where the data takes us in all respects. That isn't faith, that is a logical analysis of scientific data. The data doesn't show a god, and that is a subject removed from science.
jennica is offline  
#196 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 01:44 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i am pretty sure i agree with you. i didn't mean not knowing was a leap of faith.. IMO that is the only conclusion that we know for a fact is true. we really don't know for sure. i don't understand how people make the jump from science can't prove it, we don't know so it must have been god. i think we can look at what we do know, speculate about what we don't know, and keep studying and learning more as we go. i don't think that if you choose that path it automatically means that you don't believe in god or that there is no god.

i guess i consider how the universe came to be, is there a higher power, if there is a higher power is it anything like many humans believe it to be, what happens after death, etc etc just more unanswered questions. things we don't know yet and may never know. things we are still studying, and learning about. and i don't mind not knowing. i don't feel any intense desire to know. not knowing whether or not there is a god or w/e has never particularly bothered me. i know this is a huge issue for some people but when it comes down to it i don't really think they Know anymore then i do..they would rather take the leap of faith where as i don't mind not knowing. i would rather think and learn and discuss the possibilities
1littlebit is offline  
#197 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 03:14 PM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
It was said earlier that the idea that everything is here due to evolution has been proven beyond a doubt.
There aren't any better hypotheses.

The difference between science and faith is that faith decides on a story, and tries to make facts fit their story. No evidence or facts will be allowed to change the story. Science looks and the facts and tries to find the explanation. Science will discard any cherished theory if disproving evidence comes along.

In fact, if something can't be disproved, it's not science. For example, the whole universe being modelled inside a computer is not a scientific hypothesis, nor is string theory. This is a strength of science, the biggest strength.

Quote:
Because if everything evolved into it's current state of being, and you continually follow the trail backward, where do you end up? Do you say that everything evolved from one thing, or from several? I've seen it taught both ways, and am just curious at looking into the ramifications of the different theories. I do see them as two separate areas of science, but they seem so interconnected at the same time that its hard to see how you can have a well-explained theory of evolution without tackling what everything started from. Did I make any sense there?
Sorry, no, that doesn't make sense. Have you ever done any reading on the scientific method? It might help you formulate your thoughts into a meaningful question.
Delicateflower is offline  
#198 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
i don't know how the universe was created, where it came from or w/e. i don't have any desperate need to know. sure it would be interesting but i don't know for sure and there is no way i can know.

what i don't understand is why people say that b/c we don't know or can't prove it then it must be God. (not that your saying that.. this is just something i have always wondered) why must it be god? i don't understand why people believe this with absolute certainty. neither do i understand being absolutely certain it wasn't god. is it even remotely possible for someone to know for sure that they are correct and prove it? when it comes down to it isn't everyone just taking a big leap of faith?
I can only speak for myself here, but what science says about the origins of the universe has nothing to do with my knowledge that there is a god. Even if we knew for sure, everything that science could possibly say, it wouldn't really touch on that question. Nor does not knowing.

The question of god, or a first principle or first cause, is a question that is addressed by philosophy. It is related to the question of what is means that there is Being, or something. It happens that the somethings we know about are the universe and ourselves, but that is not really important to the study of Being, which isn't that interested in the particular observation about what those things are like, or how old they are, or whatever.

There are lots of arguments for or against the existence of God, but they are arguments of reason, not observations of science.

Now, I suspect that when many people say that the existence of the universe must mean there is a god, they are really saying "the fact that their is Something points to an eternal underlying something, and I think that is God." So they are actually making a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. It's also a matter of for some people, they tend to think about such things in light of their personal experience of them. So for that person, the rather amazing fact of Something translates into a personal amazement over the complexity of creation, or the beauty of the world, or the love of others. So in a way, it is a metaphysical argument that has been completely personalized and related to the material world, the realm of science. So it becomes easy to mistake it for a scientific argument.

There was a time when a mistake like that would be less likely, but I think or education system has really failed people in teaching science badly, and the formal study of reasoning not at all.

FWIW, I don't consider knowledge of god to be a matter of faith at all - it's more like 1+1=2. There are aspects to my religious belief that include faith, and I have faith in things like the universe not being a figment of my imagination, but not in god.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#199 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evie's Mama View Post
Thanks!

It would be interesting to further discuss the idea though of how abiogenesis is related to the theory of evolution. Because if everything evolved into it's current state of being, and you continually follow the trail backward, where do you end up? Do you say that everything evolved from one thing, or from several? I've seen it taught both ways, and am just curious at looking into the ramifications of the different theories. I do see them as two separate areas of science, but they seem so interconnected at the same time that its hard to see how you can have a well-explained theory of evolution without tackling what everything started from. Did I make any sense there?
They are intimately interconnected, in and of themselves, just not in our ability to put the two together. I'm sure scientists would love to be able to trace life back perfectly to one, or more, molecules floating in an early ocean. But it is not possible at this point, and maybe never.

There are a lot of different theories about how abiotic things became living things, 3 or 4 that are considered good working theories, I believe, plus some less popular ones. Some people think the first living molecules may have come on meteors from outer space, which doesn't really solve the problem of how life developed, it just changes the location.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#200 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 03:43 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Bluegoat- I greatly appreciate your answering my questions respectfully without being rude or insulting my intelligence.

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#201 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 03:54 PM
 
Thalia the Muse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've just read the whole thread, and in general it is extraordinarily thoughtful and respectful. Thank you all!
Thalia the Muse is offline  
#202 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 04:31 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
bluegoat - what you said makes total sense to me. and i do understand the distinction between a scientific argument and a metaphysical one. for me personally i think it is reasonable to conclude that there is something...whether or not that something is god.. i haven't the slightest idea i would actually love to learn why you think that it is god.. i discuss this subject often with a good friend of mine and he has challenged me to come up with a logically sound argument for the existence of god. i have wanted to start a thread for awhile but i don't really want to upset anyone by asking them to 'prove' why there is a god or something. i respect people's faith either way and i didn't want to be rude.

my other question is once people have decided that the underlying principle is god who do they get to the belief that god is what the bible (or any religious text) says? i am with you all the way up to that part of it..how do you get from an underlying principle existence to the bible?

and last ... i think i love you. that is one of the best explanations of why someone believes in god that i have heard in awhile. i always hear arguments that are based around what the bible says and what science can't explain. i have never understood why science would contradict the existence of god or why the lack of a scientific explanation is proof of a god. what you said makes complete sense to me. i like metaphysics it makes my brain dizzy.
1littlebit is offline  
#203 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 05:10 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
1littlebit - you may find this link interesting.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#204 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 06:06 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
bluegoat - what you said makes total sense to me. and i do understand the distinction between a scientific argument and a metaphysical one. for me personally i think it is reasonable to conclude that there is something...whether or not that something is god.. i haven't the slightest idea i would actually love to learn why you think that it is god.. i discuss this subject often with a good friend of mine and he has challenged me to come up with a logically sound argument for the existence of god. i have wanted to start a thread for awhile but i don't really want to upset anyone by asking them to 'prove' why there is a god or something. i respect people's faith either way and i didn't want to be rude.

my other question is once people have decided that the underlying principle is god who do they get to the belief that god is what the bible (or any religious text) says? i am with you all the way up to that part of it..how do you get from an underlying principle existence to the bible?

and last ... i think i love you. that is one of the best explanations of why someone believes in god that i have heard in awhile. i always hear arguments that are based around what the bible says and what science can't explain. i have never understood why science would contradict the existence of god or why the lack of a scientific explanation is proof of a god. what you said makes complete sense to me. i like metaphysics it makes my brain dizzy.
Aw, shucks

So, this is a hard question to answer in a post. Possibly a bt OT too, but I guess the original post has already been answered, really. As far as what I believe in a purely philosophical sense, without the additions of religious revelation, is very much like what was thought by Plato and Aristotle. So perhaps the easiest way to approach it would be from the way the problem presented itself to them.
The early philosophers of ancient Greece noticed that they could look at the world, and study it, and have knowledge of it. They could predict what would happen, and things seemed to work in accordance with some kind of rules that governed how they developed and behaved, what they looked like, etc. They took it for granted that their observations were "real" rather than part of a dream or some such thing, and that the things they observed were real.
They reasoned that all these things, and themselves, must somehow be part of the same larger whole. It wasn't like they were each their own discrete little universe, cut off from other universes, unable to even know about each other. After all, if each observed thing had it's own nature, totally unrelated to the rest, how would they interact? And if something changed, was it a totally new thing, unrelated to what it seemed to be before? If so, wouldn't that suggest a world that was chaotic, not the orderly world they observed?
They concluded that their must be something they all had in common, underlying them. Because they had no conception of the idea of immaterial things, they decided that what they had in common was what they were made of.
They set out to discover that. Some thought they were all different forms of an element, or atoms, or some other material thing. They had a lot of theories to account for why the one element looked different. But there were always problems with the theories.
Plato made a major breakthrough in this - he realized that the underlying thing was not a type of substance, but something immaterial. It was this immaterial thing, which he called a form, which made a thing what it was. The trees we observe are trees because they embody the form, or essence, of treeness. The forms are eternal, and unchanging, and are what make human knowledge possible. (Souls are forms too, he said.)
He also came to the conclusion that the forms point to the existence of something "higher" a kind of unified, perfect form of Being. THat Being was just so potent that it kind of poured forth the forms - lesser types of being, like the sun pours forth light.
Now, that's just a short quick history, there are a lot more details, and Aristotle made changes, as did later philosophers. Aristotle's arguments for the existence of god are found in the Metaphysics, which is a very long dry book, but are related to Plato's, though much more "scientifically" presented.

Essentially, I think what reason tells us it a lot like what physics tell us. Matter is not just material. Everything also has a kind of Form, or organization that makes it what it is. How the particles are arranged, the basic building blocks of matter. That is like an immaterial, mathematical equation that makes things what they are. And it's not like there are millions of these little equations, all unrelated. The whole universe works on this kind of immaterial equation, that tells it what to do, how to unfold, how space and time and gravity do there thing. (It's the big dream of physicists to be able to find out that equation.) That equation, would be the most basic description of something like god - the principle which moves and underlies all things.
Once we have that, there are things you can say about it. It's unified, its "perfect" and so on. Too much for this little post, and it's a lot of work to get us to something more like what people mean when they say "God."

Religion - Well, given the things that I came to believe about god, which were closer to Aristotle than Plato, I was set with the question that has been a problem for many. We can reason from the world to god. But it is actually quite hard to reason from god to the world - how could something perfect and unified produce the universe we see, imperfect and corrupted? Why would it move outside of itself? Obviously, since we see the world, there must be a solution. We see that we are unable to be like god, so the solution is unlikely to come from our end. The solution must come from god, and in fact be part of its nature.
Neoplatonic, and other, philosophers, looked for this solution very diligently. Christianity claims to solve this very problem.

So the question for me is - when the exact sort of solution that would be required presents itself, what would it mean for me to reject it out of hand? Obviously, there is no way for me to know for sure that Jesus Christ is in fact that solution, that the revelations to the Jews or of the NT really are revelations from God. But my conclusion was, as long as I have good reason to think that it could be true (for example, I don't think it was a hoax) I would actually be rejecting the very possibility of a solution to the problem. Because any possible solution would have to require some level of faith and hope, and would probably look as odd as the whole Jusus/Trinity thing.

And ultimately, I found the whole Jesus/Trinity thing made a lot of sense once I started to understand the details- it even reminded me of Aristotle's solution (which was rejected by everyone else.) That big equation physicists look for is just like what Christians call the Divine Logos, or the Word of God, that became incarnate as a man. That is, he connects God the creator and the material world we perceive. The immaterial thing that runs through all created things and makes them what they are.

Anyway, this is long, but I hope it makes some sense - I had to leave an awful lot out.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#205 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 06:39 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
that makes perfect sense. and it gives me a starting point for my argument. thank you.

i didn't think anyone else like to talk about this stuff... i searched but there weren't to many threads that deal with metaphysics and stuff. i figured no one else was interested.
1littlebit is offline  
#206 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 07:49 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
I think people who believe in god are basically saying, "the universe is so complex it could not have possibly come into being on it's own, therefore it must have been created by something even more complex that did come into being on it's own." That is not a satisfactory answer to the big question. It is just displacing the question onto something else.
Framed that way, no it's not, which is why philosophers don't frame it that way. The correct argument is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause". As God is by definition eternal, this argument doesn't apply to Him - He never began to exist.

Quote:
I doubt all dragon legends are in any way based on dinosaurs. The history of dragons is not actually what a lot of people thing, earlier ideas of dragons were often not quite what we tend to imagine today. For example, many couldn't fly. Many were more snake-like, and I think there might be even a few descriptions with fur.

But it seems to me that stories and myths are full of monsters, and many have only a tenuous connection to real creatures. I don't think we need to look to any real creatures to discover where Grendel came from, for example - he comes from people's nightmares.
Oh, I agree; just as I don't think, say, leprechauns are any indication of actual leprechaun-like creatures. It's the stories which correspond to certain specific species of dinosaur which interest me, such as the sauropod-in-the-Congo legends or the Native American pterodactyl legends.

Quote:
my other question is once people have decided that the underlying principle is god who do they get to the belief that god is what the bible (or any religious text) says? i am with you all the way up to that part of it..how do you get from an underlying principle existence to the bible?
Some of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God require certain attributes on the part of God. For example, the problem of unity and plurality (the one and the many) can be solved by theorising a God who is both one and many - the Trinity corresponds neatly to that. The argument from reason demands a God with a logical, omniscient nature (which rules out, say, the Greek gods); and so on.

What I would like to see more of in creation/evolution discussions is a recognition of the philosophical problems of secular science. The whole "We don't have any biases, we go wherever the truth leads us" line woefully fails to recognise that science does have a very specific philosophical position, which is based on faith and involves fallacious reasoning. When creationism, which is openly based on a similar faith-based set of presuppositions, rejects certain evidence because it disagrees with the presuppositions which formed that evidence, it is accused of being biased (or usually far more insulting terms). This is a) ironic and b) fails to engage with the reason many creationists believe what they do, which is primarily presuppositional. I've found in many discussions with scientists or science-oriented folks that philosophy tends to be very dimly regarded (one friend, a biology major, famously referred to philosophy as "not a real degree" at Uni - I can only assume she classed it with marijuana-smoking hazy musings on the meaning of life, rather than the logic-based discipline it is). So the discussions tend to go nowhere.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#207 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 08:08 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i was hoping you might find your way here! so why isn't this the argument presented by most christians? by fallacious reasoning are you referring to inductive reasoning?

why would science people not think well of philosophy? i would think that intelligent people would appreciate logic.

the presuppositions are the kicker so to speak. unless both sides can accept a common set of presuppositions they will never really reconcile.

what about religious scientists? i know there are some.. i know a few
1littlebit is offline  
#208 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 09:36 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Inductive reasoning the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy - "After this, therefore because of this". Philosophically, that requires some justification to prove that cause and effect are actually related rather than just in seeming. (Some) Christians use the doctrine of occasionalism to get around this problem. Most people just ignore the issue as "mind-games" or dismiss it with "Well, it WORKS", which of course is philosophically a complete non-answer.

I certainly wouldn't say that all scientific types dismiss philosophy, but it's a definite tendency. I think it's often because scientists work with tangible objects, things that have visible and useful benefits for mankind; and modern secular science is at least methodologically naturalistic, if not philosophically naturalistic. So there's a tendency to view science/material data as the "real" and mental/logical/philosophical fields of thought as irrelevant to "real" life. And certainly, if every scientist tries to philosophically prove his position before starting work, most would never get on to actually inventing atomic bombs or curing lupus. So most either consciously or unconsciously dismiss philosophy and adopt the standard scientific position without really digging into the question of whether or not it makes sense. And, although it doesn't logically follow, for a lot of scientists that leads to "Well, my position works so it must be The Objective Logical Position".

To put it another way: Creationism certainly rejects much evidence (data interpreted according to presuppositions) of secular science. (I think it's unfair to say it "ignores" the evidence, as a PP did on this thread. Within the position of Creationism a lot of evidence is dismissed because of disagreements about a more fundamental fact, so while it seems like it is "ignored" it is simply dismissed a priori, which in and of itself is perfectly logical. For instance, if one believes that radiocarbon dating after (er, before) a certain point in the past is inaccurate or invalid, then all evidence based on such dating is rejected. It's not that creationists are rejecting 200,000 discrete pieces of evidence, they're rejecting the principles on which the evidence is created, which is quite different. So pointing out many difference instances of fossils carbon-dated to 65 million years ago isn't providing a "mountain of evidence", from the Creationist point of view; it's all just more of the same. To look at it another way, if a person has the presuppositional belief that intelligent extra-terrestrial life cannot/does not exist, then 1000 eyewitness accounts won't be any more compelling than one. That person isn't ignoring those accounts per se; he's just classing them all together as something which he finds presuppositionally impossible, which forces him to examine the data according to different presuppositions - leading to alternative explanations, say, mass hysteria or hoaxes.)

Oops, long digression. Let me start again: Creationism certainly rejects much evidence (data interpreted according to presuppositions) of secular science. It does so not because it denies the data itself, but the presuppositions which interpreted it. To ascertain whether or not Creationists are right in doing so means comparing the presuppositions of Creationism vs secular science - pointing to the "evidence" is putting the cart before the horse. Thus the question becomes philosophical, or metaphysical if you prefer. But how many scientists do you hear claiming that Creationists are wrong/stupid/evil because they're philosophically incorrect? None that I've ever heard; it's always "Creationists are wrong because the evidence [data interpreted according to presuppositions, remember] is against them". Do you see how that doesn't make sense?

And yeah, I agree that unless both sides can accept common presuppositions they'll never agree. Bad news, I doubt that will ever happen! The Creationist presuppositions are pretty specifically Christian, such that if secular science adopted them it'd no longer be secular science. And I have no problem with disagreement, as long as it actually engages with why the two groups disagree and acknowledge the philosophical issues involved. You know?

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#209 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 09:50 PM
 
CrunchyChristianMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
:

Elizabeth - Doing life with Scott partners.gif

SAHM to Evelyn - my crazy little Celiac (4) energy.gif Annabelle (2)  love.gif and Abraham (born 6/20) buddamomimg1.png
adoptionheart-1.gif  Follow our journey  mdcblog5.gif

CrunchyChristianMama is offline  
#210 of 269 Old 06-12-2009, 09:58 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i always enjoy your posts. i am not as articulate as you so try and bare with me!

the problem with inductive reasoning is that is uses correlation to 'prove' causation? ok that makes sense.. correlation does not prove causation. common sense.

its true that scientists work with tangible objects. my best friend is pre med and she absolutely hates talking to me about this stuff b/c she said it gives her a migraine.

and of course if you reject the presuppositions used to interpret the data then you would consider all of that data irrelevant.

i understand things better when i can apply them to something specific. so do you reject the data obtained by carbon dating b/c inductive reasoning was used to interpret that data?
1littlebit is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off