Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[ParkBoyz]

Exactly. good that you understand it

Thanx..

No, it doesn't state that. The exact mechanism of the origin of life is unknown and it is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Then why would you agree with my assessment that God and evolution are incompatible since you admittedly don't understand the mechanism behind the origins of life??

The theory of evolution explains how and why organisms change over large periods of time.

Based on the pre-conceived assumption of Darwin that things actually do change dramatically over time.

It deals with the general principles of how these processes occur. How life originated is a completely different subject

Well that gives room for my presumption that self-generation of life is highly improbable, if not impossible.

Wrong

We might go extinct before we evolve, the theory of evolution does not predict whether and how organisms will evolve

No, but it predicts that if we weren't destined for extinction, that we WILL eventually evolve, which is what I was trying to bring home.

Nobody is expected to believe that it just happened, this is a very active are of research and people are working very hard to find the answers, give them some time

Some time for what? We have a paradox here. Either the universe existed forever (by its self or part of some multiverse/continuum) or it came from absolutely nothing. They are both illogical no matter how one tries to twist it mathematically.

This is not part of the theory of biological evolution, it deals with living organisms, not with stars. Some of its principles also apply to stellar evolution though

And chemical evolution, it is all relevant and intertwined. You need one to explain the other and as a whole, it is a fallible world view when one seriously questions it.

LOL

How about the enormous amount of evidence that supports it??

What? The genetic data? How does a similarity in genetic structure indicate common origin and why can't it simply allude to common design by way of the same building blocks?
The fossil record? Is there really a flow of transition leading from these single-celled organisms all the way to human beings to justify such a conclusion that we originate in this primordial state (as a single-celled organism)?

BTW because of the size of the universe and the slow speed of light, stellar evolution has this weird property that it can be directly in all its stages



It is actually just as, if not even more well supported by evidence, as biological evolution

It's definitely far from being a ridiculous idea or dogma

No, you misunderstood. I love astronomy and stellar fusion is an acceptable hypothesis, and is in fact observed through the light spectrum. All of these events in tandem however, with out guidance seems almost absurd. I'm still trying to figure out how these hydrogen atoms somehow evolved from the intense light beams (not visible), quarks and leptons of the initial explosion in the first place. Where in the world did they come from? It is a testament to the hypothetical nature of the field, and many aspects of science in general.

And the biggest insult to free thinking people is religion for the very simple reason EVERY religion claims that it gives the final answer to everything which can by no way be challenged. This is one of the defining characteristics of the religious meme

If (and for you I know it is a big IF) these are divine revelations from the deity its self, then why should he not have the final answer? Nothing is limiting you from finding out on your own. Most books are less than 1,000 pages long, that is very basic general information, no one is holding you back. What I may agree with you on and counter if I were you, is the strict position of, "believe me, or go to hell".. I have problems with that myself but I find solace in the belief that people will ultimately get what they deserve. I don't accept that an atheist is destined to hell simply because he/she chooses to follow their own path for knowledge. Veering away from science for a second though, I believe that if God is truly just, its actions and thoughts should be more just than mine so I think it will all work out eventually for the right people.

I am very curious to understand how exactly tens of thousands of people over hundreds of years spread all over the Earth managed to secretly conspire against God and his truths.

Conspire isn't the word, "rebel" (from the very concept) is better suited.

How were they able to collect such enormous quantity of knowledge and evidence that for some reason does not contradict itself and the theories they propose?

Because we both know that science builds on its self and alternative minority views (like intelligent design) are usually disregarded until it is shoved in their faces to the point where they have to at least consider it. This also is analogous to the Big Bang theory before it was the dominant thesis in academia, succeeding the steady state theory..

One would expect that it does, if it is all made up as a part of the conspiracy. These guys must be very smart and well organized people to be able to do it, some sort of semi-gods probably...

It isn't a "conspiracy", it is merely eliminating the possibility of a God out of the equation since arrogance leads some humans to believe that they can explain everything by way of mathematics and direct or inferred observation.

LOL...

You apparently know absolutely nothing about the way the theory was developed and established...

It was much more than some beaks and Darwin, believe me

No, I'm aware of Darwin's assertions and how he reached this epiphany after observing the variations of beaks on finches in the Galapagos Islands. It goes with out saying that he subsequently elaborated greatly on his theory and I was actually being facetious.

 

[ParkBoyz]

just because it is difficult to grasp does not make either of your options improbable.

Then how is God improbable simply because you can't grasp the concept? This is a two way street, not one way. Can't have your cake and eat it too, which is the point.

we are trying to understand the fundamentals of existence, i contend that we do not yet understand it, and like you pointed out earlier, the burden of proof is always on the one venturing fantastic claims.

Exactly, so I have no reason whatsoever to believe a claim that consists of a random sparking into existence, or an eternal existence of matter.

my claim is we do not know. hardly fantastic, and given the timeline of humans to the timeline of the universe, this is the razor you speak of.

Not really.. By way of William Paley's argument, the razor I speak of accepts the belief in God as extremely plausible.

lets go to the notion of creator. why must this be a superior entity. remember my reasoning is thorugh evolution, complex arising from the simple. in this model, we or anything that is the most "advanced" is "god", in this our predecessors are lower form, we the higher, this is observable even looking at the human being itself as a microcosm, the idea of growth, maturation, this is inherent in most living things. as has been said, theists simply apply the title god to the currently unexplained. you must admit then that god is waning as science has surely unravled some of the "mysteries" and thereby chipped away at "him".

How has science chipped away at God when the belief is that God created science. This is a false dichotomy, many don't have a problem with science, only a couple of its theories and methods.

But this is the hypocrisy of the god complex. if it is unexplainable, then it is god, once WE HUMANS expplain it, it is no longer god, but theists still do not yield power to those solving the mystery.

You have given no written, textual examples from the scriptures or the practical world. I have no way of verifying your claims, what "unexplainable" things have been attributed to God and retracted once explained?

psychologically. you are correct, i and all humans are compelled to believe out of selfishness and out of want of understanding that which we do not, but this is not enough to accept the belief., and knowledge of this tendency is even more reason to we skeptical of our inclinations.

Nothing is wrong with healthy skepticism, it is closed-minded denunciation which is the problem..

it is comforting to be told you are taken care of, it is comforting to think we know the mysteries.

The scriptures don't reveal to much outside of God's will.. We've been left with the gift of out innate intelligence to understand the world around us, there isn't an overwhelming report of any solved mysteries in the scripture.

you must at least admit ignorance in this snese is bliss, that a prescribed life is comforting for those without the means or capacity to direct their own lives. ignorance is and never should be mistaken for all encompassing truth.

There are only two all encompassing truths as far as this topic. There is a God, there is no God, so this applies to both parties unfortunately. Double standards aren't a basis for an argument. And again, ignorance of what? Ignorance that God doesn't exist? Again, the scriptures usually exceed no more than 1,000 pages, that isn't enough room to write down all that is to be known and we have a capacity to seek out knowledge for a reason, and I don't think most religions restrict you of that right.

why again did you turn away from atheism, agnosticism?

Because mainly due to the paradox of life and existence coming into being with out something creating it, it is that simple. With that and the various revelations, some I find compelling, leads me in that direction. I'll lay out the choices once more, and this time include mine.


1. Existence has always been
2. Existence came from nothing
3. Something conscious brought existence into being

#3 makes the most sense to me. Now I can say well, I just don't know and don't understand it. But conversely I believe that I do understand the concept of a God, why God would do what it did, and so on.

 

[ThaG]

Obviously because one is more sound than the rest and the errors in the rest are overtly apparent. "soundly refuted" simply means to disprove.

Funny how they are usually the same errors repeated over and over in all religions

Or maybe you don't see the errors I do:ermm:

 

[ParkBoyz]

^Or maybe you're creating errors that don't exist which is why your claim is unreferenced.

 

[ThaG]

Then why would you agree with my assessment that God and evolution are incompatible since you admittedly don't understand the mechanism behind the origins of life??

because in the root of every religion is the idea that God created man which evolutionary theory, paleontology, anatomy and physiology, comparative genomics and molecular biology have clearly shown is not the case

Therefore one of the fundamentals of religion is simply trash

Based on the pre-conceived assumption of Darwin that things actually do change dramatically over time.

Based on the numerous observations that living organisms have actually changed, often dramatically during the history of the planet

Well that gives room for my presumption that self-generation of life is highly improbable, if not impossible.

It is your presumption and it is wrong

No, but it predicts that if we weren't destined for extinction, that we WILL eventually evolve, which is what I was trying to bring home.

It definitely does not predict that we will evolve into something "dramatically different"

It depends on the selective pressure

Some time for what?

For research

We have a paradox here. Either the universe existed forever (by its self or part of some multiverse/continuum) or it came from absolutely nothing. They are both illogical no matter how one tries to twist it mathematically.

And we have no paradox if we say "God did it":ermm:

And chemical evolution, it is all relevant and intertwined. You need one to explain the other and as a whole, it is a fallible world view when one seriously questions it.



What? The genetic data? How does a similarity in genetic structure indicate common origin and why can't it simply allude to common design by way of the same building blocks?
The fossil record? Is there really a flow of transition leading from these single-celled organisms all the way to human beings to justify such a conclusion that we originate in this primordial state (as a single-celled organism)?

1. I was talking about stellar evolution

2. Similarity in genetic sequences indicate common origin because we started examining them long after the theory of evolution has been experimentally and observationally confirmed and tested. What you have failed to understand numerous times in the past and continue to fail to understand is that the strength of a theory is tested by its ability to predict future observations.

This is exactly the case here - the theory of evolution predicts that related organisms will share similar genomes, with similarity inversely proportional to relatedness. This is what we observe => the theory is confirmed yet another time

In contrast the hypothesis that "God did it" doesn't predict anything:ermm:

No, you misunderstood. I love astronomy and stellar fusion is an acceptable hypothesis, and is in fact observed through the light spectrum. All of these events in tandem however, with out guidance seems almost absurd. I'm still trying to figure out how these hydrogen atoms somehow evolved from the intense light beams (not visible), quarks and leptons of the initial explosion in the first place. Where in the world did they come from? It is a testament to the hypothetical nature of the field, and many aspects of science in general.

Maybe you can't understand it for the simple reason that you know absolutely nothing about particle physics :ermm:

I myself don't know as much as I'd wish but I trust people who do instead of trusting people who know nothing but claim to have the answer for everything - "God did it"

If (and for you I know it is a big IF) these are divine revelations from the deity its self, then why should he not have the final answer? Nothing is limiting you from finding out on your own. Most books are less than 1,000 pages long, that is very basic general information, no one is holding you back. What I may agree with you on and counter if I were you, is the strict position of, "believe me, or go to hell".. I have problems with that myself but I find solace in the belief that people will ultimately get what they deserve. I don't accept that an atheist is destined to hell simply because he/she chooses to follow their own path for knowledge. Veering away from science for a second though, I believe that if God is truly just, its actions and thoughts should be more just than mine so I think it will all work out eventually for the right people.

You don't get new knowledge from 2000-year-old books, it comes from carefully designed and controlled experiments.

Conspire isn't the word, "rebel" (from the very concept) is better suited.

But why does all they do do consistently points towards the same thing - there is no God and evolution is real. You would expect to find some big contradictions in their data and reasoning, right??

Because we both know that science builds on its self and alternative minority views (like intelligent design) are usually disregarded until it is shoved in their faces to the point where they have to at least consider it. This also is analogous to the Big Bang theory before it was the dominant thesis in academia, succeeding the steady state theory..

There is a fine distinction between minority alternative views in science and religious views

ID is a religious view, not science, when are you going to get it ???

It isn't a "conspiracy", it is merely eliminating the possibility of a God out of the equation since arrogance leads some humans to believe that they can explain everything by way of mathematics and direct or inferred observation.

Yes, because it works.

In contrast to including God which basically does not allow you to gain any new knowledge about the world:ermm:

No, I'm aware of Darwin's assertions and how he reached this epiphany after observing the variations of beaks on finches in the Galapagos Islands. It goes with out saying that he subsequently elaborated greatly on his theory and I was actually being facetious.

No, you're not

If he was such a fraud, why does all the evidence collected during the 150 years that followed, by tens of thousands of different people, many of which were religious, supports his theory:ermm:

 

[ThaG]

1. Existence has always been
2. Existence came from nothing
3. Something conscious brought existence into being

#3 makes the most sense to me. Now I can say well, I just don't know and don't understand it. But conversely I believe that I do understand the concept of a God, why God would do what it did, and so on.

Quick question:

What brought the conscious something into existence?

Now we're back to #1 or #2....

#3 just doesn't exist as an option

 

[ParkBoyz]

because in the root of every religion is the idea that God created man which evolutionary theory, paleontology, anatomy and physiology, comparative genomics and molecular biology have clearly shown is not the case

How has anatomy shown us anything? You're full of it G, I see you just like throwing out words and reading yourself afterwards. Evolutionary theory also applies all of these facets so mentioning it as a separate entity, to give the illusion of more cards in the deck is an example of your fraud. Neither does physiology contradict creation and comparative genomics and molecular biology only do so under the guise of a non-observable assertion and limited theory.

Therefore one of the fundamentals of religion is simply trash

Your reasoning is trash..

Based on the numerous observations that living organisms have actually changed, often dramatically during the history of the planet

That's a lie, you've never seen anything beyond your conception at birth and the same applies to Darwin who in that time had no means to even make that inference.

It is your presumption and it is wrong

Based on what? Nothing? Ok, that's what I thought.

It definitely does not predict that we will evolve into something "dramatically different"

Then why would you assume that we ultimately came from something dramatically different?

It depends on the selective pressure

And this has been observed where?

For research

To research the substance behind something from nothing and eternity? Is that possible?

And we have no paradox if we say "God did it":ermm:

No, because God is a creator, it is it who created time. Time doesn't have to exist unless existence and novelty does.

1. I was talking about stellar evolution

Why?

2. Similarity in genetic sequences indicate common origin because we started examining them long after the theory of evolution has been experimentally and observationally confirmed and tested. What you have failed to understand numerous times in the past and continue to fail to understand is that the strength of a theory is tested by its ability to predict future observations.

What has it predicted by way of dramatic macro level changes, which is something I continuously ask you in an effort to "understand".

This is exactly the case here - the theory of evolution predicts that related organisms will share similar genomes, with similarity inversely proportional to relatedness. This is what we observe => the theory is confirmed yet another time

Are you sure they didn't "predict" this after it was observed?

In contrast the hypothesis that "God did it" doesn't predict anything:ermm:

It predicts that if there was a such thing as a designer then you will encounter design.

Maybe you can't understand it for the simple reason that you know absolutely nothing about particle physics :ermm:

This claim comes from nothing just like your notion of the universe. Also, it has nothing to do with particle physics, I asked where they came from, which deals with quantum physics. You expose your self more and more as a fictitious scientist which is why you resort to these ad hominems.

I myself don't know as much as I'd wish but I trust people who do instead of trusting people who know nothing but claim to have the answer for everything - "God did it"

Yes, you've demonstrated this above in not being able to distinguish between quantum and particle physics as it applies to mathematical theory. So the most you can do is put your trust in somebody. As far as God doing it, at this time it seems to be the most plausible explanation

You don't get new knowledge from 2000-year-old books, it comes from carefully designed and controlled experiments.

Some knowledge never changes, unlike the instability of scientific hypotheses and changing data.

But why does all they do do consistently points towards the same thing - there is no God and evolution is real.

They have found no evidence against God but have all agreed with in themselves before performing their experiments that God isn't a possibility. Which is why you using science to refute God is illogical and impossible.

You would expect to find some big contradictions in their data and reasoning, right??

No, why?

There is a fine distinction between minority alternative views in science and religious views

This is what you call systematic shunning and blanketing, it means nothing.

ID is a religious view, not science, when are you going to get it ???

ID is only a religious view to propagandists who refuse to entertain God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, because it works.

Not really, which is why ideas are constantly refined and altered..

In contrast to including God which basically does not allow you to gain any new knowledge about the world:ermm:

This is a lie and I have addressed it.

No, you're not

Whatever you say..

If he was such a fraud, why does all the evidence collected during the 150 years that followed, by tens of thousands of different people, many of which were religious, supports his theory:ermm:

Same reason people believed the earth was flat so long after it was first asserted. Appealing to popularity doesn't say anything, stop being a naive fool.

 

[ThaG]

ParkBoyz, my friend, I wish you all the best and for your own good, please, never wake up from your dream, it will be very painful if you do this....

I exit this thread for today, because there is something called rule#1 when you debate creationists:

Don't ever debate creationist because they can spit more lies and fallacies more quickly than you can ever debunk

I don't have the time to waste posting the same long explanations once again as of why reason and logic and foreign words to you and every other fool who "is willing to entertain the idea of God"

 

[ParkBoyz]

Quick question:

What brought the conscious something into existence?

Now we're back to #1 or #2....

#3 just doesn't exist as an option

Then you're merely left with two impossible scenarios, and the fact that you avoid the complexity of it tells me that you have no answers and actually do believe in God and have been fooling us all along. Unless you believe in impossibilities.

ParkBoyz, my friend, I wish you all the best and for your own good, please, never wake up from your dream, it will be very painful if you do this....

You have said nothing here, it is just rhetoric.

I exit this thread for today, because there is something called rule#1 when you debate creationists:

Nevermind the rule, you've submitted yourself to me, which is good enough and yes, I accept your offer of submission.

Don't ever debate creationist because they can spit more lies and fallacies more quickly than you can ever debunk

^^More rhetoric that should be posted on a "top ten reasons not to debate creationists" webpage. Does it mean anything? No..

I don't have the time to waste posting the same long explanations once again as of why reason and logic and foreign words to you and every other fool who "is willing to entertain the idea of God"

Broad generalization but no facts, proof, or evidence. As expected.. Carry on.

exactly, yet with all the thinking and research and insight, this was his ultimate choice, choosing something that doesnt exist, and isnt that what has been argued all along? lol, poetic justice, perfect.

Huh? Where did we establish that God didn't exist? I'm lost..

 

[ParkBoyz]

What brought the conscious something into existence?

Already addressed this..

God is a creator, it is it who created time. Time doesn't have to exist unless existence and novelty does.

not trying to insult you here, but this is the fundamental difference between our positions. neither of us has absoluetly established the exisence or lack of a god in popular terms, this is where we differ.

No, this is merely what you don't understand about my position, I gave you reasons why I believe what I do, not once have I gave you definitive certainty.

i dont accept the supreme creator, you appear to. i dont think option 3 even exists, you do.

The point is that you've made a CLAIM that #3 doesn't exist, so it is only right that I invite you to support this claim or refrain from making such pronouncements. What you may BELIEVE is a different story.

this is the pivotal point, right here. you say with certainty the other two are impossible, i say you cannot be certain, therefor making your reasoning for 3 invalid.

It isn't invalid unless you explain the possibility of the other two..

i think this is good in understanding where we are both coming from.

I agree that it is a more progressive discussion, but you still seem to be confused about my contention, which has nothing to do with imposing my views on others or claiming proof.

because you cannot grasp the first two, you have decided that a 3rd way you created is necessary. this is my argument for one of the main reasons religion exists, we are creating something that makes sense to us whether it has a bearing on relaity or not.

For your argument to hold you'd have to trace the history of religion and provide empirical data to support you conclusion. Simply claiming that this is one of the reasons is a plausible scenario, but unsubstantiated and merely theoretical and baseless. The fact that nobody can grasp the first two only increases the validity of my argument.

 

[ParkBoyz]

#3 does not exist and cannot exist because the term existance is ALL encompassing. if a concious being already existed, then it did not create existance, and is itself proof that it did not create existance. this is like saying i created myself.

This is illogical and not a reason to assert why something definitely does not exist. You're using the premise of existence to argue for non-existence, which doesn't work. God doesn't need to depend on existence since lineal existence depends on novelty. There is more than one state of existence. An eternal God doesn't adhere to the rules of novelty and existence in that he creates whatever space and time that exists. A deity external to our existence needs not exist in our frame of reference because it equals the nature of existence its self. We are but a manifestation of existence, but not the nature of...

it is possible that something always existed.

How? Why? Example?

we do not understand the true nature of time, we see discepancies, time shifting etc.

Time is merely a rate of change from the viewer's perspective..

simply we do not know.

So since you don't know, you apply faith correct? You have faith that it is something that can be understood instead of accepting what is not understandable because it is impossible.

nothing from something is harder to try to grasp, but we have derivatives, infinitesimal small amoounts, and we have evolution explaining that greater arises from lesser.

Greater from lesser is not something from nothing, they are completely opposite. Infinitesimal singularities is again, something. You can indeed get something from something, but to come from absolutely nothing is completely different.

then you will never be a true muslim, but maybe thats not your intent.

This is why you can never have a reasonable discussion with anybody on here since at the first opportunity they'll seek to assassinate your character, even when you practice humility. Stating: Maybe that's not your intent is a sorry way to undermine my studies. But I'd expect no more from the impulsive ingrates who frequent this site.

most religious doctrines ask of the subjects to spread the word, including islam, and this also contradicts your other thread talking about islam and science as proof of the quality of its revelations.

What does "spreading the word" have to do with physical proof of an assertion (Christianity by nature is faith-based) and what does evidence of scientific validity in the Qu'ran have to do with me? I'm not proving anything, the book has been here over 1400 years, all that I can do is point it out to you and the proof comes from that and your willingness to accept it as such. You have a poor understanding of religion in general obviously.

you are getting ahead of yourself. you see something that you cannot understanmd as something that nobody understands. and the arguement is anecdotal, its a reason i offer that matches well with this scenario. nothing more.

You've once more disagreed with no point of contention and no means of refutation. By all means, explain to me what you understand about it and point me in the direction of someone who does. Until then, your bare boned claims lack merit.

 

[ThaG]

This is illogical and not a reason to assert why something definitely does not exist. You're using the premise of existence to argue for non-existence, which doesn't work. God doesn't need to depend on existence since lineal existence depends on novelty. There is more than one state of existence. An eternal God doesn't adhere to the rules of novelty and existence in that he creates whatever space and time that exists. A deity external to our existence needs not exist in our frame of reference because it equals the nature of existence its self. We are but a manifestation of existence, but not the nature of...

And this deity listens to prayers by people on a small insignificant planet hidden somewhere in the universe, people who existed for about one 50,000/13,000,000,000 (do the math yourself) part of the overall existence of the universe and sends them their son to save their souls....

Wow, this makes so much sense:ermm:

 

[ParkBoyz]

^Why you are describing Christianity, is beyond me. Tho I do see that you've backed down from the challenge that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about in reference to cosmology, and when you got called out on it you pretend to not be interested in discussing any longer but still slide in and out with little pesky comments like this. You're a joke! LOL!!

 

[ThaG]

^Why you are describing Christianity, is beyond me. Tho I do see that you've backed down from the challenge that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about in reference to cosmology, and when you got called out on it you pretend to not be interested in discussing any longer but still slide in and out with little pesky comments like this. You're a joke! LOL!!

Gross ignorance drives me mad:ermm:

And actually you are dumber than a chimp:ermm:

http://www.siccness.net/vb/showpost.php?p=3088565&postcount=214