Irony of the evolutionary belief

[shunyadragon]

I asked myself a question last night. "What if there's an infinite amount of information in a single grain of sand?"

Actually this may describe the possible singularity that may be origin of our universe.

The laws of physics govern existence, and I will assume every aspect of, including the less tangible ethers, which some may like to term spiritual. The question of intelligent design isn't even in question as intelligent beings. We utilize our intelligence to create and design as conscious beings. Here's another uncertainty, though. The collective mind network that we belong to... How far reaching is it? Is the whole greater than the sum or is the whole what God actually is? We can't deny intelligence, we can't deny mind or consciousness, but we can't really deny the subconscious out of sight out of mind processes that govern the greater aspects of our bodily functions, so maybe it's a little of both if we are to borrow from what we know and can verify. I'll leave myself open for the possibility that we were created, but I'll keep in mind that we may have been created through natural process not requiring conscious intelligence for the collection of mass we become. Physics aren't something I wish to reject, but we are still very much unaware of how it all works. So square pegs go in square holes, round pegs in round holes, triangle in triangular holes, etc. The building block reality of life and we're still learning how to put the pieces together.

I do not believe the above adds anything more than what our previous dialogue involved. The above remains somewhat vague as to what you believe. It contains a number of vague hypothetical questions that, of course are without objective answers.

Yes, the "question of intelligent design isn't even in question as intelligent being" is a questionable statement and muddies the issue as on how 'Intelligent Design' is defined and actually used by Creationists in Christianity and Islam. Conflating the human intelligent ability to design experiments and things through evolving science and technology is problem that results in miscommunication. I have some Christians on other forums use this awkward relationship to justify Intelligent Design, and I am attempting to find the source.

Yes, science is obviously still learning, and likely will always be.

The following is a good interview of the reality of the 'Intelligent Design' argument by Philip Johnson. It is clearly an argument against the sciences of evolution and many other aspects of science, in support of Biblical Creationism, which has nothing to do with human abilities to design things and experiments.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | In Defense of Intelligent Design | PBS

In this feature, Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the intelligent-design movement, defends the wedge strategy, discusses why he thinks evolution comes up short, and more.

www.pbs.org

I do not believe science denies human intelligence, consciousness and subconsciousness. I do believe our subconsciousness is not out of sight or mind. It is simply an attribute of our mind until further information conclues something different.

Yes, humans are the most intelligent animal species that has ever lived, but fundamentally natural part of the evolved behavior in the animal kingdom.

I believe in a universal God, and the attributes of our existence, evolved life and humanity reflect the attributes of God including intelligence, but this is a subjective belief, and not objectively verifiable at present by any human methods of investigation.

 

[Balthazzar]

Actually this may describe the possible singularity that may be origin of our universe.

I do not believe the above adds anything more than what our previous dialogue involved. The above remains somewhat vague as to what you believe. It contains a number of vague hypothetical questions that, of course are without objective answers.

Yes, the "question of intelligent design isn't even in question as intelligent being" is a questionable statement and muddies the issue as on how 'Intelligent Design' is defined and actually used in the English language. Conflating the human intelligent ability to design experiments and things through evolving science and technology is problem that results in miscommunication. I have some Christians on other forums use this awkward relationship to justify Intelligent Design, and I am attempting to find the source.

Yes, science is obviously still learning, and likely will always be.

The following is a good interview of the reality of the 'Intelligent Design' argument by Philip Johnson. It is clearly an argument against the sciences of evolution and many other aspects of science, in support of Biblical Creationism, which has nothing to do with human abilities to design things and experiments.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | In Defense of Intelligent Design | PBS

In this feature, Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the intelligent-design movement, defends the wedge strategy, discusses why he thinks evolution comes up short, and more.

www.pbs.org

I do not believe science denies human intelligence, consciousness and subconsciousness. I do believe our subconsciousness is not out of sight or mind. It is simply an attribute of our mind until further information conclues something different.

Yes, humans are the most intelligent animal species that has ever lived, but fundamentally natural part of the evolved behavior in the animal kingdom.

I believe in a universal God, and the attributes of our existence, evolved life and humanity reflect the attributes of God including intelligence, but this is a subjective belief, and not objectively verifiable at present by any human methods of investigation.

I'm coming from a position that demands keeping the channels of possibility open, which is to suggest that I refuse to deny the possibility of a creator and intelligent design as well as the possibility that creation takes place on a more uninvolved subconscious level, like a baby being formed in the womb type of creation event. Beyond this, I'm not arguing nor debating your stance. I'm reaffirming my objective knowing of how life is created and leaving room for an increase in understanding.

Edit: Subjective belief as in how we think something works is also based on objective facts via experiences, so I agree that this can be misleading. Although, the subjective is my personal area and my relationship with life and objective reality. It cannot be discarded and should be viewed as a guiding element individually speaking. I can understand the debate and concept disagreements per source, so I won't try to steer you in another direction. I agree with you. It's like atheist speaking to me using the cookie cutter model based on others who claim a similar title as opposed to listening or trying to understand a personal pov derived from the same source.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is evident that the evolutionary chain has to have an initial life or point zero. Evolutionary doctrine sweeps that point zero under the rug. Same as the point at which apes became intelligent...

Yes abiogenesis is obviously a natural part of life on earth, and the volution of life followed. No science does not sweep abiogenesis under the rug, and abiogenesis is an ongoing science investigating the origins of life. You and other unintelligent Creationists perpetually use logical fallacies such as 'arguing from ignorance,' and a lack of knowledge of science to justify Creationism based on ancient tribal writings.

Apes are intelligent, and this intelligence evolved. Other animals also independently evolved intelligence such as cephalopods (Octopus)

Those who accept that doctrine are supposed to accept it as it is, unsatisfactory, incomplete and incoherent. It requires faith.

Science is not a doctrine by simple definition in English, Your lack of knowledge of science is compounded by your limited ability in English.

Your intentional ignorance of science is overwhelming,

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm coming from a position that demands keeping the channels of possibility open, which is to suggest that I refuse to deny the possibility of a creator and intelligent design as well as the possibility that creation takes place on a more uninvolved subconscious level, like a baby being formed in the womb type of creation event. Beyond this, I'm not arguing nor debating your stance. I'm reaffirming my objective knowing of how life is created and leaving room for an increase in understanding.

Possibilities? I do not believe the issues we are discussing here involve possibilities. I will clearly acknowledge many possibilities. As I said before I believe in a Creator God.

The problem remains the misuse of terminology that creates a muddy shaky ground between science and religion.

An interesting side note I do consider 'intelligence' to be an attribute of humans and higher animals.

God is not an engineer and designer. God is a Creator of our physical existence and all life on earth including humans as is.. Equating intelligent Design with God is assigning anthropomorphic engineering attributes that God needs to figure out Creation as an engineer figures out by trial and error make 'things.'

An interesting ancient world view in the Bible is God Creates, and ah . . . does not get it right, and has to condemn Adam and Eve and all future human descendents with 'Original Sin' for a very human mistake of temptation as a scape goat of God's mistakes that is actually God's responsibility. Again he does not get it right and has to wipe the slate clean with a world flood and start over. This scenario is not one of an omnipotent, all-knowing, all wise God.

 

[Balthazzar]

Possibilities? I do not believe the issues we are discussing here involve possibilities. I will clearly acknowledge many possibilities. As I said before I believe in a Creator God.

The problem remains the misuse of terminology that creates a muddy shaky ground between science and religion.

An interesting side note I do consider 'intelligence' to be an attribute of humans and higher animals.

God is not an engineer and designer. God is a Creator of our physical existence and all life on earth including humans as is.. Equating intelligent Design with God is assigning anthropomorphic engineering attributes that God needs to figure out Creation as an engineer figures out by trial and error make 'things.'

An interesting ancient world view in the Bible is God Creates, and ah . . . does not get it right, and has to condemn Adam and Eve and all future human descendents with 'Original Sin' for a very human mistake of temptation as a scape goat of God's mistakes that is actually God's responsibility. Again he does not get it right and has to wipe the slate clean with a world flood and start over. This scenario is not one of an omnipotent, all-knowing, all wise God.

That's where you lose me. I mean, the view is obviously promoted, but discarding the truth in the accounts as understood seems a bit haphazard. I disagree that the punishments in play are directly dished out by God. It is built into our physical world - action equates to consequence, etc. That's life, and our consequences help guide us naturally. The former would imply an uncaring, oops I got it wrong, so you get punished mentality, which isn't a stretch due to us going through the paces of life, but ... these aren't direct punishments dished out due to disobedience. These happen because of the way life operates naturally and as a result of our actions, respectively. Yeah, so there are consequences for our mistakes. There always will be as long as we live. Our original sin amounts to ignorance. This truth is reiterated in Hosea 4:6. We learn as we go and I'm fairly sure that's the only way it can be done.

Edit: To answer directly anthropomorphic qualities might be a stretch, but then I'm a panentheist, so as we exist on the inside of, perhaps there's more beyond our knowing that is God's conscious environment. What we experience I equate to God, and I'm sure we have a great effect on God's experiences also. What's uncertain but assumed is that our maladies, hardships, calamities, etc. derive from the natural mechanisms of existence as opposed to direct intervention from possible sources on the outside of known physics. The universe would seem to be stacked and although physics is our tool for objective understanding, the possibility is present for direct interventions also. I'm not ready to discount the possibility altogether.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's where you lose me. I mean, the view is obviously promoted, but discarding the truth in the accounts as understood seems a bit haphazard. I disagree that the punishments in play are directly dished out by God. It is built into our physical world - action equates to consequence, etc. That's life, and our consequences help guide us naturally. The former would imply an uncaring, oops I got it wrong, so you get punished mentality, which isn't a stretch due to us going through the paces of life, but ... these aren't direct punishments dished out due to disobedience. These happen because of the way life operates naturally and as a result of our actions, respectively. Yeah, so there are consequences for our mistakes. There always will be as long as we live. Our original sin amounts to ignorance. This truth is reiterated in Hosea 4:6. We learn as we go and I'm fairly sure that's the only way it can be done.

If you feel lost read the accounts in Geneses and the Pentateuch. What I cited is based on the factual accounts in the Pentateuch. You are dodging the implications of the actual accounts. Biblically the punishments are directly dished out by God and represent the overwhelming belief of Fundamentalist Christians, and the doctrines of most churches.

Edit: To answer directly anthropomorphic qualities might be a stretch, but then I'm a panentheist, so as we exist on the inside of, perhaps there's more beyond our knowing that is God's conscious environment. What we experience I equate to God, and I'm sure we have a great effect on God's experiences also. What's uncertain but assumed is that our maladies, hardships, calamities, etc. derive from the natural mechanisms of existence as opposed to direct intervention from possible sources on the outside of known physics. The universe would seem to be stacked and although physics is our tool for objective understanding, the possibility is present for direct interventions also. I'm not ready to discount the possibility altogether.

Panentheism is close to the Baha'i belief concerning God, which does not reflect the 'hands on' anthropomorphic ancient view of God.. I do not see any possibility of the Biblical anthropomorphic 'hands on' God of the ancient human view in many cultures.

The concept of Intelligent Design reflects the belief of an ancient 'hands on' God rejecting the sciences of evolution and other science.

Since I hear this line of reasoning from fundamentalist Christians concerning equating "Intelligent Designed experiments with the Theological concept of Intelligent Design." Can you cite the source of this concept?

 

[Balthazzar]

If you feel lost read the accounts in Geneses and the Pentateuch. What I cited is based on the factual accounts in the Pentateuch. You are dodging the implications of the actual accounts. Biblically the punishments are directly dished out by God and represent the overwhelming belief of Fundamentalist Christians, and the doctrines of most churches.


Panentheism is close to the Baha'i belief concerning God. I do not see any possibility of the Biblical anthropomorphic 'hands on' God of the ancient human view in many cultures.

That's my point. To discount the accounts as understood might be a haphazard approach to the methods of understanding. To us, it may seem far fetched to suggest that God dished it out due to what we've learned since about the universe, but is it all that uncommon to forsake one thought for another and then realize the truth in the forsaken one many years later? It's not uncommon to build one thought upon other thoughts. Evidence is required to establish a truth. Thoughts come and go. The earth is a sphere was a thought. Someone placed a great deal of faith and trust in that thought due to the flat earth concept and hostile opposition to changing scholarly and/or academic paradigms. The hope was there, the faith was there, and both were eventually substantiated with evidence. That's science in process and coming to a verified understanding.

Is it possible that what we understand to be the universe is a living entity much like ourselves able to intervene in its inner workings and processes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The "On the Origin of Species" represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of evolutionists, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true

Nope. That's only what deeply entrenched religious minded folks believe because they worship an old book.

It's classic projection.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's my point. To discount the accounts as understood might be a haphazard approach to the methods of understanding. To us, it may seem far fetched to suggest that God dished it out due to what we've learned since about the universe, but is it all that uncommon to forsake one thought for another and then realize the truth in the forsaken one many years later? It's not uncommon to build one thought upon other thoughts. Evidence is required to establish a truth. Thoughts come and go. The earth is a sphere was a thought. Someone placed a great deal of faith and trust in that thought due to the flat earth concept and hostile opposition to changing scholarly and/or academic paradigms. The hope was there, the faith was there, and both were eventually substantiated with evidence. That's science in process and coming to a verified understanding.

Again, again and again . . . There is no question God did dished out the punishments as specifically described in the Pentateuch. The above simply represents we should give up any anthropomorphic hands on Intelligent Designer God, as well as things like the falt earth and a geocentric universe some still believe today.

Is it possible that what we understand to be the universe is a living entity much like ourselves able to intervene in its inner workings and processes?

Possible?!?!? There are a lot of things that are possible, but the evidence clearly supports IF God exists God is more likely a Panentheistic or Baha'i view of God where God Creates, and Reveals his message and attributes of God reflected in a spiritual evolution in which old human ancient cultural views mist pass away.

The anthropomorphic "hands on God or Gods like ourselves" described in the Bible is terribly unlikely.

 

[shunyadragon]

The "On the Origin of Species" represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of evolutionists, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true

You need some very basic education in English at the elementary level concerning the terminology you misuse.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No it is not a fact. It is a belief based on ancient tribal scripture. What I previously stated stands and you did not respond.'

The Bible represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of Christianity, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true,

Just another fact: You don’t know what the Bible is about, if you believe what you wrote I would say you’ve never understood the Bible and possibly never read it all the way through from beginning to end. It is the accurate story of Creation and God’s relationship and redemption of mankind, the demonstration of His love, mercy, grace, power, justice, forgiveness, holiness, redemption and judgement. How He is going to make all things new.
As far as Creation and the world we live in…Read Genesis 1, facts

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read Genesis 1, facts

Not facts. Rather: claims.

And the claims don't match the evidence of reality.

When the evidence of reality doesn't match the claims, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Read Genesis 1, facts

Genesis 1 is an awesome creation myth. It is literature that we can learn from. What it is not, is history or science. So no, if you think Gen 1 is a collection of facts, you are mistaken.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just another fact: You don’t know what the Bible is about, if you believe what you wrote I would say you’ve never understood the Bible and possibly never read it all the way through from beginning to end. It is the accurate story of Creation and God’s relationship and redemption of mankind, the demonstration of His love, mercy, grace, power, justice, forgiveness, holiness, redemption and judgement. How He is going to make all things new.
As far as Creation and the world we live in…Read Genesis 1, facts

I have read the Bible through more then once over the past 70 years, and studied in in a number of classes including the factual history and archaeology behind the Bible. Of course, you take a literal view of the Bible from an ancient tribal perspective, and avoid confronting the actual history of how the Bible was compiled, edited and redacted without provenance authorship or original texts, You are also intentionally ignorant of the problems with objectively verified science and the known history that is in conflict with the Bible. You are essentially out of touch with reality as it can be known today. The heavens do not revolve around the earth. and our earth and universe is billions of years old. It is physically impossible that there was ever a Noah's flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's my point. To discount the accounts as understood might be a haphazard approach to the methods of understanding.

My study ad evaluation of the scriptures of the major religion and then some is methodical with the study of history, science and philosophy over the past 65+ years,

 

[Balthazzar]

My study ad evaluation of the scriptures of the major religion and then some is methodical with the study of history, science and philosophy over the past 65+ years,

I mean to discount the mentality of the time and reject the possibility that it's still possible that they were correct in the way they viewed life. Discounting and rejecting the possible might be haphazard. If not haphazard, inconsiderate. It wasn't at all a dig at your study habits or intellect.

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean to discount the mentality of the time and reject the possibility that it's still possible that they were correct in the way they viewed life. Discounting and rejecting the possible might be haphazard. If not haphazard, inconsiderate. It wasn't at all a dig at your study habits or intellect.

Again . . . possibilities of what?!?!? It is. of course. that it is possible that God exists and Created our physical existence. Haphazard is a poor choice of wording if the above is the case.

The problem is the Theological argument of "Intelligent Design" and foolish notion that that "Intelligently designed experiment" has anything to do with the Theological proposition of "Intelligent Design."

Intelligent Design is a terrible meaningless failed Theological argument, and a dishonest misuse of science. "Intelligent designed experiments" is very poor misleading description of how Methodological Naturalism carries out research from the human scientific perspective Scientist DO NOT use this terminology.

Again, . . . what is the source of this concept that relates "Intelligently designed experiments" with the failed Theological proposition of "Intelligent Design."

 

[Balthazzar]

Again . . . possibilities of what?!?!? It is. of course. that it is possible that God exists and Created our physical existence. Haphazard is a poor choice of wording if the above is the case.

The problem is the Theological argument of "Intelligent Design" and foolish notion that that "Intelligently designed experiment" has anything to do with the Theological proposition of "Intelligent Design."

Intelligent Design is a terrible meaningless failed Theological argument, and a dishonest misuse of science. "Intelligent designed experiments" is very poor misleading description of how Methodological Naturalism carries out research from the human scientific perspective Scientist DO NOT use this terminology.

Again, . . . what is the source of this concept that relates "Intelligently designed experiments" with the failed Theological proposition of "Intelligent Design."

I was alluding to divine providence. The rejection of the premise entirely is a haphazard position, leaving no room for the possibility of it occurring. Where you stand or seem to be is a no mind type of universe where humans are the only occupants. In my view, the universe is mental, and the earth a type of synapse connected to the many others in our universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was alluding to divine providence. The rejection of the premise entirely is a haphazard position, leaving no room for the possibility of it occurring. Where you stand or seem to be is a no mind type of universe where humans are the only occupants. In my view, the universe is mental, and the earth a type of synapse connected to the many others in our universe.

I believe to a certain extent you are mis representing me and the dialogue seems to wander, I do accept the possibility of all the above. The existence of life in other planets and moons in the universe is not only the possibility, but likely,

A mind type universe (?) is a possibility, but not one I favor. It also depends on your definition, It is sometimes described as the physical universe is an illusion and sort of a mind (?). One problem is that our universe is what it is regardless of whehter it is a mind(?) or an illusion or not. I prefer to deal with the universe as it is

I do not believe what you describe here represent the Panentheistic belief. It comes closer to the Vedic view of the universe

Our universe may be an illusion, but it is a very interesting and sometimes painful illusion.

 

[Balthazzar]

I believe to a certain extent you are mis representing me and the dialogue seems to wander, I do accept the possibility of all the above. The existence of life in other planets and moons in the universe is not only the possibility, but likely,

A mind type universe (?) is a possibility, but not one I favor. It also depends on your definition, It is sometimes described as the physical universe is an illusion and sort of a mind (?).

I do not believe what you describe here represent the Panentheistic belief. It comes closer to the Vedic view of the universe

Our universe may be an illusion, but it is a very interesting and sometimes painful illusion.

I have no intention to misrepresent, nor wander from our direct dialogue. What I'm suggesting, is the earth may be acting like a synapse in relation to other inhabited planets and planetary systems. Whether this seems more Vedic in appearance is moot. I understand the universe to be God or the All and that which is yet to be "created" is where my personal stance may differ from others pantheistic types. I'm a Panentheist, hence the "en" - clusion of what is not included or acknowledged as part of the universal paradigm of Pantheism. The universe is the universe and most see no need to include anything else, similar to 0 being enough as opposed to adding an additional - 0 in mathematics to help balance out the unknown.