Mother Nature vs. God?

[Android]

In part I agree but there are inquiring minds who want to know.
"I don't know" may be an honest answer but it certainly is not a satisfying one.

And that's why we have science.
If we just answered these questions with "god did it", we would not need further investigation. Our civillization would stop advancing. That's my main concern about religeon, it holds us back.
If you really do have an inquiring mind, that's great man. Science could use you. Now pick a field, go to uni, and begin your quest for the answers.

 

[Thief]

And that's why we have science.
If we just answered these questions with "god did it", we would not need further investigation. Our civillization would stop advancing. That's my main concern about religeon, it holds us back.
If you really do have an inquiring mind, that's great man. Science could use you. Now pick a field, go to uni, and begin your quest for the answers.

And this is why belief in God fails.^

Science isn't a cure all for faith.

Science displays how God did it.

 

[Android]

Science isn't a cure all for faith.

Science displays how God did it.

You need to learn how to shave with Occam's razor.

 

[Thief]

You need to learn how to shave with Occam's razor.

I prefer a full beard.

 

[gnostic]

You need to learn how to shave with Occam's razor.

I prefer a full beard.

I could never trust a man with a full beard.

 

[Android]

I prefer a full beard.

lol following Occam's razor would actually leave you with a full beard!

It just gets too itchy for me.

 

[Valjean]

Believing in life after death....would be step one.

Step one of what?

Automatic mechanisms?.....a design that keeps on going?
Good stuff.

Yes. The laws of physics, chemistry, motion, &c dictate how things work -- all without divine intervention. Take a planet, add energy, and voila -- things start happening. All predictable. All without miraculous tinkering. Automatically.

Meeting your Maker...we all do that

.
Is this something you intend to offer evidence for, or pure, unsupported theology?

Going to the meeting with denial as your resume?
Good luck with that.

Huh? Denial?

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Who or what decides what is selected? Who or what decides what is natural?

This might be a problem. Though there might be some people who would, I would never ask anyone to believe in something greater (higher) than themselves. There is a lot of creativity evident in nature. Some of it is very stylized. If the possibility exists that there is intelligence behind these designs, I was wondering if the evolutionists were mindful of the practicality and inventiveness connected to the different characters that occupy our planet. Some might refer to this as the Artistic Method.

Nobody has to decide what is selected. Why do people have to give sentience to non-sentience?
And if you study evolution, you would realise why things seem created.

 

[Thief]

Nobody has to decide what is selected. Why do people have to give sentience to non-sentience?
And if you study evolution, you would realise why things seem created.

And if you took a look at the form you might see...'design'.

Your form allows you to learn.
You have a linear existence.
This will produce an individual.

Then you go back to God.
and you will have the opportunity to present yourself.

Have you read the preamble of Job?

 

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse-Who or what decides what is selected? Who or what decides what is natural?
Jose fly-No one.
Jorden Rober Wilson: Nobody has to decide what is selected. Why do people have to give sentience to non-sentience?

Perhaps it is because no one has ever encountered anything that makes decisions unconsciously. Would you let a dead man pick out your next car or the name of your child?

Jose fly- If you don't survive long enough to reproduce, your genetic material does not persist into the next generation.

Then maybe natural selection is a misnomer. Selection implies that there are choices, not chances. I don’t believe that the research involved in evolution would be funded on the premise of the study of “rolling bones”.

Jose fly-Some might refer to this as the Artistic Method.

The basic tenets of the artistic method is the relationship between artist and their art and the relationship between the art and observer. This can include the purpose in which art is created, the medium in which the art was rendered, the significance of the line (or stroke) and the overall impact (physical, emotional ideas and intentions) that is brought out of the observer once presented. The most important doctrine of the artistic method is that there are conscious artists and decisions that go into making art.

Seyorni-The problem is, this alleged intelligence leaves no evidence of itself.

The species and variety of plants and animals (including humans) on this planet is enough to include the artistic method in this research. Just because science cannot find and comprehend the artist is no reason to conclude it doesn’t have one or reside nature as a non-sentient machination. There is no mechanism or machine that produces (original) art unless an intelligent consciousness directs it. Science should know better than this because now (as intelligent, conscious beings) they can re-create, re-produce, re-imagine and re-direct it.

Jorden RobertWilson: And if you study evolution, you would realise why things seem created.

I’ll make a deal with you, I’ll invest more time and study in evolution if you take an art class.

 

[Anonymouse]

And that's why we have science.
If we just answered these questions with "god did it", we would not need further investigation. Our civillization would stop advancing. That's my main concern about religeon, it holds us back.
If you really do have an inquiring mind, that's great man. Science could use you. Now pick a field, go to uni, and begin your quest for the answers.

There are two things you should seriously consider about today’s science. Hardly anyone does any research or studying in any scientific field for free (gotta’ recoup those expensive educational fees, give that degree hanging on the wall some meaning) and no one funds any study or research unless they are in full control of the direction of this research and its findings and conclusions. With that being explained, you can probably assume that there are going to be some scientific findings that may not necessarily serve and benefit humankind as a whole and that these findings could even serve an alternative agenda.

 

[Android]

There are two things you should seriously consider about today’s science. Hardly anyone does any research or studying in any scientific field for free (gotta’ recoup those expensive educational fees, give that degree hanging on the wall some meaning) and no one funds any study or research unless they are in full control of the direction of this research and its findings and conclusions. With that being explained, you can probably assume that there are going to be some scientific findings that may not necessarily serve and benefit humankind as a whole and that these findings could even serve an alternative agenda.

Firstly, Here in Australia you can get the government to loan you the cost of your degree. You pay it back out of your annual tax return IF the degree gets you a job that earns you enough to pay it back!

Second, yes, industry pays for most of the research that is done primarily to advance that industry. But, in absolutely NO WAY are the findings/conclusions controlled in any way! Industry pays big dollars to do research and there is no point in lying about results, it does nothing to advance the field.

There are no bad results in proper scientific research, only results.
EG:
Science - The treatment group was shown to have no effect.
Industry - Great, we can stop wasting money on this treatment and try something else.

All findings are beneficial, many are disapointing but still beneficial.

 

[lunakilo]

I see you're new here.

And the point of that statement is ...

 

[lunakilo]

Who or what decides what is selected? Who or what decides what is natural?

Natural selection
"Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Now stop being silly.

 

[outhouse]

There are two things you should seriously consider about today’s science. Hardly anyone does any research or studying in any scientific field for free (gotta’ recoup those expensive educational fees, give that degree hanging on the wall some meaning) and no one funds any study or research unless they are in full control of the direction of this research and its findings and conclusions. With that being explained, you can probably assume that there are going to be some scientific findings that may not necessarily serve and benefit humankind as a whole and that these findings could even serve an alternative agenda.

speculation and a biased personal opinion.

nothing more

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps it is because no one has ever encountered anything that makes decisions unconsciously.

There's your problem. You think there is some sort of decision going on, when in reality it is nothing more than surviving/not surviving and reproducing/not reproducing.

As I said, you may as well ask "Who decides whether the coin I flip comes up heads or tails".

Then maybe natural selection is a misnomer. Selection implies that there are choices, not chances.

Notice the word that comes right before "selection"..."natural". Do you know what that means? It means it happens all on its own.

I don’t believe that the research involved in evolution would be funded on the premise of the study of “rolling bones”.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

Hardly anyone does any research or studying in any scientific field for free (gotta’ recoup those expensive educational fees, give that degree hanging on the wall some meaning) and no one funds any study or research unless they are in full control of the direction of this research and its findings and conclusions. With that being explained, you can probably assume that there are going to be some scientific findings that may not necessarily serve and benefit humankind as a whole and that these findings could even serve an alternative agenda.

So now you're invoking shadowy conspiracy theories? Scientists and those who fund them are fudging their data and falsifying their findings, all for money?

It sure would be nice if those who cite these conspiracies among scientists would actually provide some evidence. But then, in the world of conspiracy theorists, the axiom "a total lack of evidence is proof the conspiracy is working perfectly" rules, eh?

 

[Yerda]

If the theory of evolution (which, as you claim, has nothing to do with God) turns out to be true, the murder of God could very well be an inevitable by-product of this finding...

If God can't survive the truth, tough luck.

 

[Yerda]

So now you're invoking shadowy conspiracy theories? Scientists and those who fund them are fudging their data and falsifying their findings, all for money?

Oh, that's a very real problem facing the scientific community. I have yet to hear a scientist 'blow the whistle' regarding studies in evolutionary biology, however.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, that's a very real problem facing the scientific community. I have yet to hear a scientist 'blow the whistle' regarding studies in evolutionary biology, however.

Well, I've been a professional scientist for 16 years now, and I have yet to meet any colleague who has done any sort of falsification for money. Every single fellow scientist I've met basically toils in anonymity for middle-class wages.

One would think that if we were all in it for the money, we would have...you know...actual money.

 

[outhouse]

Oh, that's a very real problem facing the scientific community. I have yet to hear a scientist 'blow the whistle' regarding studies in evolutionary biology, however.

that is rediculous

my brother is a biology proffessor and author, who knows the facts of evolution but doesnt discount ID/creation and holds his religious views in christianity.

he is paid a modest wage and what you posted is as far from the truth as something can get.