Why can not religious beliefs and theory of evolution go hand in hand?

[loverofhumanity]

Didn't you read my post #68? This is a false analogy. Do you understand why? Do you understand descent with modification, natural selection and incremental change? If you don't understand these, it's no wonder evolution makes no sense to you.

My bed and fridge don't reproduce. They are not the product of a long series of selections, from among reproductive variations.
Just because some complex items are planned and manufactured purposefully, it doesn't follow that all complex things need be. There are other mechanisms, natural mechanisms, that can produce complexity.
Why? This just doesn't follow. Chemistry and physics happen automatically. They're effects are unguided. Why could they not produce humans?

Many of the steps of this process are known. None of the steps of magic poofing are known. In fact, no known mechanism can account for poofing, which is why we call it magic.
Scientists aren't creators. They're researchers.
Evolution didn't evolve. The changes occurred by known, observable, natural mechanisms. At no point in the process has any magical manipulation been found necessary. If you know of any, please inform us.

You keep talking about randomness. Evolution is not random and noöne but creationists claim it is.

What I mean is that without ‘instructions’ programmed or mapped into cells and genes they wouldn’t amount to anything. A lemon seed is programmed to grow lemons and the human cell a human. It’s deliberate intelligent Will of God not cells and genes just flunking a human. They were programmed so as to become human. That’s why a lemon seed will never create anything but lemons. It’s common sense that every seed, cell and gene is programmed to perform a certain function. Who programmed it, itself? That’s so unrealistic and unscientific but believe it I respect you have a different view. I just don’t agree.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Vast amounts of scientific evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved from ancestral ape species. The conclusion therefore seems that Bahai faith's beliefs are contrary to science. There is no fundamental difference between myself and a dog or a cat apart from the fact that we have larger brain and hence have greater intelligence and awareness (basically the difference between a PC and a supercomputer). And yes, most animals (most vertebrates and some invertebrates at least) are conscious and have inner mental states as far as can be inferred from science.

Feel free to believe that then. That’s your right but I’m sticking with man as being a distinct species that did not evolve from animals. So we have the Mineral, Vegetable, Animal and Human Kingdoms. A human being a million years ago with the same composition as today was not an ape. And I don’t believe that the ‘missing link’ will ever be found because there never was one. Man was always man but it’s ok to disagree with me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree

I don't see why.
The stuff you write on the subject reveal / expose that you have no clue what you are talking about.

How do you hope to successfully argue against a well-established scientific model when you don't even have superficial working knowledge of it? Not even a little bit.

because I see signs of God in every atom, in nature and in us but you do not so I must respect that and not force the issue.

I just follow the evidence.
You prefer ignoring the evidence and willful ignorance in favor of a priori unsupportable supernatural beliefs.


Fortunately, this situation is easily resolved. All it would take is for you to inform yourself properly. But I don't think you're actually interested.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Didn't you read my post #68? This is a false analogy. Do you understand why? Do you understand descent with modification, natural selection and incremental change? If you don't understand these, it's no wonder evolution makes no sense to you.

My bed and fridge don't reproduce. They are not the product of a long series of selections, from among reproductive variations.
Just because some complex items are planned and manufactured purposefully, it doesn't follow that all complex things need be. There are other mechanisms, natural mechanisms, that can produce complexity.
Why? This just doesn't follow. Chemistry and physics happen automatically. They're effects are unguided. Why could they not produce humans?

Many of the steps of this process are known. None of the steps of magic poofing are known. In fact, no known mechanism can account for poofing, which is why we call it magic.
Scientists aren't creators. They're researchers.
Evolution didn't evolve. The changes occurred by known, observable, natural mechanisms. At no point in the process has any magical manipulation been found necessary. If you know of any, please inform us.
You keep talking about randomness. Evolution is not random and noöne but creationists claim it is.

"Animal" refers to biochemistry, not accomplishments. Animal is what we are, not what we do,
Again, how do you define "animal?"

If you have time and patience this might help clarify the Baha’i position. We do believe in science but there’s some things that science can’t answer which has to do with the soul or spiritual matters which we believe have a bearing not so much on our physical evolution but our intellectual and spiritual nature.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mehanian_friberg_religion_evolution.pdf

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a Baha’i paper explaining our concept of evolution. Feel free to download it and read it later.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mehanian_friberg_religion_evolution.pdf

 

[loverofhumanity]

Vast amounts of scientific evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved from ancestral ape species. The conclusion therefore seems that Bahai faith's beliefs are contrary to science. There is no fundamental difference between myself and a dog or a cat apart from the fact that we have larger brain and hence have greater intelligence and awareness (basically the difference between a PC and a supercomputer). And yes, most animals (most vertebrates and some invertebrates at least) are conscious and have inner mental states as far as can be inferred from science.

Here is what we believe regarding evolution. It includes science of course but includes other aspects of our nature which are not physical.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mehanian_friberg_religion_evolution.pdf

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't see why.
The stuff you write on the subject reveal / expose that you have no clue what you are talking about.

How do you hope to successfully argue against a well-established scientific model when you don't even have superficial working knowledge of it? Not even a little bit.




I just follow the evidence.
You prefer ignoring the evidence and willful ignorance in favor of a priori unsupportable supernatural beliefs.


Fortunately, this situation is easily resolved. All it would take is for you to inform yourself properly. But I don't think you're actually interested.

Clmon that’s your bias speaking as you’re an atheist. What’s to say you’re wrong and there is a God?

I could also maintain its you who are ignoring that God created existence. So back and forth. Supernatural beliefs?? You guys are the ones saying intelligence appeared from non intelligence that man ‘just created himself’. That to me is irrational and superstitious. Science does have many valid truths but once God is eliminated that makes it less reasonable. If you read this it might explain a few things. We are not opposed to science it’s just that we believe in God too.


https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mehanian_friberg_religion_evolution.pdf

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a vast difference between a human and an animal

No, there isn't.
It is impossible to come up with a definition of "animal" that includes ALL animals yet excludes humans - without arbitrarily adding criteria designed specifically to exclude humans.

The same is true for classifications like eukaryote, vertebrate, mammal, primate, ape, etc.

We qualify as "ape" in the same way that the other apes do.
We qualify as "mammal" in the same way that the other mammals do.
We qualify as "animal" in the same way that the other animals do.

When you make a checklist of attributes / properties an organism must have in order to be classified as a "mammal", then humans have all those attributes and properties. So humans are mammals.

The same is true for the other classifications.

We are a completely unique species

Every species is completely unique. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be their own species................

Chimps are unique in their chimp-way.
Gorilla's are unique in their gorilla-way.

It's why we have a word for chimps and a word for gorilla's. Because they aren't the same. They are unique.

and are capable of amazing things animals just cannot do

Plenty of animals can do plenty of things that no other animals can do.
Chimps, for example, can do things humans can only dream off.

I believe man has always existed if not on this planet then elsewhere.

And your evidence for that is....?

The evidence is that we are spiritual beings

That's a claim. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

, scientific beings capable of rising above the laws of nature to travel in space, discover new sciences, etc no need to go on.

Space travel is very much bound to the laws of nature.
An airplane or a space shuttle does not have a "gravity cancelation device" or whatever.

The animal does not progress or advance and is limited to its own sphere while man can build skyscrapers and the internet. The animal has none of these qualities because it is not human.

The fact however is that the difference between humans building the Hubble Space Telescope and chimps fashioning termite catching sticks, isn't as big as people like to think it is.

All the underlying cognitive processes that are required for such toolbuilding... people like you like to believe that these are "unique" to humans. They aren't. Chimps share them all.

When they fashion sticks to catch termites, there's a whole bunch of stuff required and present:
- ability of planning: fashioning tools in one place for the purpose of using them in another place at a later time. This requires foresight, abstract thought, imagination,...
- ability of toolmaking: the intentfull manipulation of raw materials with a specific end goal in mind.
etc

Humans today aren't "more intelligent" then humans thousands of years ago who were worried about other tribes coming to steal their fire. We just know more. This is because we have evolved a culture of accumulating unnecessary knowledge. "unnecessary" in the sense that it doesn't yield short-term results.

Ironically, during experiments that try to zero-in on this phenomenon, the conclusion could be said that we accumulate unnecessary knowledge because we are in fact dumber then chimps and less pragmatic.

There's this infamous experiment done with both human and chimp young ones. They are given a black box and shown a series of manipulations with said box. When you go through the series, a candy thingy comes out.

So both chimps and humans go through the series as shown and get their candy.
Then the experiment is repeated only this time, the box isn't black but transparent.
Because of the transparency, it is revealed that 90% of the manipulations are totally pointless. Only the last step can be done to get to the candy.

This is where it gets interesting:
- the chimps no longer engage in the unnecessary 90% of the series. They realize it's pointless and as a result no longer bother with it.
- the humans however.... they continue! They continue the entire 100% of the series to get to the candy. They blindly obey the authority. They think they "must" do it. They also think that maybe the 90% that seems unnecessary, possibly isn't unnecessary. Perhaps there is something that they don't understand about the mechanism.

Not a single one of the humans skipped the unnecessary steps.
While all of the chimps did.

This, at bottom, is one of the main differences between us and chimps in terms of learning, progress and knowledge gathering.

 

[Nimos]

G-d is spirit, in a way far beyond our understanding. And unique. And he decided to
create an 'Other' for... who knows? companionship? We get a hint at this, G-d says
it is not good for us to be alone and also says we are created in his image. We may
not be able to create the 'Other' in anything but fiction, modern example being scifi,
but look at how we rush to create AI, despite the well understood dangers!

So... G-d creates the angels, beings of spirit like him. Only, they are not independent.
They are little more than automatons. (Forget the 'Angel Rebellion' nonsense that is
influence outside of Judaism and not in Tanakh at all.)

So, what to do? Create a being more independent by being more distant. Not by
proximity but by nature. But G-d, being... lets say 'perfect' for lack of better word,
cannot directly create 'not-perfect'. No more than you or I can directly work atoms
and particles. So he creates universe(s) to set the mechanisms in motion to form
these beings. Many failures, Jewish legend says that this universe is the seventh
iteration. (That's the real significance of the 'seven days of creation' IMHO)

This doesn't really add up in my opinion. if God is perfect then we can also assume that he is fully fulfilled in all his needs. So when God were alone before all of creation, he would still have been perfect, so he wouldn't have any need that being alone is not good for us/him, otherwise he weren't perfect, he would have had to desire an "Other".

Furthermore, if we assume that God did as you said, why on Earth didn't he get it right the first time? Clearly also this would indicate that God makes mistakes and isn't perfect.

I don't know what the differences are between the Tanakh and the OT, but in the OT as you said, God created man and didn't want him to be alone, so he created a women for him as a companion. But it doesn't as such say anything about what the big plan is that God want with all this, except that he think it is good.

So, G-d watches the universe(s) and when a suitable species evolves he chooses.
Then he creates a perfect specimen without any genetic faults (and we have a LOT
of them, why inbreeding is so dangerous and why believing in ONE couple making
a race is just impossible)

So that is how we find Adam in Eden. There's other people on earth, all right,
they're just in the petri dish of the experiment. Without the same soul as Adam,
but an animal soul. But, when man is cast out of Eden, they start interbreeding.

Lots of issues here I know, like when do those not-Adam humans get souls, but...
does this all make sense? Really don't know, I'm hella autistic.

Again, this makes no sense in regards to the OT, again might be different in the Tanakh, but the OT doesn't say anything about God doing creation experiments and eventually being happy with Adam and Eve, as you said he created man in his own image, if they came about by "accident" through the TOE then they weren't created in his imagine, they just happened and God liked them, but they weren't created in his image.

But again, as I said in the other post, there is no reason to not assume that souls already exist and just enters bodies at random in what you are writing here:

There's other people on earth, all right, they're just in the petri dish of the experiment. Without the same soul as Adam, but an animal soul. But, when man is cast out of Eden, they start interbreeding.

But not only that, we now need to add a lot of extra assumptions to make this work as well. Because lets say that Adam and Eve is thrown out of the Garden and they have some kids etc. I assume these have human souls as well? But at some point one of these decide to interbreed with an "animal" soul human, which seems unlikely as having sex with animals according to the law is punished by death. But anyway, assuming that these are humans just with an animal soul, what happens to the animal soul when we have an offspring is that then part animal, part human soul? or is it fully human soul? And maybe its all animal soul and no human soul.. But again, nothing seem to require TOE in this setup, except we could say that TOE is just what create the vessels for the souls, but ultimately the bodies might as well be created in a factory and then souls just pop into them, there doesn't seem to be any connection here, besides a soul needing a body, but how that comes along is of no importance.

But I hope you agree, that at this point we are not really talking theory as much as just a believe or wild guesses of how this could work without having the slightest idea if souls even exist to begin with. Even if we assume that God existed, we know nothing about these.
I might be wrong, but I don't recall the OT explaining what a soul is, but that it is rather just assumed to be there. But again might remember wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Clmon that’s your bias speaking as you’re an atheist.

Most evolutionary biologists are theists.
My atheism has nothing to do with it.

What’s to say you’re wrong and there is a God?

Evidence. Got any?
PS: if tomorrow for whatever reason I start believing a god exists, that wouldn't change anything about all the evidence of biology and the validity of evolutionary biology as a field.

I could also maintain its you who are ignoring that God created existence

You could say that.
The thing is however, there is nothing there to ignore except bare claims by people like you who just assert that there is a god that created existence.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I'm ignoring bare claims instead.
I'll be happy to honestly evaluate any actual evidence you have to support your claims.

Until you do, why would I accept your claims?

Supernatural beliefs??

Yes. Believing in a supernatural entity that does things in supernatural ways, pretty much qualifies as supernatural beliefs.

You guys are the ones saying intelligence appeared from non intelligence that man ‘just created himself’.

Nobody says that. You are again either misrepresenting the science or you are exposing your ignorance on the science.

That to me is irrational and superstitious.

Not to mention a strawman.

Science does have many valid truths but once God is eliminated that makes it less reasonable

Is E = mc² "less reasonable" because there is no god variable included?
Here are some more theories where gods don't show up:

- atomic theory
- plate tectonics
- heliocentrism
- germ theory of desease
- relativity
- ...

Also note that I said "...where gods don't show up". I did not say "..where god is eliminated".
No scientific theory can eliminate unfalsifiable things.

That goes for gods as well as fairies, bigfoot, extra-dimensional aliens, undetectable graviton pixies,...

The thing is that science only includes those things that are underpinned by data and evidence.
Science requires actual reasons to include factors and variables. A priori religious belief, is not a valid reason.

If you read this it might explain a few things. We are not opposed to science it’s just that we believe in God too.

Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting my time by reading 39 pages for the purpose of hunting down the point you are referring to.

I suggest you make your point in your own words and, at best, include a pdf as a reference.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, there isn't.
It is impossible to come up with a definition of "animal" that includes ALL animals yet excludes humans - without arbitrarily adding criteria designed specifically to exclude humans.

The same is true for classifications like eukaryote, vertebrate, mammal, primate, ape, etc.

We qualify as "ape" in the same way that the other apes do.
We qualify as "mammal" in the same way that the other mammals do.
We qualify as "animal" in the same way that the other animals do.

When you make a checklist of attributes / properties an organism must have in order to be classified as a "mammal", then humans have all those attributes and properties. So humans are mammals.

The same is true for the other classifications.




Every species is completely unique. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be their own species................

Chimps are unique in their chimp-way.
Gorilla's are unique in their gorilla-way.

It's why we have a word for chimps and a word for gorilla's. Because they aren't the same. They are unique.




Plenty of animals can do plenty of things that no other animals can do.
Chimps, for example, can do things humans can only dream off.



And your evidence for that is....?



That's a claim. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.



Space travel is very much bound to the laws of nature.
An airplane or a space shuttle does not have a "gravity cancelation device" or whatever.



The fact however is that the difference between humans building the Hubble Space Telescope and chimps fashioning termite catching sticks, isn't as big as people like to think it is.

All the underlying cognitive processes that are required for such toolbuilding... people like you like to believe that these are "unique" to humans. They aren't. Chimps share them all.

When they fashion sticks to catch termites, there's a whole bunch of stuff required and present:
- ability of planning: fashioning tools in one place for the purpose of using them in another place at a later time. This requires foresight, abstract thought, imagination,...
- ability of toolmaking: the intentfull manipulation of raw materials with a specific end goal in mind.
etc

Humans today aren't "more intelligent" then humans thousands of years ago who were worried about other tribes coming to steal their fire. We just know more. This is because we have evolved a culture of accumulating unnecessary knowledge. "unnecessary" in the sense that it doesn't yield short-term results.

Ironically, during experiments that try to zero-in on this phenomenon, the conclusion could be said that we accumulate unnecessary knowledge because we are in fact dumber then chimps and less pragmatic.

There's this infamous experiment done with both human and chimp young ones. They are given a black box and shown a series of manipulations with said box. When you go through the series, a candy thingy comes out.

So both chimps and humans go through the series as shown and get their candy.
Then the experiment is repeated only this time, the box isn't black but transparent.
Because of the transparency, it is revealed that 90% of the manipulations are totally pointless. Only the last step can be done to get to the candy.

This is where it gets interesting:
- the chimps no longer engage in the unnecessary 90% of the series. They realize it's pointless and as a result no longer bother with it.
- the humans however.... they continue! They continue the entire 100% of the series to get to the candy. They blindly obey the authority. They think they "must" do it. They also think that maybe the 90% that seems unnecessary, possibly isn't unnecessary. Perhaps there is something that they don't understand about the mechanism.

Not a single one of the humans skipped the unnecessary steps.
While all of the chimps did.

This, at bottom, is one of the main differences between us and chimps in terms of learning, progress and knowledge gathering.

Physically we have a lot in common except when it comes to things like belief in a God. And if God does exist?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Most evolutionary biologists are theists.
My atheism has nothing to do with it.



Evidence. Got any?
PS: if tomorrow for whatever reason I start believing a god exists, that wouldn't change anything about all the evidence of biology and the validity of evolutionary biology as a field.



You could say that.
The thing is however, there is nothing there to ignore except bare claims by people like you who just assert that there is a god that created existence.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I'm ignoring bare claims instead.
I'll be happy to honestly evaluate any actual evidence you have to support your claims.

Until you do, why would I accept your claims?



Yes. Believing in a supernatural entity that does things in supernatural ways, pretty much qualifies as supernatural beliefs.



Nobody says that. You are again either misrepresenting the science or you are exposing your ignorance on the science.




Not to mention a strawman.



Is E = mc² "less reasonable" because there is no god variable included?
Here are some more theories where gods don't show up:

- atomic theory
- plate tectonics
- heliocentrism
- germ theory of desease
- relativity
- ...

Also note that I said "...where gods don't show up". I did not say "..where god is eliminated".
No scientific theory can eliminate unfalsifiable things.

That goes for gods as well as fairies, bigfoot, extra-dimensional aliens, undetectable graviton pixies,...

The thing is that science only includes those things that are underpinned by data and evidence.
Science requires actual reasons to include factors and variables. A priori religious belief, is not a valid reason.



Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting my time by reading 39 pages for the purpose of hunting down the point you are referring to.

I suggest you make your point in your own words and, at best, include a pdf as a reference.

God might have something to say about His creation but ignoring Him means that one is disregarding a very important source of information. Leaving Him out of the equation is taking the same stance of an atheist because He claims to have created the world not magically but according to scientific process which is why scientists today can see science in creation.


The information stored in the genes remains time-invariant and guides the evolution of the embryo. Without this constant blueprint the development from a simple single cell towards a highly complex organism would be impossible.

 

[wellwisher]

No, there isn't.
It is impossible to come up with a definition of "animal" that includes ALL animals yet excludes humans - without arbitrarily adding criteria designed specifically to exclude humans.

The main difference between animals and humans is humans lack the natural instinct found in animals. We have traded that in, in favor of cultural training. Nature does not have or require a welfare state, since integration with nature and each other is hardwired into animals. They are spatially integrated with nature and each other. Humans have repressed this hardwiring in favor of learned cultural knowledge.

The main differences between humans and animals lies within the operating system of their brains. Humans have two centers of consciousness; ego and the inner self. The animals only have one center; inner self. The inner self is connected to genetic based natural instincts and the innate animal behaviors that define each animal as a member of a species. Since humans also have an inner self, we also have collective human propensities that define us as species; human nature. But the ego tends to lead making this less then fully conscious unless taught.

The ego or secondary center, which is common only to humans, is much newer than the inner self, in terms of evolution; less then 10,000 years old. The bible uses the number of 6000 years for a certain stage of ego development.

The ego center, which is a spinoff; satellite, from the inner self, is born empty and is conditioned by culture and the inner self; cultural animal. The ego lacks the depth of genes associated with the inner self of humans and/or animals. The inner self is unconscious in most humans, which is why we lost our natural instinct in favor of human based knowledge of good and evil. The story of Adam and Eve is about the rise of the human secondary or ego. This secondary led to the rise of civilization, which is not part of nature, but a human ego construct that often destroys natural eco-systems.

The semi-exceptions, to the one or two conscious center rule, within the animal kingdom, are domesticated animals. Dogs, for example, can form a virtual secondary center, which can be conditioned by humans. This allows dogs to learn and even follow human needs and protocol, even to the point of overriding their own instincts. Wolves do not have this virtual secondary, but only the primary or inner selves of canines. Their inner self keeps them integrated with nature. The shepherd dog often takes its virtual secondary to the limit of becoming a willful ego based on choice. This is why there are at the top of the dog world in intelligence; border collie. At one point humans had a virtual secondary that would learn from natural experience; paradise.

If this distinction is new to you, there is a home experiment one can do to experience the repressed human inner self. What you do is have a friend agree to scare you when you are not prepared. He/she can take their time to make it the most effective.

For example, they might catch you off guard by jumping out from behind a closed door. Under most conditions, one would instinctively jump and maybe even scream as adrenaline is pumped. This lightning fast reaction by the inner self, can embarrass the ego, since it would prefer save face and not act like a little girl. The inner self reacts naturally to the stimulus, with the ego often upset it cannot control the outcome to save face. The animal will react the same way, via their inner self, but without any mixed feelings. They are being directed by an integrated reaction from their inner self; fight or flight.

The classic biology DNA distinction is too outdated to be effective, since it does take into account our modern insight into the operating systems of human and animal brains. It does not even discuss the ego and inner self. When God symbolically breathed life into Adam and made him a living soul, this is talking about the ego. The ego would have will and choice since it is detached from instinct. The inner self was already around, when the ego formed, helping to integrate paradise. With the rise of the ego, the natural human animal would become repressed, and unnatural behavior would appear.

What humans call self consciousness is connected to the two centers. If I observe myself spontaneously reacting to a stimulus I become aware of inner self reacting to certain things that I am not controlling; laugh. Just as two eyes allows us to see in 3-D, our two centers gives human consciousness a spatial quality. I think therefore I am.

 

[sayak83]

Feel free to believe that then. That’s your right but I’m sticking with man as being a distinct species that did not evolve from animals. So we have the Mineral, Vegetable, Animal and Human Kingdoms. A human being a million years ago with the same composition as today was not an ape. And I don’t believe that the ‘missing link’ will ever be found because there never was one. Man was always man but it’s ok to disagree with me.

You are free to believe what you wish of course. Its not scientifically sound, that is it.
Missing Link is a term that exists in popular culture, not in science. The correct term is transitional species and many many many of them have been found like Sahelanthropus, Orrorin and Ardipithecus followed by Australopithecus and then Homo showing the transformation of bipedal apes to modern humans.

As Smithsonian notes
"Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."

Introduction to Human Evolution

I think this shows the basic problem of prophet focused religions. Because the words of prophet are from God and must be correct, the followers have to jettison science or do creative reinterpretation as the progress of knowledge and science makes the understanding of the prophet about science and other fields of knowledge increasingly dated.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. which has to do with the soul or spiritual matters which we believe have a bearing not so much on our physical evolution but our intellectual and spiritual nature.

And what is this soul thing? what proof you have for its existence? What are the spiritual matters that science cannot explain?

I could also maintain its you who are ignoring that God created existence. You guys are the ones saying intelligence appeared from non intelligence that man ‘just created himself’. That to me is irrational and superstitious. Science does have many valid truths but once God is eliminated that makes it less reasonable.

Give us proof of existence of God and that he created humans? Who said 'man created himself'? Don't write silly things. Intelligence emerged from ameba searching for food and trying to escape from what was harmful for it. In science it will be extremely foolish to accept God or his messengers / manifestations without proof.

And if God does exist?

What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Cthulhu existed? He will be very angry that you are worshiping a God. It may result in your rotting in eternal hell. Flying Spaghetti Monster is as jealous as your Allah.

God might have something to say about His creation but ignoring Him means that one is disregarding a very important source of information.

A source of information which is not able to provide any proof of what it says should be rejected immediately. Only fools believe without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The main difference between animals and humans is humans lack the natural instinct found in animals. We have traded that in, in favor of cultural training. Nature does not have or require a welfare state, since integration with nature and each other is hardwired into animals. They are spatially integrated with nature and each other. Humans have repressed this hardwiring in favor of learned cultural knowledge.

The main differences between humans and animals lies within the operating system of their brains. Humans have two centers of consciousness; ego and the inner self. The animals only have one center; inner self. The inner self is connected to genetic based natural instincts and the innate animal behaviors that define each animal as a member of a species. Since humans also have an inner self, we also have collective human propensities that define us as species; human nature. But the ego tends to lead making this less then fully conscious unless taught.

The ego or secondary center, which is common only to humans, is much newer than the inner self, in terms of evolution; less then 10,000 years old. The bible uses the number of 6000 years for a certain stage of ego development.

The ego center, which is a spinoff; satellite, from the inner self, is born empty and is conditioned by culture and the inner self; cultural animal. The ego lacks the depth of genes associated with the inner self of humans and/or animals. The inner self is unconscious in most humans, which is why we lost our natural instinct in favor of human based knowledge of good and evil. The story of Adam and Eve is about the rise of the human secondary or ego. This secondary led to the rise of civilization, which is not part of nature, but a human ego construct that often destroys natural eco-systems.

The semi-exceptions, to the one or two conscious center rule, within the animal kingdom, are domesticated animals. Dogs, for example, can form a virtual secondary center, which can be conditioned by humans. This allows dogs to learn and even follow human needs and protocol, even to the point of overriding their own instincts. Wolves do not have this virtual secondary, but only the primary or inner selves of canines. Their inner self keeps them integrated with nature. The shepherd dog often takes its virtual secondary to the limit of becoming a willful ego based on choice. This is why there are at the top of the dog world in intelligence; border collie. At one point humans had a virtual secondary that would learn from natural experience; paradise.

If this distinction is new to you, there is a home experiment one can do to experience the repressed human inner self. What you do is have a friend agree to scare you when you are not prepared. He/she can take their time to make it the most effective.

For example, they might catch you off guard by jumping out from behind a closed door. Under most conditions, one would instinctively jump and maybe even scream as adrenaline is pumped. This lightning fast reaction by the inner self, can embarrass the ego, since it would prefer save face and not act like a little girl. The inner self reacts naturally to the stimulus, with the ego often upset it cannot control the outcome to save face. The animal will react the same way, via their inner self, but without any mixed feelings. They are being directed by an integrated reaction from their inner self; fight or flight.

The classic biology DNA distinction is too outdated to be effective, since it does take into account our modern insight into the operating systems of human and animal brains. It does not even discuss the ego and inner self. When God symbolically breathed life into Adam and made him a living soul, this is talking about the ego. The ego would have will and choice since it is detached from instinct. The inner self was already around, when the ego formed, helping to integrate paradise. With the rise of the ego, the natural human animal would become repressed, and unnatural behavior would appear.

What humans call self consciousness is connected to the two centers. If I observe myself spontaneously reacting to a stimulus I become aware of inner self reacting to certain things that I am not controlling; laugh. Just as two eyes allows us to see in 3-D, our two centers gives human consciousness a spatial quality. I think therefore I am.

You are pretending that conceptual ideas have a physical counterpart.
This is just abstract thought about human psychology which you then seem to present as being physical reality.

That, mixed in with a whole lot of unsupported bare assertions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God might have something to say about His creation but ignoring Him means that one is disregarding a very important source of information.

Again, you can say that but the fact is that there is nothing there to ignore...................
The very 'accusation' of you at my address, the I'm "ignoring" this god, is already invalid as it is a loaded proposition. It assumes that there is a god to ignore. You have yet to demonstrate this.

At this point, the accusation of me "ignoring god" in biology is about as helpful and valid as me accusing you of "ignoring undetectable graviton pixies" in your ideas about gravity.

It's pretty meaningless.....................

Leaving Him out of the equation is taking the same stance of an atheist because He claims to have created the world not magically but according to scientific process which is why scientists today can see science in creation.

Repeating the claims won't make them convincing.
Providing evidence for them, will.

The information stored in the genes remains time-invariant and guides the evolution of the embryo. Without this constant blueprint the development from a simple single cell towards a highly complex organism would be impossible.

What's your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Physically we have a lot in common except when it comes to things like belief in a God. And if God does exist?

Actually.. kind of wrong also.
The thing that underlines religious belief is superstition.
And pretty much all animals have tendencies to be superstitious. Even pigeons, as another infamous experiment demonstrated.

This tendency in being superstitious is pretty much rooted in cognition errors, like the false positive.
Like the famous example of hearing a noise in the bushes. Objectively, a noise in the bushes could be anything. The wind, a harmless bird, what-have-you. It could also be a dangerous predator sneaking up on you. The false positive would then be to immediately assume danger. This goes hand in hand with a few things.

- it assumes agency: the thing making the noise is an agent
- it assumes purpose: the hiding agent has intentions
- it has a narcistic / teleological undertone: the intention centers around me / us - it is out to get me / us

I can easily see how such properties would form the breeding ground for a slightly more intelligent species to develop things like religions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Some simply can't accept the facts of science superseding their belief.

This applies to climatology and epidemiology as well.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Actually.. kind of wrong also.
The thing that underlines religious belief is superstition.
And pretty much all animals have tendencies to be superstitious. Even pigeons, as another infamous experiment demonstrated.

This tendency in being superstitious is pretty much rooted in cognition errors, like the false positive.
Like the famous example of hearing a noise in the bushes. Objectively, a noise in the bushes could be anything. The wind, a harmless bird, what-have-you. It could also be a dangerous predator sneaking up on you. The false positive would then be to immediately assume danger. This goes hand in hand with a few things.

- it assumes agency: the thing making the noise is an agent
- it assumes purpose: the hiding agent has intentions
- it has a narcistic / teleological undertone: the intention centers around me / us - it is out to get me / us

I can easily see how such properties would form the breeding ground for a slightly more intelligent species to develop things like religions.

I was an atheist once until I discovered I was in error. The thing is I was open minded enough to admit it when I got it wrong. I didn’t keep insisting I was right without hearing the other side of the story because there are always two sides. And if we consider ourselves to be fair-minded then we need to examine both sides.

I have been an atheist and examined that but also examined in depth Baha’u’llah. How many condemn Baha’i as false having read not one book or even a word. Most people only look at their side of the story.

I have examined and been both an atheist and Baha’i so I’m at least being fair-minded. But to just take one side without examining the other side of the story is very unjust and unfair.