Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[PKFFW]

Response: You are incorrect in your definition of evolution, in fact it's evolution that states that at one stage there was nothing and out of nothing there was something. In fact it is the evolution theory begining with the big bang theory. That states there was cosmic dust in which the larger dust particles caused the smaller cosmic dust particles to be attracted to the larger aka gravity and these particles continued over billions/trillions of years to form into one mass and this mass kept spinning and heating up and getting more and more dense until an explosion occurred and formed the universe as we know it.
So evolution miraculously states that dust just appear from nothing, no reason at all. My question is where did the cosmic dust come from, and what caused it to create gravity where there was none ? You see this evolution in it's purest form sounds almost silly when you really really look at it. Evolution suggests that from nothing came this dust, however when you consider cause and effect logic would dictate that if you had nothing before then you would still have nothing.

Response: This is also incorrect, most religious believes who have the one God theory believe that God existed always, and that all things he created and thus logic would dictate at least according to the the science of cause and effect that you would have to have something to get something, so that would be more logical that something always existed rather then nothing being the cause of something because as I stated earlier if there was nothing you would still have nothing.This would not be logical at at all.

Actually the big bang theory states(and I paraphrase here) that all matter was created out of energy not that everything was created out of nothing. You are absolutely right to state that nothing can come from nothing. However, all matter is simply energy in a form expressed in space and time.

I can accept that God "always" existed because "always" is a term defined by time. Time simply did not exist before the "space time continuum" came into existence with(as current scientific thinking would have it) the big bang. However what about before the creation of space time?

For something to exist at all surely it must have a creation point? So how could something that wasn't created always exist?

Response: This example is simple observation, but provides no real observed proof for example the tall man could also have other traits which allow him to live longer, produce more offsping and also perhaps simply overcome the shorter smaller man by means of overpowering him. Sort of like how man killed off the whales, but thats not proof of any evolution especially since there are a lot more people then you may know. In fact the average person is not 6ft-1in as I am but I'm considered tall, and most are not that tall.And also in many cases the kings or emperors could have dictated the size of doors in which case if they were short they would have most likely order the doors to be short.

I did state it was an extremely simple example.

Your point about the tall man being able to overcome the short man is what evolution is all about. Humans were not created millenia ago exactly as they are now. Genetic traits passed on have ensured that we have changed to better adapt to our environment. My example(simple though it was) was only meant to illustrate this point and not absolutely prove the entire theory of evolution.

Your point about past kings dictating the size of all doors isn't even worth responding to really.

I'm sorry but example here is just not very convincing. However you can make a simple observation that would disprove evolution very easy. If man evolved from monkey why are there still monkeys.

Are you really serious with this? Do you honestly believe that example disproves the theory of evolution? This is like saying the theory of evolution is wrong because there is still "cosmic dust" in the universe. If anything evolved out of cosmic dust then there should not be any cosmic dust left right?

The theory(in short) is about life changing and adapting through mutations in the genes. The mutations that enhance survival are kept and those that don't get bred out. Quite obviously not all animals will have all the same genetic mutations at the same time. Further, not all those mutations will be passed on to all offspring just like not all children have exactly the same hair colour or skin tone as their parents.

So there are still monkeys because not all monkeys had the exact same mutations at the exact same time and passed those mutations on in the exact same way. So some monkeys evovled into humans and some didn't.

Further to that the theory doesn't actually state that humans evovled from monkeys. That is a conclusion drawn from the available evidence based on the theory. The conclusion may or may not be correct but to state the theory is wrong because a conclusion drawn from it may be wrong is not valid.

A few link here when doing a search about the evelutionary fossil record: Evolution Fossil Record
Human Evolution
Basically logic would dictate that if life evolved and there were these small changes which brought about larger changes to the point that a new species evolved / or created etc. Then the fossil record should have left some evidence of this behind, however after millions of supposed years of evolution there are no transitional forms which would link one species to another. In fact the fossil record continues to show that species co-existed along side of one another always in history as opposed to one after the other.Including many symbiotic relationships between species that rely on one another to survive. With symbiotic species you can't have one evolved then the other this could not happen as the one requires the other as with many of the coral reefs which require the consumption of algae by other species in order not to be overcome by the algae etc.

Not sure I understand your point here. How exactly are humans and monkey symbiotic? Or are you refering to other species?

And yes species have coincided along side each other. According to the theory, by the time life had developed to a state where fossilised remains would be possible there would already have been many many many many different speices of simple life due to the random nature of the genetic mutations.

Response: If that is truly the case then why is any of the Darwin theory taught at all since there is no confirming evidence whatsoever, hence the term evolution theory.And as I've pointed out the fossil record shows nothing, the evidence shows nothing.
You see it's a puzzle, lets talk about the fossil record. Lets say for example you have species A=50million years ago, Species B=100 million years ago, Species C=150 million years ago and Species E=200 million years ago, and so on. Over the years other findings are uncovered and lets say species C which was found and determined to be New C=100 million years, Now What? See the problem, you can't just take New C and put it at B, because your data for B=100 million years and you can't just move the whole fossil record around because it won't match the data for the time line.And what would you now do with old C=150 million years just throw it away and have this gap ? And new fossils are always coming up and pre-dating old findings and now the fossil record is just a mess and cannot be taken seriously at this point.

1: The theory of evolution is taught in science class because it is a scientific theory. As you have stated before science is about coming up with a theory, observing data regarding that theory and then drawing conclusions. Hence many theories are taught.
2: Your assertion there is no evidence for it simply isn't true.
3: Science is also about adjusting our theories and ideas when new evidence comes up. Science does not claim to know everything because it has been written in a book somewhere. So when new fossils are found that contradict current thinking they are studied and scientists attempt to see how they fit into the puzzle. Many times in the past new evidence has been found that has shown the current scientific theory on a subject to be completely wrong. In those cases the theory is scrapped and a new one is made up that better fits the evidence. That is the very nature of science. New fossil evidence of the sort you are talking about does not actually refute the theory of evolution. It only refutes some of the conclusions drawn from the then currently available evidence. With this new evidence some of those conslusions are thrown out. As I said above though, by the time fossils were even possible there would have been thousands of millions of "speicies" in existence.

Response:I agree partially with this, although there is verifiable evidence of God's existence many are not aware there even could be verifiable evidence of God's existence so they doubt because they are looking for tangible concrete evidence.

You have verifiable evidence of the existence of God? I'm sure there are many people around the world that would love to see it.

Or do you mean you have conclusions about the existence of God based on your beliefs?

As I've pointed out Why ? They believe on faith in evolution many do not even know the exact theory of evolution and only a partial understanding yet they believe it whole heartedly why ? They believe in evolution with no verifiable evidence of evolutions existence why not God ? which is more believable then the theory of evolution ? If someone told me that you could shred a dictionary into a million pieces and put into a box and shake it up over millions of years that it could form back into a dictionary. I would never believe that could happen in a Dectillion years. Somehow evolutionists have gotten people to believe if the universe simply had all the elements that it could be shaken up accidentally by random chance process to form into what we have today just because all the pieces were supposedly there; and added millions of years to the equation it suppose to sound believable. And scientifically this makes no sense either. You don't get a system of order from chaos, random is random without order, and order is order and begets orders.hence design.
I don't care how many millions of years you shake up it will never form a dictionary or anything else that makes any sense or has any order to it at all.

Comparing an inanimate object such as a torn up dictionary becoming a full dictionary again to the "cosmic soup" that supposedly created life isn't worth responding to.

As for whether or not life could be created from the cosmic soup by chance, of course it could have.
1: All the "ingredients" were there. Including the ability to mix with each other and join.
2: An infinite amount of time is available for the process to take place.
3: The probability of anything happening when ingredients 1 and 2 are present is absolute. That is to say, it will happen eventually if those circumstances remain the same. That is simple probabilities.

As for order and chaos.......these are relative terms, meaning they can only be truly defined by comparison. Yes it appears there is "order" in biology and life etc but that is only when you compare it to what you see as the chaos of the "cosmic soup".

But back to the subject of verifiable evidence of God's existence. I would say you have to treat it the same as the electron theory and build the case for God's existence. For example you can't see an electron and it's still just a theory and not fact. However everything we do electronically is based off the electron theory because we see the cause and effect that occurs when you apply various substances to a current of electricity to see the effect and then study the results. Even thought we cannot see an electron, however with the microscopes out now I'm not sure but it could be possible currently, but in any case all the effects that have measured are notable, however not necessarily verifiable proof. There are still theories that suggest that the electron could be a continuous wave as oppose to a single particle of negative energy surrounding the nucleus of an atom. There are other theories along side of the electron theory equally appealing, but never used as a standard.
Anyhow tangible concrete evidence may be available to some, however with most you have to build the case and research the subject like any other subject.

We may(or may not, I'm not sure so I'll take your word for it) be able to see an electron but we can can see and measure the effects of electrons and hence we can come up with a working theory that can be tested with verifiable data. As data is gathered and analysed that working theory can be changed or chucked out as needed.

How do you propose we collect verifiable data that we can check and study about the effect of God?

Response:What proof of evolution is there really ? I believe there is micro evolution where a species has an ability to adapt, but nothing that transforms one species into another. There is just no evidence of that at all.If there were then this would not longer be a theory, however currently it is still just a theory. And I'm sorry to say that as the evidence that has previously been claimed slowly gets disproved in fact there is a point for many that it must be discounted.In fact there is now have evidence that would indicate there is a chromosome contained within the DNA of all species that is specifically there to prevent one species from transforming into another. So this is a major Giant stumbling block for evolutionist today.It is essentially proof that evolution is an impossibility with this new findings.

Note sure where you got this bit about a chromosone in DNA to prevent a species transforming. Never heard of that.

On the one hand you claim that micro evolution is possible and on the other that evolution into a new species is not. Do you think the theory of evolution states that one day there were monkeys(for example) and the very next one monkey just magically turned into a human? If that is your understanding of the theory then I wont even try to discuss it further.

The entire theory is based on the premise that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. Over time being the operative words here.

I mean for example; The theory talks about after the earth formed etc. that this gelatinous gue formed. And as more elements came into contact with this gue it became a single strand of RNA (Ribonucleic acid) which is the building blocks of life and later into DNA which later slowly formed into the simple cell Amoeba and later into the complex organisms etc. This sounds so unrealistic that this could have occurred anywhere in the universe let alone on earth with no evidence at all. In fact this theory insists that no oxygen could be present in order for this to occur, however the science and study of the earth and the oldest rock formations indicate that oxygen was always present on the earth even during the formation of the oldest rock formations that exist on the earth so that would also sort of crush the RNA gue theory as well.
This theory has sooo many holes in it you can't even call it a theory it's a faith based believe with no evidence at all to support it.No different then belief in the tooth fairy.It's just more complicated I'm sorry to say. And quite embarrassed as I myself was a believer in evolution.

To be honest here I'm not completely clued up on whether there was oxygen on Earth when rocks formed or not so can't comment. Not sure why RNA could not become DNA if there was oxygen present either.

Response:I do have some agreement here on this, however as I've stated in my other responses that building the case for individual verification is possible.
A good example is Love: Lets say your mother loves you, or perhaps your father, or wife etc. How do you know ? How can you tell if they love you or not ? You can touch it, you can't really see it, however there is a seeing that is not explainable, and their actions also would indicate, but is this verifiable. Yes but perhaps only to you. However, you could not now attempt to express or proof to someone else that your mother ,father or wife love you. But you have experienced enough relationship with them and gotten to know them in a way that you do know they love you. In fact even if sometimes their actions may not indicate this or perhaps seem contrary.
So is the existence of God verifiable ? Yes ? but that would be verified by you ? And can only be verified by you and not by me.If God exists surely he would reveal himself to you if you wanted to know him.I can surely verify for myself that my wife loves me, and can provide no verifiable evidence to prove this to anyone else, although the evidence does exist. And I can discuss this subject with other who also have a wife or family that love them and surely we can congregate and discuss without any of us ever having to prove to them that this love is real in a tangible or concrete method. But it is real ? How can this be real if you can't see it or touch it ? Who cares ? It just is ? And the evidence is verifiable. But how then is it verifiable without concrete proof ? The answer is that it's all about building the case. And there is lots of ways of looking at things, but to say that trying to prove there is a God or lack of will fail I don't agree with that. Because there is so much evidence of creation it's a matter of looking around and some research.
Lots more to discuss on this, but I think I've answered adequately.

Actually no, what you have here is consensus and not verifiable evidence of the existence of love. You have agreed upon a definition of love by discussion with those others who have wives and families. You have then agreed on what could be considered verifiable evidence of the effect of what you have agreed to be love. This works only because you have all agreed on what love is and what vefifiable evidence is.

Have you never heard of a women who gets repeatedly beaten by her husband. He claims he loves her so much that she makes him crazy and so he beats her. She then stays with him and tells all her friends that he really does love her she just has to learn not to provoke him.

In this example they both agree on what love is and they both agree on the effect that love has. Would you agree this is verifiable evidence of the existence of love? I would guess not because I would guess your definition of love and what constitutes verifiable evidence of love would be vastly different to the two in the example. See the problem?

Claiming there is verifiable evidence of god is exactly the same. It depends entirely on your definition of God(which I garauntee your not everyone will ever agree on) and your definition of verfifiable evidence(which is more likely to be agreed upon but is only half the equation)

Btw, I wont reply further simply because I agree with other posters that this is not really the right place for it. Apologies to all for the thread hijack.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Trader333]

COFTON: I love debate but religion is a farce, it is contradictive, it has killed more people than any holocaust has or ever will

This is not correct. More people were killed under Nazism and both Soviet and Chinese communism than all religious wars put together and these were not religions. It is not religion that causes this, it is the seeking of power and dominance under the banner of idealism whether religious or not that has resulted in so much killing.

With regard to those who believe in God and think that God and trading are mutually compatible, in my view they are about as far apart as is possible. Any activity that profits someone by making someone else worse off is contrary to almost every religious concept possible and counter to the creative concept for those who understand it.


Paul

 

[cofton]

I challenge every point you've made here.
Although I don't agree with cu20052003 either, regarding the sort of belittling of Women in general, but I do challenge your points.

Although, I do agree this may not be the place for this the subject seems to be gaining momentum.

Why do you consider religion to be a farce ? I'll take that challenge and ask how can you prove this ?
And, as far as the Bible goes I don't know which flaws you speak of but I challenge that as well.

It all depends on the religion, and many will say theirs is the truth and how can you tell with so many religions out there. Well just like any other thing you have to research and investigate.
The truth is out there
Although many can believe in blind faith, I challenge anyone to use the half brain cell they may have and consider the facts.
First you have to deal with evolution and the theory which has no proof or evidence whatsoever, but still teaches much of the topics which have now been disproved scientifically by DNA testing.Especially the supposed transitional forms that were claimed to have been found which have now been disproved.
That does not prove there is a God, however it does disprove evolution.
And then typically in science you have a theory,observation, then a conclusion. Why is the Darwin Conclusion not taught. Darwin toward the end of his life concluded that although he believes the process of evolution occurred this way he also admitted that it was impossible to have occurred by random chance but occurred by design. He himself later became a Christian.
Funny the founder of Evolution became a Christian and excepted Jesus in his life and that story is not taught at all.
Anyhow usually the whole doubt of a God stems from the believe in evolution typically, but no always.
And what about evolution anyhow, If there is no proof, and much evidence that is now disproved, why do they still teach it in schools along with the disproved portions ?

Oh well, nice debate starting here.
Happy trading to all.
Back to my charts.

Not so sure Darwin did become a Christian
The question of whether Charles Darwin accepted Christianity and rejected evolution is an emotional and intense one. To many Christians, Darwin is a villain who articulated a godless creation. To others, he is a brilliant hero who led the way to an enlightened view of where we came from. There are researchers and authors who have worked hard to prove and disprove any notion that he converted to Christianity and the conclusion is that when all is said and done, there is not enough good evidence that the story is true. We stop short of declaring it fiction, but regard it as not sufficiently proven. The report about Darwin's change of heart comes from one person, Lady Hope, an energetic Nineteenth Century Christian, while many members of Darwin's family denied it and there is nothing from Darwin's friends, colleagues, his own statements or writings to substantiate it. If Darwin did experience something so dramatic as a conversion to Jesus Christ and a complete revision of the theory of evolution that characterized his life and work, there isn't a shred of evidence of it outside of the claims of Lady Hope.

Cofton

 

[JTrader]

This is not correct. More people were killed under Nazism and both Soviet and Chinese communism than all religious wars put together and these were not religions. It is not religion that causes this, it is the seeking of power and dominance under the banner of idealism whether religious or not that has resulted in so much killing.

With regard to those who believe in God and think that God and trading are mutually compatible, in my view they are about as far apart as is possible. Any activity that profits someone by making someone else worse off is contrary to almost every religious concept possible and counter to the creative concept for those who understand it.


Paul

Correct. Something like 150 million people have died in th last century due to the role of government, through wars, genocides etc.
To put that figure intro perspective, thats 1500 football stadiums with a capacity of 100,000.
Some of this has come about with supposed religious beliefs being involved, but more than that, it is due to politics, as no religion as far as i am aware, promotes war.

 

[JTrader]

Just One very important point to note ............. GOD judge you and not you, yourself!!

So, even Beauty is not truly in the eyes of the beholder!

Well, it will be the Lord of the Light who truly judge the common Souls. Therefore, it is definitely not in the eye of the beholder!

That is just a feeling of success whicch to be honest is just job satisfaction .......... that's all!

It is not even about professionalism but just a feeling of ............. success? Feeling?
It is just a feeling ............ non tangible .........

S K

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi there

Be the One for GOD, so that I may appoint a deliverer for thy SOUL!

HariHaraBramKalki(S K)

360.yahoo.com/cu20052003

Interesting views.

I notice you're a T2W vendor.

What u flogging? I'm sure it will go down well.

 

[new_trader]

My 2 cents

The main problem with people who argue against the theory of evolution is that they don't realise nature gets it wrong many, many more times than it gets it right. They assume that we (modern humans) are the culmination of evolution, when we are not. We may, and more than likely will become extinct within the next 1000 years and a better species will replace us, and "better" is difficult to define. Intelligence isn't a guarantee that a species will survive nor is it the pinnacle of development, it is just a trait. Some scientists would argue that a ‘dumb’ species is more likely to survive longer because there is less chance of self extinction through weapons of mass destruction and environmental damage/alteration. There are species on earth today that have been around since the dinosaurs which is pretty good considering humans only go back about 2 million years and that around 99.9% of all species that have existed are now extinct.

I suppose science and religion eventually converge at the big bang because scientists can adequately explain what happened from about 0.00000000000000000000001 sec after it but not what happened before it.

 

[JTrader]

what was there b4 the big bang?
surely there must have been something?

 

[PKFFW]

what was there b4 the big bang?
surely there must have been something?

Hawkings' A Brief History of Time deals with this to some extent. Very interesting read. I did not understand all of it so will not even try to condense it down to a BB post.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[JTrader]

Hawkings' A Brief History of Time deals with this to some extent. Very interesting read. I did not understand all of it so will not even try to condense it down to a BB post.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Hmm.

Basically it woh very dark, n the woh lots o dust n bits oh stuff all jumbled up in a nothingness void of nothing. yeah :?::idea:

 

[BSD]

Religion and guns, guns and religion...

religion and intolerance, intolerance and religion...

religion and hatred, hatred and religion...

religion and death penalty, death penalty and religion...

cruelty to animals and religion, religion and cruelty to animals...

All of those Siamese Twins go hand in hand as the eventual carnage and bloodshed that is never far behind when fundamentalist, brainwashed, unthinking religions of all denominations, no matter if it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Whateverism, rear their head.

Don't think there is any culprit greater than religion behind most of the worst suffering this planet has witnessed.

 

[trendie]

what started as a religico-rant has turned into quite an interesting and informative thread. (usually its the other way round)

anyway.....

just because Darwin may, or may not, have turned to religion on his deathbed doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. in the same way that Galileo having to renounce the sun-centred view of the universe, on pain of death, (before we recognised that other galaxies existed) didnt make the earth jump from an orbit back into being the centre of the known universe.

truth exists independently of faith and truth has an intrinsic value of its own, irrespective of belief.
EDIT2: experiment: drop a Christian, Jew, Hindu and Muslim from the Eiffel Tower. Irrespective of faith, they will all hit the ground at the same time. Try it. :cheesy:

re: RNA/DNA and oxygen. the basic bulding blocks of life may have formed in space, and not necessarily on earth; the panspermia theory of life, where earth is seeded by complex proteins from dirty comets. (Fred Hoyle?)

the one major characteristic between faith and scientific inquiry is the willingness to be proved wrong. the times when scientists were very arrogant (the "Laws" of Motion, the "Laws" of planetary motion, etc), hopefully have been replaced with "Theory of...", even if the theory is a pretty good explanation of the natural world.
science has/should have an in-built means of proving its value, through experimentation.

faith requires an unquestioning acceptance of ideas that are not open to discussion.

evolution CAN be proved wrong through thought, analysis and evidence.
faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, even in the face of evidence.

PS: my understanding of evolution is that it is "random" mutations that occur and prove themselves to be useful will continue through to further generations.
the idea that doorways were shorter and are now taller isnt proof of evolution, anymore than future doorways have to be wider to accomodate fatter people is evolution.
however, genetic immunity to HIV may result in more HIV-immune progeny may be thought of as evolution. (random benefit filtering into the population.)

"design" implies an idea that there is a logical progression of genetic or species development, whereas evolution is just a random process.
EDIT: some people cant past the idea that there is no great design, no real order. life is just random. sorry.

 

[KillPhil08]

Random piece of rumour/knowledge I heard:

The pope admits that the big bang (theory) is real. Although he argues against what made the big bang?

 

[yacarob1]

Don't think there is any culprit greater than religion behind most of the worst suffering this planet has witnessed.

Yes, and doesn't that mass murderer called Bush who temporarily resides in the White House profess to be some sort of Born Again Christian ?

Born again c**t more like.

 

[Trader333]

religion and intolerance, intolerance and religion...

You could just as easily replace the word "religion" with the word "belief" as all the above apply just as much to non religious concepts.


Paul

 

[yacarob1]

I see you have just passed 5,000 posts Paul.

Did Sharky give you a gold Rolex for that ?

 

[BSD]

I see you have just passed 5,000 posts Paul.

Did Sharky give you a gold Rolex for that ?

Nice.

This the one you get ?

Yummy.

 

[cofton]

Excellent post trendie !

Totally unbiased and a very intelligent post, I particularly like the :

'faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, even in the face of evidence.'

I have witnessed this so many times, as soon as you ask a deeply religious person a difficult question to which they cannot answer you get the 'God is testing us' syndrome or something like that.

The Evolution theory is fascinating and for me it offers a totally sensible explanation whereas most of the religion ideas are too far fetched and Star Trek seems more feasible.

Much of Evolution is proven or at least debatable yet things like Noah's Ark, the parting of the seas and numerous other biblical stories are neither proven, believable or could ever be debated in a sensible fashion. For example, if God is such a wonderful and good entity then why would he/she/it kill every living soul except for the animals that went two by two into the ark ? Surely a better solution would have been to prevent the flood in the first place and save all the nice people and lovely animals ?

Going back to re-read Trendies post again, it is that good !

Be happy

Cofton

what started as a religico-rant has turned into quite an interesting and informative thread. (usually its the other way round)

anyway.....

just because Darwin may, or may not, have turned to religion on his deathbed doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. in the same way that Galileo having to renounce the sun-centred view of the universe, on pain of death, (before we recognised that other galaxies existed) didnt make the earth jump from an orbit back into being the centre of the known universe.

truth exists independently of faith and truth has an intrinsic value of its own, irrespective of belief.
EDIT2: experiment: drop a Christian, Jew, Hindu and Muslim from the Eiffel Tower. Irrespective of faith, they will all hit the ground at the same time. Try it. :cheesy:

re: RNA/DNA and oxygen. the basic bulding blocks of life may have formed in space, and not necessarily on earth; the panspermia theory of life, where earth is seeded by complex proteins from dirty comets. (Fred Hoyle?)

the one major characteristic between faith and scientific inquiry is the willingness to be proved wrong. the times when scientists were very arrogant (the "Laws" of Motion, the "Laws" of planetary motion, etc), hopefully have been replaced with "Theory of...", even if the theory is a pretty good explanation of the natural world.
science has/should have an in-built means of proving its value, through experimentation.

faith requires an unquestioning acceptance of ideas that are not open to discussion.

evolution CAN be proved wrong through thought, analysis and evidence.
faith will NOT ALLOW itself to be proven wrong, even in the face of evidence.

PS: my understanding of evolution is that it is "random" mutations that occur and prove themselves to be useful will continue through to further generations.
the idea that doorways were shorter and are now taller isnt proof of evolution, anymore than future doorways have to be wider to accomodate fatter people is evolution.
however, genetic immunity to HIV may result in more HIV-immune progeny may be thought of as evolution. (random benefit filtering into the population.)

"design" implies an idea that there is a logical progression of genetic or species development, whereas evolution is just a random process.
EDIT: some people cant past the idea that there is no great design, no real order. life is just random. sorry.

 

[cofton]

Read your post AgentZ86 and although very interesting and well written it did not prove or disprove anything and didn't enlighten me one way or the other.

The evolution thing is not just about where it all started, i.e. the big bang. It is more about (as the word suggests) how things evolve. As far as I am concerned dinasaurs, , fish out of water to monkey to human being and all that just makes sense and is believable and much of it (i.e.fossils) have been proven or close to it.

Your 'love' analogy (i.e you can't see it but it exists) is a bit absurd. If you love your wife, husband or whoever at least you can see who you love. That person is visible, physical and everyone can see and hear and touch that person. The love part is just an emotion and we all have emotions and know how we feel with such emotions.

So to compare the feeling of love and the fact that you cannot see it to proving that there is a God is ridiculous. Sorry but it's just farcical to use such an analogy.

It is impossible to prove the existence of God. No one can prove or disprove it and it will be like this forever I would imagine. The theory of evolution shows far more promise and as such is the safer bet or maybe far more believable.

In trading terms I would make this analogy :

The Theory of Evolution is probably the equivalent of winning 20 pips per day
The theory of God is probably the equivalent of winning 500 pips per day

Yes both are indeed possible but I would stick with 20 pips per day, it is achievable, realistic and believable.

More importantly it is logical for my brain and as a trader I will always go with the best odds to achieve my goal .

Of course my goal may well be different to yours and we both have the right to go where our hearts and brains tell us.

Be lucky

Cofton

Hmm, I'll try to start someplace with all this.
1. You stated

Answer: Yes I've also pointed this out in my previous post, however what it does do is prove that it's time to start looking elsewhere for the answer and not to the now disproved evidence that is still being taught.
2.You stated

Response: You are incorrect in your definition of evolution, in fact it's evolution that states that at one stage there was nothing and out of nothing there was something. In fact it is the evolution theory begining with the big bang theory. That states there was cosmic dust in which the larger dust particles caused the smaller cosmic dust particles to be attracted to the larger aka gravity and these particles continued over billions/trillions of years to form into one mass and this mass kept spinning and heating up and getting more and more dense until an explosion occurred and formed the universe as we know it.
So evolution miraculously states that dust just appear from nothing, no reason at all. My question is where did the cosmic dust come from, and what caused it to create gravity where there was none ? You see this evolution in it's purest form sounds almost silly when you really really look at it. Evolution suggests that from nothing came this dust, however when you consider cause and effect logic would dictate that if you had nothing before then you would still have nothing.
2a You stated:

Response: This is also incorrect, most religious believes who have the one God theory believe that God existed always, and that all things he created and thus logic would dictate at least according to the the science of cause and effect that you would have to have something to get something, so that would be more logical that something always existed rather then nothing being the cause of something because as I stated earlier if there was nothing you would still have nothing.This would not be logical at at all.
3 You stated:

Response: This example is simple observation, but provides no real observed proof for example the tall man could also have other traits which allow him to live longer, produce more offsping and also perhaps simply overcome the shorter smaller man by means of overpowering him. Sort of like how man killed off the whales, but thats not proof of any evolution especially since there are a lot more people then you may know. In fact the average person is not 6ft-1in as I am but I'm considered tall, and most are not that tall.And also in many cases the kings or emperors could have dictated the size of doors in which case if they were short they would have most likely order the doors to be short.
I'm sorry but example here is just not very convincing. However you can make a simple observation that would disprove evolution very easy. If man evolved from monkey why are there still monkeys. A few link here when doing a search about the evelutionary fossil record: Evolution Fossil Record
Human Evolution
Basically logic would dictate that if life evolved and there were these small changes which brought about larger changes to the point that a new species evolved / or created etc. Then the fossil record should have left some evidence of this behind, however after millions of supposed years of evolution there are no transitional forms which would link one species to another. In fact the fossil record continues to show that species co-existed along side of one another always in history as opposed to one after the other.Including many symbiotic relationships between species that rely on one another to survive. With symbiotic species you can't have one evolved then the other this could not happen as the one requires the other as with many of the coral reefs which require the consumption of algae by other species in order not to be overcome by the algae etc.
4. You stated:

Response: If that is truly the case then why is any of the Darwin theory taught at all since there is no confirming evidence whatsoever, hence the term evolution theory.And as I've pointed out the fossil record shows nothing, the evidence shows nothing.
You see it's a puzzle, lets talk about the fossil record. Lets say for example you have species A=50million years ago, Species B=100 million years ago, Species C=150 million years ago and Species E=200 million years ago, and so on. Over the years other findings are uncovered and lets say species C which was found and determined to be New C=100 million years, Now What? See the problem, you can't just take New C and put it at B, because your data for B=100 million years and you can't just move the whole fossil record around because it won't match the data for the time line.And what would you now do with old C=150 million years just throw it away and have this gap ? And new fossils are always coming up and pre-dating old findings and now the fossil record is just a mess and cannot be taken seriously at this point.
5.You stated:

Response: I agree and I think that is my point exactly.
6.You stated:

Response:I agree partially with this, although there is verifiable evidence of God's existence many are not aware there even could be verifiable evidence of God's existence so they doubt because they are looking for tangible concrete evidence. As I've pointed out Why ? They believe on faith in evolution many do not even know the exact theory of evolution and only a partial understanding yet they believe it whole heartedly why ? They believe in evolution with no verifiable evidence of evolutions existence why not God ? which is more believable then the theory of evolution ? If someone told me that you could shred a dictionary into a million pieces and put into a box and shake it up over millions of years that it could form back into a dictionary. I would never believe that could happen in a Dectillion years. Somehow evolutionists have gotten people to believe if the universe simply had all the elements that it could be shaken up accidentally by random chance process to form into what we have today just because all the pieces were supposedly there; and added millions of years to the equation it suppose to sound believable. And scientifically this makes no sense either. You don't get a system of order from chaos, random is random without order, and order is order and begets orders.hence design.
I don't care how many millions of years you shake up it will never form a dictionary or anything else that makes any sense or has any order to it at all.
But back to the subject of verifiable evidence of God's existence. I would say you have to treat it the same as the electron theory and build the case for God's existence. For example you can't see an electron and it's still just a theory and not fact. However everything we do electronically is based off the electron theory because we see the cause and effect that occurs when you apply various substances to a current of electricity to see the effect and then study the results. Even thought we cannot see an electron, however with the microscopes out now I'm not sure but it could be possible currently, but in any case all the effects that have measured are notable, however not necessarily verifiable proof. There are still theories that suggest that the electron could be a continuous wave as oppose to a single particle of negative energy surrounding the nucleus of an atom. There are other theories along side of the electron theory equally appealing, but never used as a standard.
Anyhow tangible concrete evidence may be available to some, however with most you have to build the case and research the subject like any other subject.
7.You stated:

Response:What proof of evolution is there really ? I believe there is micro evolution where a species has an ability to adapt, but nothing that transforms one species into another. There is just no evidence of that at all.If there were then this would not longer be a theory, however currently it is still just a theory. And I'm sorry to say that as the evidence that has previously been claimed slowly gets disproved in fact there is a point for many that it must be discounted.In fact there is now have evidence that would indicate there is a chromosome contained within the DNA of all species that is specifically there to prevent one species from transforming into another. So this is a major Giant stumbling block for evolutionist today.It is essentially proof that evolution is an impossibility with this new findings.
I mean for example; The theory talks about after the earth formed etc. that this gelatinous gue formed. And as more elements came into contact with this gue it became a single strand of RNA (Ribonucleic acid) which is the building blocks of life and later into DNA which later slowly formed into the simple cell Amoeba and later into the complex organisms etc. This sounds so unrealistic that this could have occurred anywhere in the universe let alone on earth with no evidence at all. In fact this theory insists that no oxygen could be present in order for this to occur, however the science and study of the earth and the oldest rock formations indicate that oxygen was always present on the earth even during the formation of the oldest rock formations that exist on the earth so that would also sort of crush the RNA gue theory as well.
This theory has sooo many holes in it you can't even call it a theory it's a faith based believe with no evidence at all to support it.No different then belief in the tooth fairy.It's just more complicated I'm sorry to say. And quite embarrassed as I myself was a believer in evolution.
8. You stated:

Response: I agree.
9.You stated:

Response:I do have some agreement here on this, however as I've stated in my other responses that building the case for individual verification is possible.
A good example is Love: Lets say your mother loves you, or perhaps your father, or wife etc. How do you know ? How can you tell if they love you or not ? You can touch it, you can't really see it, however there is a seeing that is not explainable, and their actions also would indicate, but is this verifiable. Yes but perhaps only to you. However, you could not now attempt to express or proof to someone else that your mother ,father or wife love you. But you have experienced enough relationship with them and gotten to know them in a way that you do know they love you. In fact even if sometimes their actions may not indicate this or perhaps seem contrary.
So is the existence of God verifiable ? Yes ? but that would be verified by you ? And can only be verified by you and not by me.If God exists surely he would reveal himself to you if you wanted to know him.I can surely verify for myself that my wife loves me, and can provide no verifiable evidence to prove this to anyone else, although the evidence does exist. And I can discuss this subject with other who also have a wife or family that love them and surely we can congregate and discuss without any of us ever having to prove to them that this love is real in a tangible or concrete method. But it is real ? How can this be real if you can't see it or touch it ? Who cares ? It just is ? And the evidence is verifiable. But how then is it verifiable without concrete proof ? The answer is that it's all about building the case. And there is lots of ways of looking at things, but to say that trying to prove there is a God or lack of will fail I don't agree with that. Because there is so much evidence of creation it's a matter of looking around and some research.
Lots more to discuss on this, but I think I've answered adequately.

Sorry for the long winded response, but it's a long winded subject for sure.
I hope I've answered adequately and without offense
Best of everything and Happy trading.

 

[temptrader]

The main problem with people who argue against the theory of evolution is that they don't realise nature gets it wrong many, many more times than it gets it right. They assume that we (modern humans) are the culmination of evolution, when we are not. We may, and more than likely will become extinct within the next 1000 years and a better species will replace us, and "better" is difficult to define. Intelligence isn't a guarantee that a species will survive nor is it the pinnacle of development, it is just a trait. Some scientists would argue that a ‘dumb’ species is more likely to survive longer because there is less chance of self extinction through weapons of mass destruction and environmental damage/alteration. There are species on earth today that have been around since the dinosaurs which is pretty good considering humans only go back about 2 million years and that around 99.9% of all species that have existed are now extinct.

I suppose science and religion eventually converge at the big bang because scientists can adequately explain what happened from about 0.00000000000000000000001 sec after it but not what happened before it.

hmmmmmmm . . . . . not quite right. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical construct that has so far be experimentally successful, even though there are some anomalies to sort out.

Science and religion CANNOT stick together for the following reasons:

1) Science is about experiments and falsifiability. Religion is about faith and "feelings".
2) Science works in a framework, or resorts to a frame of reference, devoid of emotional hindrance/personal superstition/cultural bias etc . . . (i.e. cold hard logic). Religion does not, nothing in any religious texts will ever withstand close scrupulous logical analysis. We would only end up in circular arguments with people shouting their heads off
3) Science does not give any "solace" to anything. Never has, never will. It cannot tell you how to live your life, or what morals to hold, or how one should behave to others - they are different issues entirely. However, you can deduce certain things from science, like if you smoke a lot for a long time there are is very high chance you'll get lung cancer, and whether that puts you off smoking is entirely up to you

Evolution, to what we know of it, is now beyond all doubt. If you want to understand new_trader's point, it's that evolution meliorizes through the generations. The animal that evolves is not necessarily the best possible, it has to take into account of historical progress that has occurred to where it got now. Getting it wrong is a necessary fact of evolution, but this "getting it wrong" is always in the context of the present situation/condition/environment.

Darwin was never an atheist. He ended his life an agnostic. Being an atheist is a very strong position indeed.

There are many religious groups/organisations who try to turn the Darwinian Theory to see it their way, like Creationism. Unfortunately for them, none of what they spout make any logically consistent sense in the framework of the theory, and some have the downright audacity of invoking unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts/entities into the mixed to fiddle the figures so the results come out right. All this may be well and good for these Creationists, but it helps no one because science cannot deal with unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts - because that's not how science works.

For example: if I claimed that the number zeta(5) was irrational (look Riemann Zeta Function if you're curious), and my proof depended on that fact that "God" told me that such and such a step in the proof was valid and that was my only reason, of what use is that to anybody? If I publish I would be laughed at and ridiculed over the step because it depended on "God" telling me. And yet that is what these Creationists have done to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and that is why they are are small minority who will always be ridiculed by the scientific community, even though they have a huge following in the general population.

 

[cofton]

Well put temptrader, utterly fascinating !

I have studied a little on quantum physics and law of attraction etc etc and it certainly has a place in our world and needs to be continually investigated.

I particularly liked:
1) Science is about experiments and falsifiability. Religion is about faith and "feelings".
Absolutely spot on !

So many good posts on this subject, I didn't realise that so many traders would not only have an interest in this subject but demonstrate such a profound knowledge on it.

I have posted previously that 'Trading is Boring, let's keep it that way' but never let it be said that Traders are boring ! This thread certainly proves we are a pretty cool bunch whatever your beliefs.

Cofton

hmmmmmmm . . . . . not quite right. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical construct that has so far be experimentally successful, even though there are some anomalies to sort out.

Science and religion CANNOT stick together for the following reasons:

1) Science is about experiments and falsifiability. Religion is about faith and "feelings".
2) Science works in a framework, or resorts to a frame of reference, devoid of emotional hindrance/personal superstition/cultural bias etc . . . (i.e. cold hard logic). Religion does not, nothing in any religious texts will ever withstand close scrupulous logical analysis. We would only end up in circular arguments with people shouting their heads off
3) Science does not give any "solace" to anything. Never has, never will. It cannot tell you how to live your life, or what morals to hold, or how one should behave to others - they are different issues entirely. However, you can deduce certain things from science, like if you smoke a lot for a long time there are is very high chance you'll get lung cancer, and whether that puts you off smoking is entirely up to you

Evolution, to what we know of it, is now beyond all doubt. If you want to understand new_trader's point, it's that evolution meliorizes through the generations. The animal that evolves is not necessarily the best possible, it has to take into account of historical progress that has occurred to where it got now. Getting it wrong is a necessary fact of evolution, but this "getting it wrong" is always in the context of the present situation/condition/environment.

Darwin was never an atheist. He ended his life an agnostic. Being an atheist is a very strong position indeed.

There are many religious groups/organisations who try to turn the Darwinian Theory to see it their way, like Creationism. Unfortunately for them, none of what they spout make any logically consistent sense in the framework of the theory, and some have the downright audacity of invoking unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts/entities into the mixed to fiddle the figures so the results come out right. All this may be well and good for these Creationists, but it helps no one because science cannot deal with unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts - because that's not how science works.

For example: if I claimed that the number zeta(5) was irrational (look Riemann Zeta Function if you're curious), and my proof depended on that fact that "God" told me that such and such a step in the proof was valid and that was my only reason, of what use is that to anybody? If I publish I would be laughed at and ridiculed over the step because it depended on "God" telling me. And yet that is what these Creationists have done to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and that is why they are are small minority who will always be ridiculed by the scientific community, even though they have a huge following in the general population.