E G
  • E G
  • Bacau
  • Romania

This conversation is closed.

The evolution theory & religion

In many people views this two are very opposite even irreconcilable and I agree with them , but what do you think ? Should we strive to find a relation of compatibility between this two ?
Do you think only one is corect and the other is certainly false or both have corect parts and false parts?
What is the relation between this two ? is there one?
Where are we going to in our evolution process ?

Closing Statement from E G

Thank you all for your participation to this conversation , have been said many things about the relations between the evolution theory and religion in this conversation , some of you think that there is no relation between them , some of you think like me that there are some relations and this two are compatible ,partially at least, but anyhow it is a thing is certain : you are in the middle of it , it's up to you.Perhaps we the humans will never reach at an agreement but whatever you think (this is important: to think) try to carve your way to truth .
I've saw also here on this conversation some 'special guys' who put themselves to extremes , one of them until I mentioned the name of a scientist I was talking for nothing (even though when I’ve done it I was saying and some stupid things ) , the others was neglecting completely the evolution theory but this are the usual extremes .
Don’t forget : It’s up to you , make it to be rational and true as much as possible ................good luck.

  • thumb
    May 28 2011: I believe there is no common ground on these two. The key thing behind evolution theory is that living things evolve (so since we are living animals, we have evolved over time). It conflicts with religions where religions state God created life (as long as everything else). In essence I would say one is science and the other is religion and there is no common ground between these two.
    We cannot say one is correct and the other is false. Science talks about "theory" not truths. Religions tells us (by means of messengers) what the truths are and we (believers) should accept these dogmas.
    Science states a theory and immediately starts working to enhance or refuse it. Religions try to state truths and if evidence shows those truths are not valid, then you are a "nonbeliever".
    Evolution theory does not try to answer some questions, religion does. Evolution theory tackles how and if things evolve (once they are here), it does not answer questions about how (as you point out), why we are here nor where or if we will be after death.
    I really see no relation between these two.
    Religions state dogmas and then build upon them (sometimes rationally).
    Science observes the world and tries to discover the inner workings by means of theories (in a rational way). When a male lion gets to the top of the herd, he might go out and try killing the baby lions that were sons of the preceding lion king. This is animal life trying to perpetuate it's genes. Religions would say those are inferior forms of life and God created humans as superior so we do not do that.

    I am curious why you would want to find common ground between evolution theory and religion?
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 29 2011: God created life and the living things evolve : I don't see no contradiction here (after creation they could evolve) , so what are the contradictions specifically in your opinion (you've just said that there is no common ground between this two ) ?
      Would you say that the science and religion have no common ground ? (so seemed to me , am I right?)
      The answer at your last question to me is depending on the answer you will give at the questions from above .........
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: The way you put it contradiction was even more evident:
        "God created life" not fact based, is based on two dogmas (God exists and God created life).
        Living things evolve: fact based on findings (see evidence of animals that were the same and were separated by nature and then evolve differently).

        The first contradiction is in taking for true something derived from scientific methods instead of taking it from granted because it is written in a holly book (dogmas).

        According to religion God created man as it is basically, no evolution.

        Ev. theory says man is the evolution of certain animals (monkey like), which in turn are known to be evolution of other animals, and so on until the vary basic components of uni-cells in primordial sea which in turn are now explained in some theories.

        The above two paragraphs are in contradiction. They cannot be both true. For Ev. theory and science recently, life appeared after forming by itself. For religion God simply created life and man.

        Yes I said science and religion have no common ground, except they talk about the same things (too few to be considered common ground). But the starting points are very different. Religion starts with dogmas (like God exists and created life, you believe in dogmas since there is no proof of it). Science tries to explain whatever can be seen/detected, or otherwise measured. Science is fact based, and an unanswered question is a point of further investigation.

        Religion tries to calm the anxiety that arises when some questions remain unanswered. Some are willing to find answers (even blatantly fake made ones) in order to get an answer. Other decide they will live OK even without answers to some of those questions.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 29 2011: So in your opinion the religion is dogma based and science is fact based and these two being so have no common ground except of talking about the same things ......... this is exatcly what is important for me : if both of them talk about the SAME things they must reach at the same conclusions ,it doesn't matter if something is dogma based or fact based , the same things = the same results but it still don't happen , why ?.................this is why I've opened this discussion: to see what guys like you think , to see if it is rationally (as much as I can see it of course) .
          "The same things" don't you think it is a too huge common ground?
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: regarding evolution theory and religion, they say opposite things.

        Ev. theory says man evolved from primates which in turn evolved from ...
        Religion says man was created, did not evolve from anything else.

        They are talking ABOUT the same things (how man got here) but are saying two different/incompatible things. So talking about the same things does not produce the same results, and this is not because of a lack of communication. The results do not intersect.

        So no common ground between evolution theory and religion.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 29 2011: When I was referring at the fact that the science and the religion talk about the same things I meant to say about the things how they are (the simple things) =like an ecuation in math (e.g. man , life , soul , earth .......) , and I think it's obvious that and the science and the religion talk about this things so this two have a common ground.
          What you say aren't things : "how man got here " it's a sentence which involve not only things like :'man' but involve also relations between them:'how' ' man got here' it is already something complex =things and relations between them, and perhaps , only perhaps using these kind of complexities the religion and science talk about different 'things' (I'm doubting of it) .................. but it's very sure for everyone I think : the most basic things are the same in religion and also in science=common ground.............it's not corect to analyze the complexities before of analyzing the simple things .
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2011: thank you michelangelo, though to be honest it looks you look at the people who interpreted both theories narrow, the big writers both say it's not black-white, I believe we interpret the massive information for our own convenience and understanding it into black-white (evolution-religion, science-faith), we take the black marbles and draft conclusions and take the white marbles and draft conclusions. By the time somebody has done both, his/her lifetime is over, and the greytones and the colors are lost in translation to the common world.

          evolution theories are by messiahs studied the body of men
          religious theories are by messiahs studied the mind of men
          indegious theories are by messiahs studied both mind and body of men

          all 3 have their encyclopedia of theories proclaiming 'truth', without proof of what happened in the 'beginning'.

          evolution messiah got organized in institutes, religious messiah also, though the indegious have been interrupted by the iron and industrial revolution.

          we are now realizing - while putting the industrial revolution in perspective - material prosperity does not make us complete. To become complete, running into churches and the old scriptures is only partly the answer; than Michelangelo Gambacorta is right; there is no common ground, the evolved/adapted world has no direct relation with the devine. if we will be able to look beyond the wrong/literal/stigmatizing interpretations we will learn again about true values, family importance, the 10 commandments how they should be seen. This is good for our tribes. At the same time we even have to look harder, deeper, higher as we live in a multiethnic society, so we really have to see the deeper meanings of evolution AND religion, not to start to clash with eachother AGAIN on misinterpretation grounds. There will be thought leaders who will use misinterpretations, to create 'us' and 'them' everywhere. We need to be able to go beyond that, so we need to look at where indegious has stoppe
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 2 2011: Ok, I don't know if I see your point Paul , as I understand you said that 'to become complete .........the religion is only partly the answer ' and because of that there is no common ground between religion and the evolved / adapt world , even if it so as you said I don't see why the religion have no common ground with science only because they are both partly answers, I mean it doesn't involve necessarily no common ground between this two , so why do you say it? (make an argument )...............you agreeed with me before that the truth is only one , only the fact that they both claim to say the truth (as much as is possible) make them complementary =common ground (and a lot of reason for it...............)but I wanna see your reasons , your arguments .
          You said "to become complete'' (complete = it's a state of consistency, a state of armony, do you argee with me on this? ) but at the same time you said that two parts of our existence have no common ground , how could we be complete then ? it's impossible (do you remember my mail's answers?)

          (by the way , I have no interpretation of the Bible and I'm not the follower of any christian church).
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Eduard, remain in context of what this conversation subthread is about; Michelangelo put forward a view that there is no common ground on the basis of wrong interpretations of the grounds. Evolution does not exclude religion and religion does not exclude evolution. It's an enlightenment view there are only black marbles and white marbles in the jar. Though before that time the common knowledge was there are more marbles describes by the great thinkers and storytellers in the past. So YES; there is common ground, though in the perspective Michelangelo puts there is none. He put's this way however on our weakness; we can only see black and white and this type of religious thinking / manifestations should disappear as they are old, not of this time. There has not been a war against nature, as we would loose ;) So evolution theory will not be contradicted, or even expanded, because most people do not see the need for it.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 2 2011: Paul , Michelangelo put foward the exclusivist view that there is NO (nothing) common ground between the evolution theory and religion................. I agree about the idea that we are inclined to see only in black and white , even though there is more a shade of black and white in everything but in my opinion we should consider and strive to consider what's black black and what's white white for our accuracy of mind and of thinking (only when it is possible of course),it isn't a weakness in my opinion, it's a striving which light/empower us and I think we should do it with the evolution theory and religion, this is this topic about.

          (I don't think Michelangelo put it this way on our 'weakness' : of course I suppose it).
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Yes, that there is NO common ground according to Michelangelo because he sees correctly we see black is black and white is white. But this is not reality, we miss out the grey and colored marbles in the jar.

          Of course we need to understand the two extremes, though still, they are in one jar with more colors and greyscales bridging black and white.

          So all points to for me; both have part of our story and both are looked at narrow minded, so we can't see the rest. So both are false in current world views.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 3 2011: Paul , you make a wrong judgement , what's black and what's white doesn't depend on our percieving , and whatever we perceive them they have both their intrinsic value : their false or wrong character doesn't depend on how we look them .
          Personally I don't see only in black and white .
        • thumb
          Jun 6 2011: Ofcourse you do not only see black and white because you see a common ground. It's as simple as chess or war what Michelangelo says : Two groups across eachother. This is the subthread on Michelangelo's point, not a judgement on your or my opinion.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 7 2011: "Two groups across eachother".............."So all points to for me; both have part of our story and both are looked at narrow minded, so we can't see the rest." I've just read what you said again ...........who is narrow-minded can't see the rest: I agree but we suppose that we aren't so for us this subthread isn't so interesting (perhaps I used the wrong word :'judgement' but I see that I didn't talk answering to your point so.......) .
          The main idea remains I think that that religion and science have a common ground.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: Yes, there is a common ground. It is 'one' together. matter + immatter. The black and white marbles are easy to describe, the highest contrast between what we can measure/see and what we can't, and so humanity did.

          My final thing on this is; we are a 'mobius loop' One half dipped in earth/nature/body. The other half dipped in the sky/aether/mind. And we function on running on the sides of the mobius loop, all the rhythms of the earth and skies go through there. It's a whole new book, partly already written by many indigenous in the world. We just need to collect this again and put it in context with the natural and cultural rhythms of this and future times.

          take care bro,

          Paul
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 7 2011: I won't comment any more , it's very enough what you said and summarize many things talked here..........................thank you very much .
  • thumb
    May 19 2011: The pope doesn't seem to feel that evolutionary theory conflicts with religion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

    But I do believe that religion conflicts with much of evolutionary theory.

    That is if you take most common conception of religion as the belief that holy books are an accurate description of reality.
    • thumb
      May 19 2011: Without picking sides; What if the books are an accurate description of reality in romantic form to make it readable, tellable to groups of people.

      Like the evolution DNA theory we all stem from the same man and woman seems to be true. Though the bible put it in a romantic fashion with Adam and Eve.
      • thumb
        May 20 2011: Long as they're put on the fiction shelf.
        • thumb
          May 21 2011: Hi Tim
          Is that where you keep the rest of your history books ?

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 21 2011: documentary drama shelf
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 20 2011: Hi Tim ,
      I'm not a catholic (in fact I'm not christian of any kind ) , why do you mean by reality ? (because also I do not believe that we can see the reality if it doesn't happen in the moment which we talk in about it )
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: Ah ... what is reality? You know how to ask tough questions Eduard.

        I would define reality, from a human perspective at least, as that which would be regarded as true by independent observers without recourse to their cultural/religious background. But I do believe in an underlying reality apart from human existence. However, how much we are able to intellectually comprehend it is questionable.

        How would you define reality?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 23 2011: The reality........ I don't try to define it , in my opinion the reality is only that underlying reality=which exist and will ever exist, would be a contradiction otherwise (what you talked about I think) , in my opinion what we usually know:'our reality' is something subjective, personalized by us , it is only parts, only shadows .
          "regarded as true by independent.............."do you think that the reality known by us is really true? or is only regarded as true ? what is the relation between the reality and this "true" ? I mean what's the link between something true (a kind of abstraction here) and reality? could the reality be untrue , false? ............ I would like to know your opinion.
        • May 25 2011: "what is reality?"

          reality is what happen.
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: Yes Eduard. What we perceive as reality is only an image in our mind of what the external world actually is. And our mind is faulty. It is capable of creating false images due to our blindspots, our biases, our individual past experience. Everything is open to question. So I guess that life is an endless quest for the truth ... and we never completely find it.
  • thumb
    May 9 2011: there is no middle ground between fact and fiction.
    religion is simply ignorance and fear of the truth.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 9 2011: interesting what you say................. how religion is ignorance and fear of the truth? and how evolution doesn't means ignorance ?
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: Science and religion are starving for the same thing.

    A need to reconcile the two reveals a need within whoever calls for it.
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2011: Eduard, besides the encrypted English and waterfalls of questions ; ) I must admit I enjoyed spending time on this conversation and it helped me explaining my thoughts a bit better. Thank you for that.

    As it is a conversation you have started and closes in about a day, I would be happy to read your final thoughts if you found answers for yourself on the commonground..

    Imagine yourself sitting at this big round table, knights of typing as we all are, you lift the glass of wine, there is a complete silence in the room, everybody looks at you, and you say concluding the conversation camp;
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jun 7 2011: :)
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jun 7 2011: Hi Paul , the encrypted English as you said was a problem (you know I didn't try to see the big picture all the time about your points , usually I was only pleased to comment some of your particular phrase and I see that you think that I didn't understand what you said all the time , perhaps you are right, perhaps not.......).................... in order to do what you poetically said in your last paragraph I should have the big picture in my mind , should I ?...............anyway thank you for your participation.
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2011: I think you followed me quite well, understood, just I tried to see last thread of Michaelangelo in his perspective that it is a very limited (black-white) view. Which is a point as most people see the world black white and that is a huge problem of this time.

        Some wise words could be ;) ? You are the orackle in this topic and so many have put their thoughts in.

        On the other hand, this Ted conversations is also modern way of 'bar talk' and 'tea house talk', everybody waking up next morning and doing something with was said before... or simple not. So no conclusion needed in this perspective.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 7 2011: "Some wise words could be ;) ?" I can't guarantee ;)(it would be very ironical if I say yes ;) ) .................... was good, thank you again for you perspectives shared with us.
  • thumb
    May 28 2011: Bravissimo Signore Paul Van Zoggel, bravissimo......, la vostra sapienza fa la guida qui. Il mio english is molto rovinato, ma possiamo parlare in lingua mista....adesso la mia convalescenza da un intervento chirurgico, e senza fare nulla di nulla, va presto.....ho il tempo e la curiosità, e lei mi sembra abastanza intelligente. Dio esiste. Questo dibatito tra la religione e la evoluzione e troppo vechio e adesso dimenticato per i filosofi e teologi....this question about evolucion and God is troppo old....¿Possiamo vedere something new, or still we have in the same carrousell, turning senza arrivare a nesun posto?
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 29 2011: would you like to talk in English ?
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2011: Signore Conte Di Salaparuta Mordeforte,

      My spanish/romanian (through my wife) is better :) Google Translate does miracles. Thank you for your kind words.


      Carousel, I agree; we are trapped in discussing (old) discussions.

      There is such a disconnect between talking about God and meaning and day to day life. When we start to see going shopping, (buying food, drinking wine) and divinity is completely related, only than we can move forward to something new I think. Untill than, it are just words because of the sake of words.

      I wish things like this were common knowledge and every community/culture can have it's own comfortable interpretations/methology/gods/messias of it all... to be used for the personal and common good..

      It'll come, I have hope.
  • thumb
    May 18 2011: evolution theory is fiction
  • thumb
    May 17 2011: Hi Eduard
    You ask a massive question. There are thousands of religious beliefs & quite a few evolution theories; Darwin, Neo Darwin, Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopefull Monster, Theistic, incl. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, excl. same etc. Most of us believe the truth is in there somewhere, but lots don't, & most don't care at all.
    If we go with the Abrahamic religions, we have a clear discontinuity between the bible & evolution, but even here some folks support both.
    Personally I believe the bible, & am astonished that the evolution idea is still around.

    2Th 2:10 .......because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

    :-)
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 17 2011: Do you think that the evolution theory is a 'strong delusion ' ? Why?( I mean, I accept also the bible but I'm trying to fit it with the scientific facts , theories as much as it is possible .)
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: Hi Eduard

        If we take the first chapter of Genesis at face value, we read that God created the universe in 6 days. Move on to Luke 3v12 onwards, and we read the genealogy of Jesus right back to Adam. If this is true then the time from Adam to Jesus can only be a few thousand years. There are other ways of reaching the same conclusion, but those will do for now.
        So from the plain reading of the bible there is no possibility of evolution. Some try & re-interpret these passages to mean something else, but if we accept that then how are we to understand any of the bible.
        So we take a look at the theory of evolution. The bible tells us that creatures are split into "kinds" eg
        Gen 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." There is a built in variability within kinds to allow them to adapt (natural selection); but they always stay within their "kind". That is what we should expect to see, and that is what we do see. We never see; in life, or in fossils; any sign of creatures changing. We are told that mutations driven by natural selection can modify the dna to produce new "kinds". Some say this is impossible :- http://www.cross.tv/53142 I agree with them.
        Google "evolution creation" or "intelligent design" & check it out for yourself. Stick with the science; that which can be tested; the opinions of scientists are at the end of the day just opinions.

        Yes I think evolution is the "strong delusion" spoken of in scripture.
        God Bless
        :-)
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 18 2011: I see your position and I understand it even though I'm disagreeing with you a bit on it (thousands of christians from around me believe it) .
          Thank you .
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: All scientific theories, including evolution, are never 100% certain and must ever remain falsifiable, due to the imposed rules that philosophers of science place on scientific theories.

        This means that evolution cannot be used as a stick to beat religion. There is zero conflict on closer examination of this issue. Any argument suggesting that the world was created as if it were already in motion (such as in simulation hypothesis) could just as easily make it a few minutes old as a few billion years. . .

        Quote: [There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago. -Bertrand Russell]

        That means the appearance of age in any scientifically analyzed material is never certain. If say, Richard Dawkins dismisses Intelligent Design because, "It merely appears designed," then it's only fair to say that by the same token a primate "merely" appears evolved, or the earth "merely" appears 4+ billion years old.

        Appearances can be deceiving. Therefore, we cannot place all our trust (faith) in scientific observation and appearance as the "end-all; be-all" of knowledge.
  • thumb
    May 16 2011: Eduard: [In many people views this two are very opposite even irreconcilable and I agree with them, but what do you think ?]

    Surprisingly, they in fact are reconcilable, because ToE is inductively-based and ultimately uncertain. "Religion" is merely what the finite beings do, and begs the question of whether there is an extant God.

    If God is uncertain (as in the case of fideism) then it's a shaky "faith" to begin with, if you'd even call it that. I define faith according to the more common and widely-used definition of "confident trust." Faith is, and should be, objective in nature and practice.

    The ToE is science-based, which is governed by a methodology based in philosophy (Popper's falsificationism). Science was never intended to be the answer for everything, because science itself is not grounded in any certainty. Thus, it is foolish to cling to science and ToE "as-if" it were a certainty that is irreconcilable with God.

    Eduard: [Should we strive to find a relation of compatibility between this two ?]

    Yes. If only to move the argument forward. It's stagnating right now and we're talking past one another. Terms on both sides must be honestly and consistently defined.

    Eduard: [Do you think only one is corect and the other is certainly false or both have corect parts and false parts?]

    See above. You cannot even behave "as-if" science were certain, since it is inductively-based.

    Eduard: [What is the relation between this two ? is there one?]

    Science is the experience of man's own findings exclusively through inductive logic. However, I do believe an omnipotent being can be proven through deductive logic (which is math-based).

    Eduard: [Where are we going to in our evolution process ?]

    To a system of transhumanism/eugenics that will make the Nazis look like Smurfs. Embracing the flesh machine amounts to collective existential suicide.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 16 2011: "Faith is, and should be, objective in nature and practice. " do you think that we can practice something objective?
      I think rather fideism separets this two the most because fideism is about making the reason and the faith to be 'foes' I don't see anything reconcilable in fideism , if you see something explore it a bit more.
      What is this ToE?
      Ok (about your second answer)..............how do you define the evolution theory and the religion ?
      ''science itself is not grounded in any certainty" and "it is foolish to cling to science and ToE "as-if" it were a certainty that is irreconcilable with God." what should be in your opinion our reaction regarding what's certain and what isn't ? what could we deal with this both and to also make ourselves to believe something consistent, something which have continuity?
      I don't think that a being like God can be proved by deductive logic , why do you think so ?
      And math is science so it have also inductive logic , it have both inductive and deductive logics in fact .
      It's interesting what you said about what we will gonna be , may you explore it a bit more?
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: Eduard: [do you think that we can practice something objective?]

        Start at the beginning; with the words you use. Do your words have any objective meaning outside of yourself? Does the word "objective" have meaning outside of merely subjective opinion?

        Eduard: [What is this ToE?]

        ToE = "Theory of Evolution." That is what we're discussing, isn't it?

        Eduard: [what should be in your opinion our reaction regarding what's certain and what isn't ?]

        Begin a new science based on certainty and on deductive reason, rather than the inductive reason that fuels current science. For example, math is non-falsifiable. Math is certain. Yet science depends on math. To doubt math is to commit intellectual suicide.

        Eduard: [what could we deal with this both and to also make ourselves to believe something consistent, something which have continuity?]

        Begin with the first principles of classical logic, which are math based, and have never been disproven.

        Eduard: [I don't think that a being like God can be proved by deductive logic , why do you think so ?]

        See next post.

        Eduard: [And math is science so it have also inductive logic , it have both inductive and deductive logics in fact .]

        Not when reduced to 1st principles. All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 17 2011: I used your words if you talk about ""Faith is, and should be, objective in nature and practice. "" my question was why do you think that we can practice something objective ? the question stays the same because it's logic that what's is objective to be in relation of enmity with what's subjective .
          About you second answer , why do you think that the science is fueled now mainly by the inductive logic? it doesn't happen , it is fueled by the both 'logics'.
          " All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest." but you said that we have to use more the deductive logic , if we regress back to the first ideas , how we use them?
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: Eduard: [I don't think that a being like God can be proved by deductive logic , why do you think so ?]

        I have a few proofs, but here's the shortest (brevity being the soul of wit, as they say). . .

        PROOF I

        “If x then y”
        “x, therefore y”

        “x” = transcendent logic.
        “y” = a transcendent logician.

        ^ This is a modus ponens. Any attempt to deny “x” leads to a misology. Thus, the argument is sound. If transcendent, then the logician would be omnipotent by default, since this includes the entire cosmos (“order”) of omni (everything). Logic is math-based, discovered, not an invention of man, and thus transcendent.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 17 2011: So in other words you say that if we have x=transcendent logic must be someone who's the y=transcendent logician. Interesting but it's not enough at all this modus ponens because I won't deny that somehow the transcendent logic exit but the fact that the transcendent logic exist doesn't prove anything about an logician in it's back , I mean why behind the transcendent logic to be an logician ? why snot someone/something else ? (we could imagine only an objective reality which is logic without being need at all to think at a logician ).The main arguments against what you said are: there is a too huge gap between x and y and as I said we can suppose something else as y not a logician (intuitively we can think soand maybe it's corect but to prove it (that's the main point about this discussion) it's imposible .) so the question is why would we think that because exist x necessarily would exist this particular y (a transcendent logician)?
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: Also, if faith simply means "confident trust," then the question is always to the object of faith; not "faith" itself. Either you doubt the object in question, in which you have no faith to begin with, or you don't.

        Thus, faith is simplified to the very chair you place your full weight on. The chair is objective and certain to the point of trusting the integrity of your entire musculoskeletal system upon it.

        - The root word for a "fiduciary trust" is faith. All business deals are made in good faith.
        - The term "fidelity" relates to the bond between true friends, fellow soldiers, or the bond of love between a married couple. The root of fidelity is the same as that of faith.

        So we act in faith all the time. It's just taken for granted is all. So the question is never about faith, but rather the object of faith, whether we're discussing a chair, loyalty, true love, or the existence of an omnipotent being.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 17 2011: I didn't ask you then but why do you think that faith means "confident trust" ?
          "The root of fidelity is the same as that of faith" partially perhaps we can suppose it .
          "So we act in faith all the time" that's right .
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: Eduard: [the question stays the same because it's logic that what's is objective to be in relation of enmity with what's subjective .]

        Objectivity is a step-by-step process that begins at the certainty of logic itself. Once you learn to trust meaning, then you learn to trust the objective truths that can only be built on these same logical 1st principles.

        Eduard: [About you second answer , why do you think that the science is fueled now mainly by the inductive logic? it doesn't happen , it is fueled by the both 'logics'.]

        Which is rather hypocritical of them, since deductive reasoning is a laboratory taboo. The method vs. the practice are at odds. See: Against Method by Feyerabend. You have noted a real conflict here: Between determining something, and determining it absolutely.

        Karl Popper tried to put a Band-Aid on this issue, but it still eventually leads to what is classically known as "the problem of induction."

        Eduard: [" All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest." but you said that we have to use more the deductive logic , if we regress back to the first ideas , how we use them?]

        They're already there. The only problem is getting the culture to admit it. We generally don't like deductive reasoning because at one time it got too close to proving God. Now that science has stumbled upon the post-evolutionary simulation hypothesis, it's time to dust off classical reasoning without prejudice or fear.
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: Eduard: [So in other words you say that if we have x=transcendent logic must be someone who's the y=transcendent logician.]

        No, but stronger than that. If X, then Y is an assured certainty. Not merely "must be" based on an intuitive hunch, but rather mathematical certainty.

        Eduard: [so the question is why would we think that because exist x necessarily would exist this particular y (a transcendent logician)?]

        Because "not necessarily" arguments by their nature beg the question, which is fallacious. You're essentially saying to yourself, "There must be a loophole to the modus ponens, therefore there surely is a loophole."

        No, a modus ponens is the strongest syllogistic form there is. To deny "X" in any way, even the way you're attempting to do, leads to a crashing misology. In this case, an appeal to question-begging.

        If the modus ponens above "isn't necessarily" conclusive, then an objective flaw must be pointed out. You can't simply coast on unspecified "not necessarily" arguments for the rest of your life. Vague feelings that it is wrong based on the subjective wish that it were otherwise doesn't count for anything.

        Why? Because the proof is ultimately math-based. Thus, an objective proof.
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: Eduard: [I didn't ask you then but why do you think that faith means "confident trust" ?]

        Because there are two dictionary definitions of the term:

        1. Confident trust in a person, thing, or idea.
        2. Belief that is not based on proof.

        Historically, there was only the first definition. Definition 1 is the most widely used definition outside of religion once Latin roots are factored in. Later on, the Enlightenment-era theologians gradually developed a second definition that is ultimately absurd. If you're not certain of the object of your faith, then you're embracing a false trust, or a shaky trust that is really no trust at all. We see this in broken relationships all the time.

        I reject the second definition entirely. Faith is not some Kierkegaardian "leap" into the dark. You must have certain knowledge of the object you put your trust in, or else it will ultimately fail.
  • May 14 2011: The Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. However there is not one iota of tangible evidence to provide backing to the idea of vertical evolution. This simple yet astronomical downfall is the most obvious reason that this scientific theory is simply just our imagination and not science at all.


    Charles Darwin in The Origin of the Species:

    “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”


    H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK):

    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

    Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasburg Zoological Museum):

    “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

    Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA):

    “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

    Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher):

    “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.

    Prof. E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK):

    “I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. . . yet mutations and natural selection are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship.”
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 15 2011: Interesting , I knew before that are scientists who talk against evolution (Francis Collins for example) , do you think we should create a link between religion and the evolution theory ?
      • May 15 2011: Personally I believe there has to be at least some truth to the theory of evolution. Probably not the idea of vertical Evolution, but definitely horizontal evolution (Natural selection within species). The process for a swimming fish to become a lizard must take trillions of minute changes and many failed attempts. For this theory of Vertical evolution to be true In our Earths Crust there must be more than those trillions and trillions of changes recorded in our fossil record. there must be a half lizard half bird somewhere to show that the lizard became the bird. there is none. I am no way stating that All of Darwin's theory is wrong but I think scientist and Darwinists throughout the world must realize that without evidence the theory is brain dead. Mainly our imagination.

        Now with religion we see something very different. First of the bible. God never said "I will create man and man shall create big book and people shall follow". however when people began recording our worlds history they wrote it down in there own books, priest and kings and wisemen were the only literate people of that time period. and many of them were in fact corrupt, demanding money for the church to "buy a better spot in heaven". So not all of the bible may be perfectly true because it was in fact made by man and man is not perfect. however that is were faith steps in our faith is rooted in the belief that the words of the bible will not lead us to do anything that is unmoral. so the teachings are all accountable of there morality. which is true there is nothing unmoral in the bible.

        the facts in the bible are also quite outsdanding. take for example Noah and the arc which many believe to be some ridiculous fairy tale

        -next comment-
      • May 15 2011: Noah’s flood (approximately 3,000-3,500 B.C.) was a world-wide catastrophe, unparalleled in the earth’s history. Instantly, trillions of tons of mud, all vegetation and all animal life were tumultuously overturned as the water channels from under the earth and the water canopy above the earth collided to cover the earth with water for one year to the extent of covering the tallest mountains by 15 cubits. (Gen. 7:11-20) After one year of flooding and terrestrial cataclysm (and perhaps shifting continents) the mountains were raised and the valleys lowered as the earth, oceans, mountains, canyons, plains, and prairies we know today were formed. God told Noah to make the ark “300 cubits (300 times the distance from elbow to tip of forefinger) by fifty cubits by 30 cubits.” Genesis 6:15. At a conservative measurement of 17.5 inches per cubit, the ark would have been 437.5 feet by 72.92 feet by 43.75 feet, giving a total volume of 1,396,000 feet. That’s equal to 10 freight lines of 52 boxcars each. Two of every air-breathing animal in the world today could be housed adequately in half of that space .
        Noah, his sons, (and perhaps hired men) built the ark in 120 years. (Genesis 6;3)
        God caused the animals to “come unto Noah” (migrate) much like the inexplicable ability of a tiny monarch butterfly of today that can fly from a designated tree in American’s northwest to a designated tree in Mexico ina time span extending over four generations.
    • May 15 2011: Hi, when assuming that one theory is right and the other wrong, you have to use all the evidence and not just that which suits what you believe. Can you imagine this way of using evidence in a court of law. only using the evidence that could condemn the person being tried? Your logic would cause chaos! Please put forwards both sides to get a valid response.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        May 15 2011: present the view of the other side
      • May 15 2011: Derek I agree that my logic is one-sided and i apologize for that I will attempt to show both sides of the argument. However I also believe that our court of law provide guilty people to often with the gift of innocence. most tried in court are being tried for good reason.
        My good reasons to "place on trial" this theory of evolution is the lack of evidence. What evidence does evolution have to help there argument?
        ~~here are some examples of the half human half ape evidence
        Ramapithecus – Now classified an extinct ape by most evolutionists
        Australopiithecus (Lucy)--Though overzealously manipulated by earlier evolutionists, more recent study places australopithecus in the ape family not in the lineage of modern man. Evolutionist/ paleontologist Professor Joseph Weiner: “The first impression given by all the skulls from the different populations of Australopiithecus is of a distinctly ape-like creature . . . The ape-like profile of Australopiithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with remarkable closeness of fit. In this respect and also in the lack of chin and in possession of strong supra-orbital ridges, Australopiithecus stands in strong contrast to modern (man) Homo sapiens.”
        Homo Hablis- Has now been determined by Doctors Albert W. Mehlert, Paul Lysen, and Duane Gish to be another Australopitheline more on the order of a chimpanzee or orangutan. “It is overwhelmingly like that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee.”
        Sinanthropus –‘Peking Man’ - This highly speculative find is now thought to be a now extinct variety of ape hunted and eaten in China by humans. All bones were “lost” in the early 1940’s
        Nebraska Man: -Though published widely as a missing link and used as pro-evolution evidence in the famous “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, this fraud was later discovered to have been totaltotally conjured from a wild pig’s tooth now extinct in North America and living currently in parguay
        • May 16 2011: Hi Mike. You are right about justice, it does not work some of the time and innocent people are sometimes convicted. The point I was making was; if only evidence provided was what we thought and not what is, the innocent and guilty would be treated accordingly and chaos would rule the day. Gathering evidence regarding the lost link is a task not yet finished. To say that we were created by God, would end this search, forgive me if i'm wrong, but what you say suggests you have already made up your mind. It is different for me, it is the means for me to explore and find out more, but from a neutral position. I find that if I take either side it starts to cloud my vision of things. All things are important in life or they would not be there, though some would not agree with this.
  • thumb
    May 14 2011: 1) religion is the set of practices and beliefs of a human community that aim towards 'what binds them'. Often accompanied by rituals, laws, guidelines and experiences

    2) evolution theory is the most plausible explanation for how life evolved (sic) here on earth. It has no serious rivaling theories that corresponds better with the facts.

    a) If a certain religion decides to ignore facts, that is their problem (well, it doesn't have to be a problem), but by doing so, they ignore facts about reality, and if they want to claim that what they believe is true, they would need to explain all the inconsistencies in a plausible manner (and in a way the other can except the arguments)

    b) If a religion accepts the evolution theory for what it is, it is correspondence with, and acknowledges the facts and is not in conflict.

    c) evolution theory doesn't exclude the existence of religion, so no conflict there. It does however exclude a lot of claims made by a lot of religions... which some religions are not quite willing to accept.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 15 2011: "religion is the set of practices and beliefs of a human community that aim towards 'what binds them'. Often accompanied by rituals, laws, guidelines and experiences" and nothing more ?
      why do you think that a religion should explain some inconsistecies in a plausible manner ?
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: I don't think Religion should explain anything, unless it claims to uphold truths...
        If such claims are made, they need to explain all inconsistencies present in their claims (compared to the observations made). If they want to convince people something is true, I suggest they use the same rigorous methods as those used in science.
        Knowing that 'revelation' for example is not a thing that can be accepted as an assumption...
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 17 2011: Yes the revelation is not a thing that can be accepted as an assumption because usually it is suppose to be a revelation .
          "and if they want to claim that what they believe is true, they would need to explain all the inconsistencies in a plausible manner " this is your opinion , isn't it? (your first post) but now you say that you don't think that religion should explain anything , how come?
          You talk about revelation but at the same time in your opinion all who accept the revelation should be able to convince people by the revelation truth using the methods used in science , this doesn't make too much sense .
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: I'm not the person to decide what religion needs to do or not (as I'm not part of a religious group... I leave it for them to decide).
        I say (clearly): IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others...
        Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim...

        I use revelation as an example to indicate that revelation is not considered as a source of truth (as there are many psychological objections to it). Revelation falls in the category of experiences.
        If you want to convince me that revelation is a good method of doing science, please explain why...

        So what I meant to say was :
        revelation doesn't reveal truth... (well, by accident it can happen that what one sees as revelation is actually true)... that's why I reject the assumption of revelation.

        still confusing? or does this make a bit more sense?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 23 2011: You should make a difference between the personal (particular) revelation and the main revelation which is accepted by the all religious people of one kind .
          It's absurd (and very unscientific ) to ask to the people who believe in a main revelation to prove you why the revelation is true by scientific methods because they claim to believe a revelation=something which no human could imagine , something which come from a 'god' .
          "IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others... " according to what I said I think it's clear why it's absurd to say :"then they should argue why (using the scientific method)" ......... we talk about revelation (I imagine you know what a revelation means, I've just said it somehow).
          We, who believe in a revelation can talk about it in a reasonable way as much as is possible but to prove it's truthfulness by scientific method doesn't make too much sense, we can prove it's truthfulness only using the words of the revelation (the revelation itself)......... this is possible.
          "Revelation falls in the category of experiences." until now I've talked about the revelation ( I think you notice it) as the main revelation (how is the Bible in the christianity) , I think you here don't talk about this main revelation , do you ? but you talk about the particular (personal) revelation....... it's no need to talk about it now , it is very subjective and don't affect us ( the outsiders) at all usually.
          "If you want to convince me that revelation is a good method of doing science, please explain why..." I don't want it , it's not my purpose now and I've said you why.
          "IF they claim................Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim... " you seem to believe that the science is perfect, totally true , which is again wrong ................and if
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 23 2011: and if the science isn't so (you should know it as one who talk against religion using science ...........a wrong position in my opinion ) how can you ask to someone who pretend that the revelation is mainly truth , is something which come from 'god' to prove you it's truthfulness by scientific methods which aren't totally perfect without being absurd?
        • May 28 2011: Hi Christophe,
          "I say (clearly): IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others...
          Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim... "

          seems you like Mathematics.
          revelation have some argue special for you:
          http://www.quranmiracles.com/mmwh/
          http://www.quranmiracles.com/mmwh/mmlhread.asp?id=9
          http://www.quranmiracles.com/19/

          does it meet scientific method?
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: You are strongly misinterpreting what I say.
        I am a probabilistic thinker, so I hardly make any claims of hard truth, although I do consider a .9999 as 1 for ease of argument.

        On the other hand, one can state what is false (Try to research on scientific reasoning or inductive logic, if you don't know what I mean here)

        As for revelation: I reject any form of revelation ("main" or "individual"), precisely because it has never been proven to be accurate, nor ever there is a factual basis that can show revelation actually exists. (for me the hypothesis that they are figments of imagination is much more likely, and based on plausible theory and data)

        I do understand this might be absurd to you, but to convince a scientist or non-believer, you need to argue on common ground, which excludes revelation.

        People who believe in main revelation: good for them, but they might know that it will not be accepted as evidence... And if they wonder why, I suggest them to read Pascal Boyer's "religion explained". or other good works like "The God Delusion" or something...

        Faith is the absurd thing, not the questioning of it.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 24 2011: "I reject any form of revelation ("main" or "individual"), precisely because it has never been proven to be accurate" you have the right to do it of course ........ the revelation is a matter of believing and it have been proved accurate in a sense , read for example :"Evidence that demands a verdict " by Josh McDowell but when you say that there is no factual basis that would show that the revelations actually exist you wrong , there are and I could enumerate them.............
          you are free to believe what you want of course but you have to prove it, only to say that in your opinion from what you know something is more likely than something else ...........it's not .....
          "one can state what is false " of course but only to state what is false , to prove it isn't possible (this is from inductive logic).
          "I do understand this might be absurd to you, but to convince a scientist or non-believer, you need to argue on common ground, which excludes revelation" it's not absurd to me and I agree with it (somehow the revelation don't have to be excluded because sometimes it take part from that common ground) .
          ".....but they might know that it will not be accepted as evidence..." you using science perhaps know (you should know : again from the scientific reasoning and logic if you don't)
          that we know TOO little evidences , and sometimes these aren't really evidences (read "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russell , if you didn't until now ) we must believe , we can't live otherwise .............faith isn't an absurd thing is our life .
          I would like more to talk about faith without using at all the subject of faith=the revelation , the interesting thing is that you use what say the revelation for criticizing it , ironically isn't it?: "it has never been proven to be accurate".........
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: I think Russel will not disagree with me.

        And Furthermore, since Russel, we have found the appropriate solutions.
        Like Jaynes http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf for example

        I don't think Apologetics is convincing to try and do claims of reality... so I'll pass on McDowell if you don't mind...

        I'm re-reading your remainder of your text... I think I'm not going to comment any further. (I only might suggest to bring a little more structure in the text, as now it is difficult to read, though I need to admit my English isn't perfect either)
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 24 2011: ok .................sorry from my English
    • May 15 2011: "evolution theory is the most plausible explanation for how life evolved (sic) here on earth. It has no serious rivaling theories that corresponds better with the facts."

      Please state some "Facts" to back this argument. your are presenting the theory alone without backing evidence. if it is fact based upon science please show some science in the argument to provide for a adequate discussion.
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: Mike: I sugges you try and read "on the origin of species"
        I wouls further refer to "http://www.talkorigins.org/" if you want to have more information.

        I also might want to suggest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1sTM5we_xs&feature=BFa&list=PL101E67EFF548C882&index=3 for some facts

        I'm not going to discuss with you further until you can explain me in 1500 words what the evolution theory means.
        • thumb
          May 17 2011: Hi Christophe
          I watched the vid with hope as the young lady mentioned macro evolution. This is the bit I don't get, one type of creature turning into another. But she went back to finches with different size of beaks. How on earth is a finch with a short beak losing the ability to mate with a finch with a long beak macro evolution ? This is a damaged finch, it has LOST an ability; & everybody is still a finch.
          Likewise with parasites, moths, horses & every other example of new species I can find The definition of a new species appears to be that it has lost the ability to mate with it's erstwhile peers.
          Let's say we create finches with a gene pool that includes all beak sizes. Natural selection favours one size & the rest die out. This carries on for many generations, until natural pressures favour a different size. If the genes are still available, then the new beak size becomes prominent. Isn't this what we see ?
          Let's say Budgies don't exist. Supposing finches were to evolve into Budgies. They don't have the necessary dna code. How does it come about ? Where is the scientific evidence that such a transformation is possible ?
          I think you are hard on Mike with the 1500 words, as we could probably find 1500 different answers to what the evolution theory means.

          :-)
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: @ Peter...

        Sigh...
        I'm going to give my answer once. As I do think you have a good deal of thinking and catching up to do (that may sound harsh). Remind yourself that not all answers have been answered, and that we humans are still learning how everything works...

        that said:
        - "inability to mate" can mean that they are separated, different fertility periods, don't have the same mating rituals &c, so not only being mutually sterile for each other.
        - Losing abilities is well documented (cave creatures losing eyesight, brain atrophy when predators disappear, loss of flight,...). As some abilities need a lot of energy, and if useless (for sexual or survival evolution), then 'loss' mutations can even become an advantage (needing less energy to support it).
        - losing the ability to mate is a rather apt definition for a new species, but as all evolves, those borders are not clear-cut... One must also consider that we started to classify before we understood the process of evolution.... So we sometimes find classification errors, or biologists debate as to call a species a new species or a sub species or an altering population of the same species...

        - your assumption of "all beak sizes" is probably not complete. Mutations can give rise to different beak sizes, so they don't need to be represented in the whole population. (I would think there might be dna-parts that can lengthen or shorten beak growth).
        So one can see that some DNA can get lost, and that new DNA can appear to 'mimic' the lost function (like fish have different fins than dolphins, mammals lost the fins long ago, but dolphins have altered limb structure, making up for the fish-fins)

        - You talk about transformation... if you stretch a lot of small changes over time, one can see that after a long time, major differences have appeared (like you can't see a plant grow by looking at it, but if you take a picture now an in a week, you can see the difference).
        • thumb
          May 18 2011: Hi Christophe

          Thank you for that, I know you are a busy man.
          There is no problem with creatures losing abilities, I've lost a few myself over time, but that is not evolution in the classic sense.

          I see one of your areas is Statistics. The driving force of evolution is claimed as mutation & natural selection. This site may seem a bit simplistic, but why not check it out anyway...
          http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

          :-)
      • thumb
        May 19 2011: Peter:
        A very bad article.
        Random numbers are insufficient for evolution to take place.
        Evolution theory is about evolution of life, not the beginning of life (that is abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

        Random numbers are even insufficient for abiogenesis too. One needs to take into consideration what already happened before. So If you don't take into account of all the environmental factors, you quickly get lost.

        The author clearly doesn't understand what he is doing: trying to use a model that does not fit the data to disprove the data... quite a fallacy indeed.
        So yes, it is way too simplistic, more-over: it is misleading
        • thumb
          May 19 2011: Hi Christophe

          Without abiogenesis there can be no evolution, but I don't think the article was about abiogenesis.
          I saw another site recently explaining random selection & it explained it in similar fashion with one exception. Whenever a beneficial mutation occurred it was locked. However this wouldn't work either as the benefit of the 'letter' is not manifest until the whole 'sentence' is complete. Also while the 'sentence' is in flux it is unlikely to be beneficial.
          So can you explain what you think happens using the same metaphor so that we ordinary Joes' can understand ? If you can, you could write a best seller. I certainly haven't come across a persuasive argument yet.

          :-)
      • thumb
        May 20 2011: Well Peter,

        (there already exist good books on genetics, maybe http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Genetics-For-Dummies-2nd-Edition.productCd-0470551747.html ?)

        A mutation is most often not beneficial.
        - If they are harmful, the get selected out (over time, on average)
        - If they are neutral, they can linger (nothing happens)
        - If they are beneficial, they can gain the overhand (over time).

        So even with low odds, positive changes can happen. unlikely means 'not that often' but it does happen...
        we need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate to make some calculus of course

        And then we have a whole bunch of systems that can suppress or activate genetic expression... (even in a Lamarck kind of way for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lPPcIXw2Bs )
        maybe look at 'hox genes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene) too...

        If you look at language, there is redundancy (mnaenig taht you can raed snteecnes wehn lreetts are samcrlebd for emplxae), so is there in genes, which can also influence the genetic drift.

        anyway, although the principles of mutation and selection are very simple, the consequences are highly complex, and strange effects and interactions can and will occur... without violating those principles.

        in other words: genes can start to rearrange words after a time instead of just changing a letter...
        • thumb
          May 21 2011: Hi Christophe

          I don't really want to learn about genetics; I don't have the time. I have picked up a fair bit along the way though.

          Part of the problem is that the creation guys are really good at explaining things in simple terms. I find however that the evolution side tend to look on me with distain & expect me just to believe that they know best. I listen to both sides & do my best, but have grown to much favour the creation side, I much favour common sense to academia. It should be possible for any expert to get his point over to a layman.

          Mutations kill us every day. We are told that there are good mutations; such as ? I take your point about redundancy in language, however that wouldn't work with a computer. It only works because we can use our brain; how would the cell translating system work it out. While we're at it, how did it learn to translate in the first place ?

          Talking of Hox etc. Some folks are saying that the dna has no input into the body plan anyway, so mutations are irrelevant as a source of new creatures.
          http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263797/darwinism_vs_fruit_flies_jonathan_wells/
          I'm sure I heard Steven Myer on the same vein. I get the feeling that this is cutting edge science & that no-one has too much idea what is going on. Like labeling dna 'junk' before we really understood.

          Many years ago I had a pal who was doing his PHD in biology. He was a firm evolutionist, & we had long discussions. Most of the time I had to bow to his expertise, but we had fun. we lost touch until quite a few years later when I was invited to a powerpoint he was giving on "Why evolution is impossible." He had a gang of peers there intent on heckling, but for the most part sat quietly with no answer to his logic. His story is one of many; could be there's a reason for that.

          :-)
      • thumb
        May 22 2011: [quote = Peter] I don't really want to learn about genetics; [/quote]

        I rest my case...

        I don't have the time to teach it to you either... and any further discussion is hence a waste of effort.

        Please believe whatever you want, but don't try convince scientists with ignorance...

        @ All:
        I encourage the reader to see this as an example of many discussions and debates going on on this forum:
        If you don't know what you are talking about... please say so! or don't say anything at all...
        And if you do, but get overhauled by reasonable arguments, state it as well.

        As such, we might heighten the quality of discussions here, and come to some real interesting Ideas Worth Spreading

        (and yes, this is an argued opinion, and there are exceptions &c... but that might be a debate for another topic)
        • thumb
          May 22 2011: Well I guess that's easier than answering my question about a beneficial mutation.

          In order to address the origins problem (according to many) we would need to be experts in biology, archeology, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, etc etc. My thing is engineering & if your granny wanted to know what a tig welder was I could give her a good idea in simple terms. Why oh why do I have to earn a degree in biology to get a straight answer to a straight question. It's frustrating folks!

          I guess it's an easy hit; but beware, the creation guys are very good at explaining their point of view. If you really want to persuade folks then you need to lighten up.

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 22 2011: Peter,

          You have a pattern of two things on TED

          Being found in the science/religion areas, and having the smiling face ending.

          Since you know nothing about science, you still claim to know something beyond yourself. I claim I know nothing of science (biology, chemistry, physics) and therefore keep to what I know and that is human intellectualism. There are patterns in how we think, by understanding those patterns you understand human beings as a whole. When you do that you discover, we are all not THAT different, details make us different (personalities, attitudes, agendas). Now that being said when you or ANYONE else dictates knowing something without knowing science, cultures, anthropology, psychology, critical thinking skills, and anything else that does indeed require an education involving humanity-based subjects (including evolution and religion)....

          You really know nothing in comparison to reality. Your actuality is grain of sand breaking through a blackened wind shield. The only way to break and remove all the blackness is educations, not philosophy alone. Philosophy without science, got us fundamental religions today. Philosophy with science gave us today, pretty much, everything else.

          The creation guys (God made people not the original single cell in which all life evolved from) are unaware/ignorant, plain and simple, when faith is prior to science there is SO MUCH room for error. God was/is a human invention, that easy, done. A delusion, and today an unneeded delusion.

          Christopher is human and flattering a human enough will make them believe such, but he is indeed brilliant. For you to go against his word on this matter, is ridiculous and shows you have no better character than a sixteen year old girl from New Jersey.

          :-)

          P.S - it is called a search engine, use it, you will be surprised in what you can discover in a few minutes. God being a delusion is nothing new, Richard Dawkins only simplified that idea further.
        • May 23 2011: Christophe I Did not mean to offend you. I simply find it interesting how some people believe the world began. what started us all and how we have come to be. I am in no way a superscientist like Darwin so I apologize but i have to decline the challenge to compose the 1500 word essay but i did find some interesting quotes.

          Charles Darwin “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

          Charles Darwin in The Origin of the Species:
          “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

          "[men attain] a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).

          you cant trust everything that man says
          Science is based upon facts and darwin did a great job in proving horizontal evolution, and also did a great job providing a theory of vertical evolution. But it is just a theory with little to no evidence at all.

          Nicholas has some very smart words here but still one sided. neither side is being proven right nor wrong
        • thumb
          May 23 2011: Hi Nicholas

          "I claim I know nothing of science"
          "The creation guys ...... are idiots/unaware/ignorant, plain and simple,"

          Doesn't quite compute. These idiots include some of the greatest scientific minds that ever existed.

          "Evolution has just been dealt it's death blow. After reading Origins of Life (Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross), with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred". Richard Smalley. Nobel Prize in chemistry 1996.
          http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/evolution-vs-creation-part-1/h2Hb3gnP2phueDrN75pVNA (27mins)

          :-) (oops! habit)
        • thumb
          May 23 2011: Yes, Einstein also got one of those for his Atomic Bomb (physics) and not his relativity theory. The bomb continued the practice of making weapons bigger and better, the theory is how we are able to measure in space. Which one was more brilliant exactly?

          Remember how I made sure I added this into my comment?

          **(God made people *NOT* the original single cell in which all life evolved from)**

          For good and just reasoning. This "greatest scientific mind" contradicts himself involving science because of his faith. Making my next statement **when faith is prior to science there is SO MUCH room for error** Completely accurate based on your example scientist, thank you for that.

          Richard Smalley believes "God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since" (Smalley 2005)

          However "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading 'Origins of Life', with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, 'Who Was Adam?', is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death." (Smalley 2005)????

          So God started the big bang which started the cycles of life for all in the universe on subatomic to astronomic scales but not evolution of man of earth? That is awful awful logic. I guess the prize went to his head. Think we can put this guy on the chemistry shelf and call it a day.

          Again God creating the original single cell organism that was intelligently designed which evolved into all the animals of today, past, and future. Awesome! That is great! God creating humans out of dirt, pixie dust, or whatever = nonsense.

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: Hi Nicholas

          You are into patterns. Perhaps you could look through my posts where I name a scientist who voices doubts about evolution. The standard rebuttal is to attack the integrity of the scientist. I was replying to your assertion that all creationists are numpties. Numpties don't win nobel prizes. The fact that Smalley doesn't agree with my way of looking at things is irrelevant to me. I try and learn from all sorts of sources; we never learn by only listening to those we agree with.
          One of the best orators on the creation scene is/was Kent Hovind. He is easy to criticise as he's in the klink for tax fraud. I am only surprised that it took so long for Uncle Sam to nail him, as he was preaching for years about the IRS. They got him in the end, which I'm sure he realised they would.
          If you want entertained give him a listen; google him, or follow the link and then let me know what exactly he's got wrong.
          http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/creation-evolution-debate-rutgers-university-round-1-hovind-vs-professor-of-anthropology-dr-robert-trivers/_q-OKnoNv5CT3G85QJHVJQ

          Sorry, but I don't believe in the Big Bang either. Science is ok, but this is speculation. We've had all sorts of stories about what killed the dinosaurs, and how the moon got there, etc etc. Each speculation in it's day was a "must believe" at the time, if you wanted to be a "proper" scientist. Big Bang? Let's wait & see.
          Why should God make a cell & then leave it to it's own devices. Is there any reason to believe that; apart from the contents of your imagination ?

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: "Numpties don't win nobel prizes."

          Actually, you are quite wrong.

          Here is a short article on the manner.

          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201105/delusion-productivity-and-success

          Basically, because people are delusional and/or allow themselves to be deludedl they are actually very productive and can be highly mechanical into their skills.

          The big bang is speculation.... of course it is, but it is the most widely accepted speculation among scientific minds. We do not have a time machine to know for exact, but we have all the different fields of science to provide facts that allow this VERY strong speculation.

          Intelligent design would mean "God" created the single cell with mechanisms for life to achieve. This "God" would have thought ahead and considered what it takes to survive in the universe, even what it takes to also survive on a planet in much more microscopic terms.

          We are just specs living on a bigger spec in comparison to even a fraction of space in the universe. To declare God loves us stupid animals is belittling the idea of God to me, simple answers creating fundamental practices at it's best.

          Being brilliant and being a genius are totally different. Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God but still believes in a form of God. He kept God free as can be, and we still idolize him today, like there are no new Einsteins' being born everyday. The minds we most recognize, educate on, and talk about today in public educations and academic circles were either atheist or created their own belief systems, not Christian quacks. The philosophers who were religious in history (Ex. St. Austine) are allowed into the debate due to philosophical standards, which means if it is constructive it is considered! In no way means it is logically sound by universal considerations.

          :-D
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: Hi Eduard, this is my response to your comment 7 hours ago, can't get it under somehow;

    With the elements (earth, fire, air, water, aether, rhythm) I meant the material world. Your question was if immaterial world evolved, my very subjective logic is, there are also elements for the immaterial world and they evolved in parallel.

    On naming them, I don't know, but they manifest in intuition, compassion and self-esteem for example. Some name them memes. Some aura fields, some the akasha field, some God, some Allah, Chakra, some the Matrix, some The Force, each culture has it's own names.

    If it suits you, on evolution terms, you can cling on this idea; Mankind imitated the physical nature. Crabs became scissors. With the internet we are just beginning to imitate the immaterial nature. Everybody and everything is wired up and if you know the way you can access it anytime. Just a thought.

    On evolving, I am no neurospecialist or something, though I enjoy Garrett Lisi on his theory of everything. We cannot see the immaterial world, though we know it is happening. There is lot's of scientific proof there is something else than we see, though we can't put our finger on it yet what it actually is. I guess our grandchildren will figure more out and laugh at our talks here! :)
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 14 2011: Can you prove somehow your subjective logic?
      Yes perhaps our grandchildren will do it :) .
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: It's entirely possible for a person to be a follower of religion yet subscribe to the theories of science. In our era, there are less strict followers of religion, which explains why such theories are not accepted with the shock and disgust that was present in the 1800s when Darwin first introduced the theory of evolution. And I think this readiness to believe in both comes from our abilities to compartmentalize and select what we agree with. For example, a person may agree with what is said of evolution and the big bang theory (thus disagreeing with creationism) but still believes in a higher omnipotent being who judges their actions and whose values they live their lives by.
    • May 13 2011: Hi Elizabeth, you hit the nail on the head when you describe cell change. When a species mutates, it not only mutates to benefit its own species, but all species. The food chain is one example. What I think Birdia couldn't grasp was: the environment is only the trigger, it's what pulls the trigger that will give us the answers we crave. In the absence of a creator, the information for change can only come from the species. It is how this information is passed on that has been my interest over the years. When the cell change occurs, along with all the necessary information that is required, it makes the mind boggle to think that it could happen without some divine intervention. It's no wonder that man is a very spiritual being.
      • thumb
        May 14 2011: It's complicated, but it has happened. Just looking at eukaryotic cells, it looks like its has been designed rather than something haphazardly created by nature. But by observing the membrane structures within, you can see how they have developed, for example the mitochondria being prokaryotic cells that have been 'swallowed' by the bigger eukaryotes.
        And think of it this way: nature has been tweaking for billions of years. Plenty of time to get it to where it is today.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 14 2011: Elizabeth:
      I agree, this happen but how happen with our identity if we don't believe in something and only in something , if we divide our mind ? I mean we can compartmentalize and select what we agree with but even so must be a continuity , a consistency what we believe in , our identity is gone otherwise , what do you think ?
      • thumb
        May 15 2011: I don't think the human race knows enough for there to be continuity in anything. The more we discover about the world around us, the more ignorant we are.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 15 2011: I would be very tempted to agree with you ..............but I'm not, I think that for us we know enough to can have continuity what we believe in because the continuity is a relation which doesn't depends on what we know but on what everything can be known, on what this everything have in common , we know something very little but what is important is that we know . Taking it form another perspective we talk here about what we know and what we know is true , but we know more things which are true so there is something what bound them : their truthfulness and this what bound them give them continuity , we can't see the big picture of course but we can see a part from this picture , but the bid picture have continuity , wouldn't be a big picture otherwise so and it's parts have continuity ...................... we must have identity , in fact I think is more correctly to say that we must tend, strive to have identity .
          "The more we discover about the world around us, the more ignorant we are" I don't think it's correct your formulation , the more we know the less ignorant we are , but the more we know the more we are aware of how much ignorant we are.
      • thumb
        May 15 2011: Look at space. When we knew little about it, in the times of Copernicus, our view of life, the Earth and the cosmos was simple: organisms were created by a divine body, the Earth was flat, the solar system was geocentric and not much was known about anything further. But now, we know the Earth is a sphere. Our solar system is heliocentric. We know more about the Universe, but the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. We have to theorize as to how things work and how they happen, for example evolution, the big bang and so forth. But even then (particularly about space) there are gaping holes in our knowledge that we wouldn't have known existed had we not made this theory in the first place. It is by that I men the more we know, the less we really do.

        And if relation is what we seek in what we know, not a cyclical continuity that I refer to, it won't be an issue to believe in a religion and in evolution at the same time.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 15 2011: Elizabeth:
          (I've spelt wrong the last time but I've corrected myself a bit now .)
          I see your point better now and I agree with it (it's exatcly what I meant yo say).
          What do you mean by cyclical continuity ?
          I think that what we know are relations and these have continuity . Someone could say that the form of the Earth is a fact : it is spheroid , maybe but for us this fact is made up only from relations which are set in our mind between more knowledge (and how ew get the knowledgeinvolve some relations.............). We talk here about the evolution theory , it is more relations combined , we talk about religion which is formed also from relations . I think that the reality known by us is made up only from relations and objects between which are set this relations, how could we set some relations if we don't have continuity what we believe in ?
          I mean with all this that any system of knowledge is make up from relations.
      • thumb
        May 16 2011: Cyclical continuity: continuity that spans over everything. One thing explains another, which explains another and eventually you come full circle.
        And we don't need to have continuity in we know or believe in because we simply don't know enough. There are inconsistencies in the bible, for example (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html) for your reference.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 16 2011: And if I won't come to a full circle , would be it cyclical or causal continuity ? I mean cyclical means to reach at the starting point , what do you think this happen ? You said :"And we don't need to have continuity in we know or believe in because we simply don't know enough." do you think that the need of having continuity depends on what we know ? how? But how can we made up theories if we don't have continuity what we know or believe in ? How can we talk about science if we don't have continuity ? I mean without continuity we can't explain anything so will be only some facts, objects that have no link between them. More than that how can we know something logical and rational about us if we don't have continuity?
          Ok, we don't know enough and we will never know perhaps , but actually we know something, in this something isn't there continuity? how can we talk about limits if we don't have continuity ? The reason suppose continuity. What do you think?
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: If continuity is so essential to understanding science, how on Earth did we ever manage to progress beyond our archaic beliefs? It's this lack of continuity, the lack of knowledge that drives us to learn more, not hinder us.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 18 2011: I don't know why seems to you that (from your example) if our arhaic beliefs was wrong we can't have continuity what we believe in, we can actually because as I said the continuity don't says in the knowledge but in the process of gathering knowledge , in the process of thinking , we perhaps had believed something wrong but we had been moving on , it means continuity (it's like a limit in math which tends to infinite ).
        • thumb
          May 18 2011: Where did Mozart his music come from, which continuity and/or chaos.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 19 2011: chaos from the continuity of his mind and his spirit
        • thumb
          May 19 2011: a subjective thought;

          a Muse whispered it in his ear. She has been trying with many people, though he was the first one who heard it. (Stephen Pressfield - The War of Art)

          A professional artist knows he/she did not come up with the creative idea him/herself. It's tapping into the collective consciousness and maybe even higher to pass something we humans need to go further, to grow.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 20 2011: hmm.................I think we should be carefull : "It's tapping into the collective consciousness" but yet only one have heard the whispered, nothing collective here .
        • thumb
          May 20 2011: Only one heared it it seems, Bach also, Picasso also, Lazslo also. If we all listen well we hear something aswell, a path for yourself for example; where do you go too? what drives you? What is your passion?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 20 2011: only one and only one ... comparing their number with the number of the humankind .
          Perhaps we can hear something aswell but it isn't depending on ourselves totally .
        • thumb
          May 20 2011: yes, totally on yourself. If you want to achieve something good, work hard on it, you will see the right things come in your head and the right people on your path.

          And now back to the topic ;)
    • thumb
      May 14 2011: I agree elisabeth. It is enlightenment which put us into duality. On what we can measure and what we can't. The indigenous before that turnaround had only one realm and that is the material and 'spiritual' are together one.
      With all the time we have to read and share thoughts with like minded, we start to believe more in our intuition again, making from a few of us modern indigenous.
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: There are two major issues that need to be discussed and explored in this issue. One general and the other specific to the Bible.
    The first is the issue of comparing science and religion. Science is a means of studying the relationships between measurable phenomena and making theories, hypotheses, and experiments concerning those phenomena. Religion is about a belief in a non-observable "truth" that since it is a belief it cannot be proven either correct or incorrect.

    If science stays in the realm of science and religion stays in the realm of religion there cannot be conflict any more than an idea can be so deep that even the most muscular man cannot pick it up.

    Evolution conflicts with religion only because it is a case where science treads in the realm of beliefs and does not follow scientific methodology. Although there have been many books about this, most of them have been written by people who are not scientists and this has muddled the arena terribly. With no experimental evidence of any species mutating into a different species, evolution is a mere theory that has been accepted as fact by general society. And since all scientific theory is constructed to be eventually disproved in the course of developing science, it seems a disservice to society that any theory should be taken as "law." Regardless of religious view.

    The question concerning evolution and the Bible is one of physics and measurement of time. At the speed of light there is no passage of time. If there was a "Big Bang" the beginning of matter was at the speed of light and time needed to "slow down" "over time". The 13 billion years of the universe are years measured by earth years -that didn't exist for most of that time. If calculated in universe years - relative to the matter originating in the big bang - there would be less than 6000 years. Just plain physics. No religion in that argument but 12th century mystics (Nachmonidies) wrote about it....
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 13 2011: Ari :
      you said that religion is a belief in a non-observable 'truth' (I agree somehow with you) but you continuied and you said that this truth being non-observable it can't be proved either correct or inccorect , but if it is truth might it be inccorect ? I mean the truth is correct all the time , everywhere , if something is a truth have it need to be proved correct ?(in my opnion it doesn't matter if something truth is proved or not ), what do you think?
      So you say that is only a misunderstanding of how is measured the time it being measured relative ............ it is interesting . But about the human life on the earth , is it older than 6000 years ago ? what do you think? according to the evolution theory it is older , how can we fit this two 'facts' ?
      I agree with you on your third paragraph .
  • May 11 2011: (I haven't read all of the above comments - sorry if I repeat anything!)
    I am in no way an expert on the topic of Evolution, but I'm assuming that the actual process is validated by natural selection and the mutation of genes within species. However, what I find difficult to understand is how an entirely new species can 'evolve'. For example, if a Raven continued to 'evolve' it would never - no matter now long the process was underway - turn into a Finch. Personally, I agree with natural selection (slight changes WITHIN species)....however I find that the Theory of Evolution is based on too many assumptions.

    On the subject of can Evolution and Religion agree....it depends. What relgion? and how do the adherents interpret their sacred text? In the case of Christianity, many people argue that the reason Christians will not agree with Evolution is because they are extremely conservative and fundamental (not bad things) and therefore will not compromise their belief about the origin of the universe. This is true, however, theologically there is also a major discrepency between Evolution and Christianity.
    Christians believe that we (humans) brought about sin and death because we chose to disobey God. Death is a result of our sin. Therefore, when Evolution claims that humans are only a 'recent' addition to the Earth and that death was present before our existence.....well, it just doesn't line up. However, having said that, there are many, many Christians who believe in Evolution (if you know how they explain what I've stated above I'd love to know!).

    That's just a few of my questions and thoughts on the issue. Once again, I am in no way an expert on Evolution so what I have said may be theoretically incorrect. Also, does anyone know of any good books or websites that give an unbias view on Evolution? (they don't side with religion or evolution, they simply just state facts).
    • thumb
      May 11 2011: There are two groups of scripture interpreters; taking it literal as in a documentary and symbolic/metaphorical, the meaning behind the 'memories. If you don't take it literally;

      1. Sin and death upon us; One can say if you don't have empathy or compassion and a clear conscience, you will die as you are not connected fully to the world. And it's true in science; if you don't have a healthy mindset, you can get sick faster and in theory die younger.

      2. Evolution and Sciptures : Science tells us that Adam and Eve did exist. It's just written in the bible in a romantic fashion, so the book becomes readable. That we people start to argue how 'real' it is, is our problem. We forgot until now it could be the case that natural selection killed all other 'people' leaving only two of the best we all decent from. We couldn't imagine that... so what else can't we 'imagine'?
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 11 2011: Asher:
      I also heard many things about the idea that the evolution is based on many assumptions .
      I don't know to explain that I'm not an evolutionist.
      You can check it : http://academicearth.org/courses/evolution-ecology-and-behavior or search some books wrote by Motoo Kimura.
      Yes , there are many questions which can be put you can if you want post them here to talk about them and also about religion.
  • thumb
    May 10 2011: Everybody is right, and that's the beauty of it.. The notion of wondering about how materially or immaterially everything has come and is connected is great, sharing these thoughts with eachother IS the point. Evolution and religion both are about making (new) relations in order to grow. So we practice what we 'preach'.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 10 2011: "Evolution and religion both are about making (new) relations in order to grow"
      What are this relations more exatcly ?
      • thumb
        May 11 2011: The purpose of evolution and religion in it's foundation is making relationships among people and in relation to the rest/nature/other cultures.

        Mental relations, what religion in definition is about; entering a new city, you can find a church (or sportsclub or Meetup) to make new friends and share joy and worries with. The social animal with 1:1 relations.

        Material relations, what evolution in definition is about, is the ecosystem evolving. Species meet, interact, strong win, weak loose.

        ...

        The problem is when evolution somewhere on the planet or a religion on the planet has access to too many resources. Out of 'species survival instinct', a species will use it's resources to take control of the region, and so tries a religious group. Not because it needs to, just because it can.

        It's like why people get fat; our body is wired to store fat just in case there will be periods of hunger, it's a survival instinct in our DNA.

        So if we can see evolution as building material relations and social structures under which religion as building mental relations, we see one and the other together are one as within ourselves they are one.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 11 2011: "Mental relations..........." and material relations............. can you be more specific ? give some examples if you want and what are the links between this two kind of relations ?
          why do we have this instincts ? why don't we have only reason for example? what do you think ?
      • thumb
        May 11 2011: Material, all relations between the four everlasting elements, so everything we see and can touch.
        Immaterial, all relations between the rest, though we cannot measure so easy, so the war between people who experience this 'More' through intuition, instinct, a-field, art, meditation (religion).. and skeptics who don't find ways and simple believe it's all a farce.

        There are more and more neurological studies which show there 'must be more' and proving ways to 'tap into this More', what is going on in the brain. Google for the "God Helmet", read stories about near death experience, find your own way to tap into intuition, the akasha field, common aura or what name for this immaterial ecosystem suits you best.

        We have start and ending biologically. So we imagine infinity to counterbalance. You may believe imagination comes from 'nothing', a purely personal psychological event or is fed by an immaterial information field we are wired with like we are wired with nature. Both have arguments to be true.

        Links between these two relationfields, that's even beyond my current scope :) That both exist and are both in balance/intertwined read for example stuff from Ervin Laszlo and Arthur Koestler.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 12 2011: Thank you for your recomandations. What you said seems very logic
          I agree ............. there are relations between these two relationfields .
          How can we know the immaterial world , what's the role of religion in it? What is the link between this immaterial world and the process of evolution I mean what the evolution say us about this immaterial world , have it evolved ? what's your opinion about it?
      • May 11 2011: Hello Eduard. You asked me what do I mean by emotions. If you believe in evolution, then the facts are; that science and logic tells us that the first form of life was a dormant one. This dormant life would have been there for millions of years with all senses on the alert. It was waiting for the right conditions in which it could evolve and progress. This was probably the beginning of the mind. The one emotion that started life evolving has lead to the miracle mind we possess today. That is why I think emotions are as important today as they were all those billions of years ago.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 12 2011: I've asked you earlier how can something which is in a dormant state to have the sense on the alert? to understand this idea of dormancy in the usual sense?what means in your opinion this idea of dormancy.
          Thank you for your comment, but you didn't answer at my question , I would like to find out an answer .
          And Derek , I don't wanna be unrespectful but I don't care what science says me if I don't understand why the science says it ......so why is so logic the idea that the first life was a dormant one? And how according to what you said:"This dormant life ......the beginning of the mind." only from the fact that life exist the mind have appeared ? How from some emotions evolving could start life ? Usually the emotions are the results of life , the results of living ..................so again: what do you mean by emotion?
          ( what you said makes me to put you a lot of questions)

          P.S.: I'm not seeking an scientific answer from you , I wanna see your rational opinion (not necessarily what you believe but why you believe).
      • thumb
        May 13 2011: To eduard first comment : We can only know the immaterial world by experiencing it. That's up to you. You always experience some levels, the first is intuition, though going further can be learned by anyone with different physical and mental techniques. Meditation is focus through the mind, Martial Arts is focus through the body and mind.

        On the science side : http://www.squidoo.com/contemplative-neuroscience what contemplating does for you on concentration span, intuition etc.

        On 'evolved' : As we cannot measure what is going on in our brain for so many years, this is all shortterm theory. The findings however is that the minds of young children today (due to different inputs by computers/screens/travel) is different wired than children some years ago. What that means in evolution of mental connections, time will tell on how these wired kids will think.

        My personal very subjective logic is; As nature consists of 4 ever lasting elements which evolved over time. So does the immaterial world have some 'everlasting elements' which evolved parralel to the material ones.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 13 2011: Paul :
          You said I can know the immaterial world by experiencing it and this is possible by meditation or others means , you said also in your earlier comment that the immaterial world is made up from the relations of the rest of the four everlasting elements (I don't think this four are everlasting , I think you meant to say : the water , the fire , the air and the earth , did you?) so there are others 'elements' which are immaterial : would you wanna name them? (I think this 'elements' are everlasting , as would be: the ideas , the forces ...........about these do you meant to talk? )
          What is your opinion about these 'elements' ? I mean , do you think that these 'elements' are brain connections ?if yes or not: why ? (personally I think that these are acting upon our material world through the brain connections not that these are made up from the brain connections) but what do you think ?
          is depending on us the immaterial world ? how can it evolved ? (in my opinion it cannot evolve , what evolve is our connections with them as you said in that example with the child but not the immaterial world) what do you think?
      • May 13 2011: Hi Eduard. You ask me to explain dormancy; there are many animals that lie dormant all through the winter months, with senses alert waiting for the first sign of Spring.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 14 2011: Hi Derek :
          I know this thing , but yet this do not explain the state of dormancy , and that aninals do not have the all senses alert .
      • May 15 2011: Hi Eduard. The virus is a dormant life-form, it consists of DNA and RNA. It can only replicate by attaching to a living host; it is therefore classed as more dead than alive because of this. It can also survive in any known environment even in a vacuum; this makes it a good candidate for the beginning of life. Since it can only replicate by using a living host, what do you think its senses were telling it during those first billions of years at the beginning? I know you will ask, why it was not some divine power doing this, but why not the species doing this? When a species mutates, it does so not just for its own but for all species. Evidence supports the latter, so why not accept it?
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: Religion is a man made system. Evolution is natural selection. Evolutionists do not deny that man has created many religions. Some religious people have a problem with the notion of evolution. With this as background to my answer I would say only religious people can answer this question.

    I suspect that some religious people will accept natural selection as a basis for evolution. I have heard some religious people argue against evolution but I am not convinced by their arguments. It is a tough sell for those who argue against natural selection since there is so much evidence to support the science of evolution. The argument against struggles since there is no physical evidence to support this argument.

    I like to think I am open minded and I would most certainly listen to any argument based upon facts.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 9 2011: isn't also the evolution (and science usually) a man made system ? or in your opinion is only the religion ? but how the religion is a man made system?
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: In my opinion, there is hardly any incompatibility. Evolutionists would like to believe that universe or a multiverse system started on its own while religion wants to believe in the existence of some supreme being. If we set aside these two different beliefs for a second, there is nothing fundamentally different between the two groups.
    There are few things to avoid in order to have a constructive dialogue:
    - Focus of the conversations should not be on the fundamental belief of beginning because none of the groups can solve that mystery just yet
    - Conversations should not be limited to one religion, instead the dialogue should be with all the key religions of the world
    - Focus of the conversations should not be to prove one group right or wrong
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 9 2011: Can you tell us more about your opinion that the evolutionists believe that the universe started on it's own ? why do you think it ? (according to my knowledge the evolution theory doesn't say it).
      • thumb
        May 9 2011: You are right. Evolutionists do not offer any insight on this. I was wrong on that assumption.
        Taking away my first point, I am still in favor of the dialogue.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 9 2011: how the universe have started then ? what' your opinion about it?
      • thumb
        May 11 2011: I don't have one Eduard. I just think that there something outside this universe.
        • thumb
          May 11 2011: And why do we need to be able to imagine a complete start, when we don't imagine a complete end.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 11 2011: This is evolution about : a start ( in religion you find something about an end) , but in my opinion we have need a start for understanding our meaning of life to understand why do we live , why do we are what we are now.
        • thumb
          May 11 2011: As we have a start and ending (birth and death) we feel comfortable everything has, as it comes closest to our own measurable truth.

          What we can measure on evolution is growth through new connections, relations. And what we know about growing/evolving in nature and animals there is a certain start so we make the bridge fast that existence must have a start and we look for proof. This proof doesn't mean what we can not measure does not exist.

          To start finding a meaning of life to live why we are etc, starts in my opinion by accepting duality between what we can calculate and what we can't (yet) has divided the world in two camps, was a big mistake in our enlightened past. Though at the same time it is part of evolution of our brain, a wave form, we focus more on matter to survive in times of crisis. And if our belly is full a next century we focus more on our 'home feeling, relationship with people and nature in psychological/spiritual way). We float than to much again, forget about taking well care of resources, new crisis and we focus on material survival again, putting spirituality on the shelves a bit.
        • thumb
          May 23 2011: Eduard: I'm baffled why people, in criticizing evolutionary theory focus on the beginning or the end.

          Evolve = change. The process of change is the core of the theory. To speculate beyond that is to speculate beyond that.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 23 2011: I understand but ............. "I'm baffled why people, in criticizing evolutionary theory focus on the beginning or the end" I'm not (sometimes I also do it ), because these are two of the weakest points of the theory ( I'm sure you know it, don't you? ) ;) , who disagree with the evolution theory have to criticize it for keeping his point and how the core of the evolution theory is pretty hard to be dismissed ............... so what remains? ;)
        • thumb
          May 23 2011: Evolution means change of bindings
          Religion means bindings

          The written words and later the printing press froze all the mythology which before that evolved by word of mouth, through changing cultural conditions, evolutions.
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: Paul: The "bindings" concept is a fascinating interpretation. In addressing religion I usually refer to "holy book" based religions to distinguish those from simply general "belief systems". But the idea that printing (or writing in general) actually served to freeze the evolution of thought is intriguing.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 24 2011: I should ask it before Paul (&Tim) : what do you mean by "bindings " ?
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: I think what Paul means is something that holds things fixed. To bind is to tie. And Paul pointed out that before writing belief systems were not constrained and could more easily evolve with time to adapt to new realities.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 26 2011: I don't know if you Tim agree with the idea of bindings (it seems so) but I don't because in my opinion shouldn't exist any belief system (I would like to know what you mean by it) which would hold things fixed .................. the religion (how I understand it) isn't something which holds the things fixed , it is a process, it's something evolving, there are no fixed things in religion , to be a religious people in my opinion means to evolve , to grow up in knowledge and after it in faith ........... it's something continuously changeable to an ideal state .
          I remember some things you said about religion (the religion being about authority..........) and I try to imagine what you think about religion , this is really intriguing (perhaps I would be also an atheist ....................would I ? :) ).
          A thing is sure we perceive this idea of religion very very different .
        • thumb
          May 27 2011: Yes, bindings is a great concept, it is not mine, it is to bind, tie, indeed, like a rope between two people.

          Somebody told me the word religion means 'rethinking' and some say 'rethinking relations''.

          Normally, we do that all the time. We act and reflect. We feel connected to some and some not in work, passion, love. The 'holy' books are a momentum, to explain our understanding of possible human relations, in a context the people had. The bible is focused on emotional relations between people. The Kohran, as far as I know has quite a bit more indigenous in it, explaining also relations/bindings in nature. The Torah, I have no idea, though I can imagine it is the best of both ' Tribal relations'.

          ....

          To be cynical a bit; Currently our understanding of relations between people does not go much further than the 'xxxx friends counter on facebook and linkedin ;) We vote for presidents and leaders on how many 'friends' they have.... Like cattle.. We need to write some updated books on relationships in a global context.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 28 2011: Paul :
          I don't think that the Bible , in fact the religion usually, is about relations between people , is focused on this, why do you say it? In my opinion the religion is about our relation with God , only this relation ..........the rest of relations are only caused by our human nature which is human not divine , this kind of relations have brought and bring the all pain and frustration in our world , the religion is about how can we get that divine nature which doesn't involve human relationships obligatorily ...............the divinity is sufficient in itself .
          This concept of bindings shouldn't be applied to religion in my opinion.
        • thumb
          May 28 2011: The jungle of interpretations, some should be forgotten as some translations have intentions not for this time. There was a time it was useful for people to translate the bible and refer to God as 'He'. Though scholars able to read the original scriptures say in there God is referred to as 'We'. Therefore God is Us. Our collective spirit where compassion is the most evident 'proof'. So we are related, have bindings with everybody, everything, invisible 'wires'.

          Our human nature is 'survival' of body and mind. We do anything for that. We are misled by others as our brain has limitations we forget to take care off, don't teach in school. That is where the pain comes from. It is in our DNA to be greedy, to collect wealth in case of bad times to come.

          Divine means Godlike, means 'God' is a way to address, communicate about our collective spirit. It is irrelevant if we think of God within or outside the ozon layer.

          So in my opinion it should be all about bindings; all we have IS relationships with what we sense (proof) and cannot sense (belief). ( the matter and immatter as said before)
        • thumb
          May 28 2011: Hi Paul

          "....original scriptures say in there God is referred to as 'We'."

          God can indeed be taken as plural. That's where we get the Trinity from; Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. No way does it mean "God is US". As can be seen below, He refered to Himself in the plural before man existed.

          Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 28 2011: Exactly the right phrase. If we see God as our spirit, mankind is made in that image. We experience the mind, the heart, the soul, the trinity through ourselves.

          And Dominion yes, in thought, not matter, we are the most dependent on everything.

          Just a matter of perspective which is comfortable, truth full for me, I respect yours, this one is for me.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 28 2011: before to answer you Paul , I would like to know what do you mean by 'collective spirit '? (upon it I think rest all your argument from what I understand) to understand your perspective better (please read again more carefully what I said , I didn't talk about creation)..............I post my opinion afterwards..............
        • thumb
          May 28 2011: I believe God exists, though not the literal interpretation as in 'he'. As said about a week ago, I believe in material relations and immaterial relations. God is our way to reference to the immaterial relations. As the material ecosystem looks chaotic, in it's totality it is in balance with itself, there is a 'conscious' we can not sense/grasp. The same counts for immaterial relations, it is a global ecosystem, which looks chaotic though is all the time looking for a new balance. As our ego grew due our technological advancements, our image of God became more and more humanlike which was also convenient for religious groupings in the past to 'proof' their faith. We thrive on imagination and so to imagine our collective spirit ( all immaterial relations) we refer to it/us/him as the 'Christian God', other cultures have their naming and scriptures.
          This does not take away there are other 'gods' as well, the whispering ones in our ears, the ones without time and place enjoying up there what we are able to achieve in limited space and limited time. This last is also the immaterial ecosystem/relations/collective spirit/(sub)conscious.
          I will not be able to proof which opinion, truth, view is the right one, true one, nobody can.

          That's why I say on a different conversation;
          Economists : Read the Art of War
          Artists : Read the War of Art
          and get to work!

          The way I understand things for myself and myself only (though I should share if others are looking for answers and might find this view comfortable) as I'd like to follow Einstein his words; "I would like to know what God thinks, the rest are details."

          I think 'he' thinks (we think) we give our children crappy education and crappy food, do something about it.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 29 2011: Paul:
          I don't think is corect to admit more 'perspective' upon the same point: the truth is only one , all we have to do is to fight released by our preconceived ideas as much as is possible for what we believe that is true.
          I've read some time ago Einstein's book :"The world as I see it" and it's clear that Einstein agree with the 'pantheistic God ' which has been proposed by Spinoza (and Hegel) in philosophy , I disagree with it (perhaps if we'll talk I'll say why) . It's not enough to have an opinion if you want to do something about :we give our children crappy education and crappy food" (by the way I agree with it).
          When you say 'our ego', 'our collective spirit' you use the singular nouns : ego , spirit , this make me to think that you talk about an entity , a unity (seems to me that you suppose that this 'collective spirit' 'collective ego' is an underground reality of a specific nature which keeps everything in balance ) . You said also that the collective spirit are all immaterial relations but saying it you don't make something else than to say that this unity/entity is infinite divisible (the collective spirit , ego is made up by the all particular relations(which are keep together by other relations= to infinite / spirits and also by the all particular egos ) .
          But you also suppose that :"Therefore God is Us. Our collective spirit where compassion is the most evident 'proof'" ...................... therefore summing all these you just say that God is infinite divisible : it's an impossible idea from a christian perspective , this is pure pantheism.
          We can talk about pantheism if you want to ............... it suppose 'bindings' but it's a wrong view in my opinion (at this moment I'm not sure that you are a pantheist ).
          So i come back to my point that the christian religion don't suppose necessarilly bindings between human beings ................
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: yes the truth is only one, that we are all one, everything is one. parts we sense, parts we don't. Talking about 'matter' is divisible, you can cut and cut untill you are in Garrrett Lisi's theory of everything.
          Immatter is of a complete different order we cannot comprehend, it's maybe yes maybe not dividable as matter, though we cannot see the parts, as we can not sense/measure it.

          That's why we can discuss it endlessly and use it for war to divide through divinity.

          Eduard, I gave you and others interest my view and I enjoy reading and can understand other views on the topic. The important thing is we keep on looking and in dialogue as our own world is changing fast and we should not put labels on everybody. It's an industrial thing to put everything/everybody in boxes.

          Secondly. there are still too many people going to 'church', saying they are god fearing or christian and on monday morning continue slave driving or being a slave to the elites system.

          The binding between life and religion is gone, this has to be brought back by understanding the scriptures and the relationship with what we can see.

          We are mind and body, as simple as that. We know they are interdependent. Our body exists because of matter. Our mind/thought because of immatter. We need to take care of our body and mind to have a common good soul.

          So we need to take care of the planet as we sense and the spirit as we can not sense.

          Discussing about which analogy, words, experience on the spirit misses the point. It's like proclaiming everybody should drive the same car as you do, just because you feel great and empowered in it. What is important when you have a car, help others with getting their car for the ride. Maybe the same as yours, though it can just as well be a totally different horseless wagon.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 29 2011: I'm not responsible for the others .................I only try to understand something , about labels: I understand it's all relative but we have to carve our way to the truth , we have to indentify ourselves with something : it's a necessity (otherwise we'll be gone ) .
          there are some things at you which bother me very much : the idea that the spirit is something what we can not sense, the idea that what is immaterial we can not comprehend , the idea that the mind and the body are independent ..........
          "...It's like proclaiming everybody should drive the same car as you do" when I'll find out that my car is on the wrong way I will stop proclaiming it, until then..............
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: How the universe started has nothing to do with Evolution...evolution is behavior within an existing system. It has nothing to do with how that system started, that's an entirely other branch of science. Same with the origin of life, abiogenesis for example has nothing at all, whatsoever to do with evolution, evolution only comes into the picture AFTER life has begun to exist. Keeping that in mind, the fact that evolution doesn't touch on the origin of life or the universe, I can't think of any reason it would be incompatible with religion, save maybe a religious outright saying "evolution is wrong".
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 24 2011: Supposing it is so how you say , how can we have a continuity a consistency of what we accept as true if we don't have the all informations, the all datas? A theory shouldn't explain everything what is important in order to be a theory ? I mean the evolution theory depends on the beginning of life ..................how all this come?
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: @Eduard
          For a theory to work, it needs to explicitly state the conditions in which it is applicable, and match them to all available evidence (in the form of tests, observations and others). Both the theory (i.e. explanation) itself and the conditions could be reshaped as new evidence comes along, but the point is that if the conditions are met, the theory must work for all available evidence to be valid.

          Evolution places as a requirement one or more kind of cells capable of reproducing, and an environment in which the reproduction may produce an offspring with one or more different characteristics for whatever reason (with "natural selection" being the main reason in multi-cellular organisms). It explains how you get from THAT to us over a range of 3.8 billion years. It doesn't deal with how/why life started, it doesn't deal with how our solar system formed, or how chemicals formed, or how the universe started. That's all separate theories that also place conditions and go onwards based on the available evidence.

          We still don't know for sure how the first life started, but even if it started by a divine or alien intervention, that still wouldn't contradict evolution, which is why there are theists that also accept evolution. The problem creationists have is that if this bit of the Bible/Quran is wrong, then it's no longer the infallible work of their God, but just the claims of bronze age desert goat herders... God might still exist, heaven and hell might still be real places, but the stories in the Bible/Quran are no longer the full truth in God's own words. If evolution is true, the circular logic that has been a driver for their life ( http://www.wayofthemind.org/2009/01/14/the-lovely-circular-logic-of-biblical-literalists/ ) is broken.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 24 2011: OK Vasil , I know it (it's not first time when you say it), I guess that there is no theory which summarize (totals) the all evidencies from the all fields of science (I know it in fact) that is to say don't summarize the all theories ................... and about it is my question : how can we have continuity (consistency) what we accept in if we don't have this 'meagatheory' ?

          All is too relatively (especially now with you) to can talk about your last paragraph.
        • thumb
          May 25 2011: Hi Andrew
          ".evolution is behavior within an existing system"
          This is what folks say; however if you read a book, or watch a documentary, it almost always starts with the Big Bang & continues via Primordial Soup to evolution as we know & love it. Don't you think that creates a false impression that it's all been worked out ?

          :-)
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: @Eduard
          If we had one "megatheory", we would derive everything out of it, even when there's no evidence to verify our derivatives. That's how theists work... they assume God (with the lack of evidence being expressed as God having the will to evade stuff), and derive everything else out of it (note: this does not apply to deists). That has definitely not been helpful in actually advancing knowledge, which is why science goes the other way around - collect evidence, come up with explanations based on the evidence, and collect new evidence based on the theory until it fails, at which point is is reshaped to take the new evidence into account.

          Quantum physics is as close as you can get to a "megatheory" that would potentially explain everything, but the field, much like most scientific fields, is incomplete. There are particles that exist only hypothetically (i.e. there's no evidence for them other than them being compatible with the proven particles) or that have only a semi-predictable behavior.

          Even if the field was complete, as you enlarge the scale, you start needing abstractions... subsets defined over the superset. As long as you don't depend on a particular behavior of the superset, having abstractions is the only way for us as humans to understand and actually use the knowledge. Even when quantum physics is complete, there'll still be use for chemistry, since the vast majority of the quantum particles in the universe are arranged in a chemical way, and we can keep enlarging the scale to reach up to celestial objects like galaxies and black holes.

          Without abstractions, "me talking to you" would be nonsense. "me" is abstraction (of billions of particles), "talking to" is an even bigger abstraction (especially when the Internet is involved; trillions of particles moving over the course of a few minutes, plus another trillion of particles moving over the course of other few minutes), and "you" are also an abstraction (of another batch of billions of particles).
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 26 2011: This isn't what I meant to say: a theory from which to derive everything , what I said (read more carefully the next time) is that we should have a theory which would summarize the all our scientific knowledge , a theory in which will be included all our knowledge from any fields of science , it's exatcly the opposite of what you think that I've said...............I don't know why you like so much to bring the idea of God in almost any our discussion (but I guess why) ..................don't contradict me only to contradict me.
        • thumb
          May 27 2011: @Eduard
          "I don't know why you like so much to bring the idea of God in almost any our discussion (but I guess why)"
          The topic title is "The evolution theory & religion". Since God is the focus of the kind of religions that are in conflict with evolution to begin with, bringing theism and God into the discussion HERE seems appropriate.

          Besides, I'm not talking about the truth of it, nor do I assume anything about what you believe. I'm simply bringing it as a base of comparison with what I presumed was your idea, because whether you believe in it or not, your way of thinking seems to lead back to something resembling it.

          But OK... you meant something that can summarize all knowledge in a basic way... let's start with something easy, and duplicate the method for larger and larger areas of science, until we reach science itself... how do you summarize all of humanity's math knowledge? You can give me definitions of math like "The part of science that deals with manipulating numbers in various fashions" or something of the sort, but that doesn't reflect what we know in math. It's only a way to separate math from other sciences. You could tell me "The fundamental concept is the number 1 and the operation +, and everything else exists for the sake of convenience, including negative, real and complex numbers, which are just 1 being expressed as a sum of differently defined 1's." (P.S. That's actually the real deal in computer science). That still doesn't explain all of the conveniences we have, why do we have them and not other conveniences, how have they been useful if at all, and what and why don't we yet know.

          I can give you a metaphorical idea of the amount of knowledge we have, but not for what is the knowledge that we do have. The metaphor? Imagine a sheet of A1 paper - all knowledge. Draw a dot in the center - your knowledge. Draw a circle with 1cm radius around it - the sum of the knowledge of the people around you. Draw a 5cm circle around it - human knowledge.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 28 2011: ...........bringing theism and God into the discussion HERE seems appropriate." it doesn't seems at all appropriate because what I want to do here is to find the relations between religion and the evlolution theory , to find the common ground of these two it's not need at all to bring the idea of God in discussion (and because I'm agnostic in terms of believing that we can't know God by scientific methods ).
          I don't know what you talked about in your last paragraphs .
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2011: "what I want to do here is to find the relations between religion and the evlolution theory , to find the common ground of these two"
          The common ground is for religious people to admit Genesis is "a poem about creation". Anything less is in conflict with science, considering that evolution is the least of Genesis' conflicts with science (other fallacious claims include the moon being a light, light existing without the sun, etc.).

          Fortunately, many do just that. But it's actually creationists that have a stronger sense of logic here. They say "if this part is false, I can't trust anything in the bible without evidence. Without evidence, it's possible that all of it is man made". The only problem is they go the wrong way after they get this thought... they choose the bible instead of choosing the truth.

          Here's how Genesis needs to be revised if it is to be compatible with scientific knowledge:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9EVMzVQKTk

          My last paragraphs were all about your idea of a "mega theory".... what do you mean by that? It seems I've missed the mark on what you're talking about twice now... a scientifically compatible creation story? There's one on TED:
          http://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history.html
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: http://www.ted.com/conversations/1962/why_don_t_people_believe_the_f.html
    (There is already a conversation about this.)

    Evolution has nothing to do with religion, at all. Even if we had no religions we would still have the process of evolution happening naturally.
    • May 8 2011: Hi Nicholas, I agree with most of what you say, but evolution is there to serve the species. When a species mutates, it has to mutate not only to benefit it's own species, but all species. The food chain is one example. I am not talking about a spiritual source but a natural one. Intelligence brings about a change to our environment, it also brings a human condition; the need for something mystical. The pattern of evolution has not changed, just the conditions that feed it.
      • thumb
        May 8 2011: Yes I agree, religion has a lot to do with philosophy, but religion is but a branch of philosophy. Specifically religion evolves over time but the actual subject has nothing to do with natural evolution.

        While philosophy strengthens both science and religion their connections are not direct but correlations. Spirituality however can inspire science as can science inspire spirituality.

        When I said evolution I meant, natural (over time physical) evolution. The mind follow body, body does not follow mind until intelligence is established and responded to communally. example: the first ape to walk long distances due to the ability to save energy than walking on all four.
        • May 9 2011: Hi, you mention physical evolution, the mind follows body, body does not follow mind. Are you sure that this is the case. Science and logic dictate that the first life was a dormant one. Life cannot begin at suare 2 or square 3, it has to begin at square 1. To find proof of this; all life must have inherited traits from this ancestor. I am not refering to D.N.A. but to characteristics passed down through D.N.A. Without memory life could not exist, without a subconscious, memory could not exist. When we dream, most of the dreams can be explained using our everyday experiences, but occasionally we have a dream that defies explanation. Could this be the dormancy passed down over the generations? All life has this dormancy because all life has a subconscious. It must be has important now as it was all those billions of years ago! Another point; the subconscious works 24/7 never stopping. Consciousness 16/7. In the greater scheme of things, the subconscious appears to be the most important. 16 hrs absorbing our emotions and 8hrs using them. The environment is only the trigger, it's what pulls the trigger that will give us the answers we crave.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 9 2011: can we talk about mind at animals (mind when it means thinking)?
          "all life has a subconcious" should we make a difference between the animals and humans at this point? what do you think?
      • thumb
        May 9 2011: @ Eduard

        Merely the instinctive drives all animals have is what keeps them surviving naturally.

        @ Derek

        Yeah I am still pretty confident mind follows body and I don't see how your argument disagrees with my conclusion either. For DNA to develop through lineage is evolution/mutation; that's natural due to the need to reproduce in nature. Only some animals have intelligence in which they can respond to their environment extensively.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 9 2011: so the animals do not have reason , mind but how it appeared in the evolutive process?
        • May 9 2011: Hi Nicholas, you are right, D.N.A. does develop through lineage. However when the time comes for a species to mutate, the D.N.A. also changes to allow the metamorphosis to take place. The environment alone cannot do this, there has to be something else. I don't mean something spiritual!
      • thumb
        May 9 2011: No by instinct does not mean without reason. Part of instinct can include reason. I mean, an animal will not eat a rotting animal with bugs on it unless it knows already it can eat it without becoming sickly. Intelligence just gives more reason to the consideration rather than trial and error on basic levels constantly.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 10 2011: you just described a bit how work some instincts.............. nothing rational yet
      • thumb
        May 10 2011: That statement wasn't rational

        Why don't you just do personal research on this manner?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 10 2011: I wanna have a talk , a conversation and for this I have to know what are you thinking about it...........from what I noticed until now you do not think too much at what you are going to post here, I hope you will change it..............Idk
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 9 2011: interesting Derek , I would like to know (and not only myself perhaps) how the subconcious had evolved and how it evolve now , how it had appeared (from the evolution perspective , if you want)?
      • May 9 2011: Hi Eduard. Science and logic dictate that the first life to appear would have been a dormant life. The Earth was a very hostile place in the beginning and that dormant life must have existed with all senses alert, waiting for a change that would allow it to evolve. This could have been the beginning of the mind. This is why I put so much importance on the dormancy that all life still posseses to this day. That dormancy is buried deep in the recesses of our subconscious, so deep that most of us don't realise it. When it does surface, it is so misunderstood and so hard to recognise for what it is. What we can't understand is soon forgotten.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 10 2011: if something is dormant how can it have the all sense alert as you said? and what's the link between a state of dormancy and conciousness ?
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 9 2011: Nick , what do you think : the religion doesn't influence the evolving process or it does?
      • thumb
        May 10 2011: Evolution has nothing to do with religion, at all. Even if we had no religions we would still have the process of evolution happening naturally.
      • May 10 2011: Hi, Eduard. The dormancy that lies deep in the subconscious is continually absorbing our everyday emotional experiences. It hides them away, but we get glimpses of them when we have a dream that cannot be explained. ( The dormancy that connects all species together, perhaps.) A species does not mutate just to benefit its own, but all species. That must mean that all species are connected in some way. I don't mean in a spiritual way, I mean in a natural way. Like I said before, nature can only benefit the species if the information comes from the species.
  • May 8 2011: HI. Evolution has been around for billions of years; feeding off the environment and mutating to adjust. With the coming of intelligence, the environment takes on a new meaning. Religion is part of that new environment and is serving evolution on it's everlasting journey of evolving. If its there, it's important, otherwise it would not be there!
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 8 2011: interesting , how religion is serving the evolution ? so is there a relation between this two?
      • May 8 2011: Evolution has a relation with everything. If it hadn't, then it could not work and we know it does.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 9 2011: it is a very bold afirmation , what is the relation between the evolution theory and God (it doesn't matter how you define God) or if you are atheist what is the relation between the evolution theory and atheism ?
      • May 9 2011: Hi again Eduard. There is a relation between religion and evolution. An intelligent species needs stimulation to survive, that is why we are able to survive. Religion is part of that stimulation just like everything else. Evolution can only serve the species if its information is coming from the species. How else could it get its information?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 10 2011: how religion is part of the stimulation like everything else?................without informations the evolution wouldn't have occured ?
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: To me, evolution theory makes human being responsible for his life : we grow and get new skills to deal with our environment, to adapt.
    Some religions or at least the way they're understood make us irresponsible people, waiting for our fate to decide.
    But some spiritual movements seem to be evolution-bound since they make us rise and awaken spiritually, i think.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      May 8 2011: Hi Birdia, what you mean by "there are people who are evolving"?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 10 2011: I think the opposite . What more exatcly means to evolve , will we become aliens , superbeings or something like ?
      • Comment deleted

        • May 11 2011: Hi Birdia, its me again. You say that things such as art, philosophy, music, God, sports etc are there to give an illusion. Let me take you back to the beginning of life and how it progressed. It all started with the emotion of survival, the instinct to survive. Then we come to the dinosaur and its demise, its demise started a down grading of all species. Crocs, sharks and birds are evidence of this. This could not have happened if the emotional needs of the species did not need it. This down grading gave the intelligence that was beginning, a chance to flourish. Science never airs the reason for the dinosaurs contribution to life, only its demise. This is because they have not got a clue. They have so many different reasons for their demise, which tells me they haven't got a clue to that either.Along with all the things you mention I will mention death, the most horrific emotions are brought to the fore, emotions that can more than match any felt during the journey of evolution. Emotions have served us well over billions of years, we must not look on them so lightly. We would not be here if it was not for the emotions that guide us through life.
          P S. I agree with your first part.
        • thumb
          May 11 2011: you'll like probably this one from PINC11 http://vimeo.com/12086524 the history of the material universe and culture in 20 everyday objects.

          Guess we also need one for 'psychology, religion, intuition, compassion, empathy'
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 11 2011: Dear Birdia ,it's your opinion , I understand, but I wanna believe that it is a rational one , you said in your first paragraph something and gave some examples about it that we invented all this things (the agriculture , the religion........) because something determined us to do it our moral values system , our instincts etc. but here is the point about this topic : where in this process of evolution have appeared the moral values and our instincts , how have it happened? and why have it happened ? why did we create the religion for example , why not something else (the same question about agriculture)?
          "God, just like other invented things such as art, philosophy, music, sports" you know philosophy study something, for example analitical philosophy study the meanings of the words and if God is an invented thing like the philosophy , what we have studied in order to invent it ?(it's the same thing about the music and any sport.....)everything have a basis, a ground , at the idea, invented in your opinion, of God what is it? and why exatcly the idea of God? why not something else?
          Interesed in your opinion.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 11 2011: Derek:
          Emotions , what do you understand by this word , not necessarily to give a definition but what do you understand by emotions?.......... and when have appeared the emotions in the evolutive process ? and how these influenced us ? we as humans have reason it's more important .........
          what do you think about it?
        • May 11 2011: Hi Birdia, the computer is a new toy to me, though I am learning. At 77yrs old I find I learn one day and forget it another. Explain to me why I should not challenge what you say ,after all it is a debate. If you don't challenge other peoples ideas you stop thinking, are you suggesting that I should stop thinking. Religion tries to do this and now an atheist is doing the same thing. I don't mean any disrespect, but don't you think you should withdraw. It's thinking that gets us to the truth and also listening helps too. You won't believe this , but I am more of an athiest than yourself but an athiest with new ideas. Sorry if this letter sounds a bit harsh, but I can't say it any other way. Please don't fall into the same trap as religion. Don't stop people from thinking. (Mind not brain.)
      • Comment deleted

        • May 12 2011: Hi Birdia, you mislead me with your description of God. You say he was invented, so what are your beliefs. I have told you what mine are, maybe yours is so elusive you cannot mention it. Let me explain in simple terms where I am coming from and would you do me the honour of replying? Evolution= Ability. Ability without being governed would spiral out of control. This applies to evolution as it does to any other kind of ability. Many say that evolution happened by chance; in the first place that is possible. However when you take into account the billions of years evolving by chance- theory, it becomes a little weak, in fact it becomes non-viable. I don't think either of us want to bring in some divine help at this point. In the absence of divine help: evolution can only go forward by the information received from the species, it is how this information is passed on that I have been researching. Science and logic dictate that the first life-form was a dormant one, which must have been around in its dormant state with all senses alert, waiting for when the time was right to evolve. This was the first emotion; look at our emotional capacity now. This is why I challenged your trivial attitude towards emotions. They are just as important now as they were billions of years ago. I don't ask anyone to accept new ideas, but I would encourage them to embrace them for a little while. If we had not embraced them in the past the world would still be flat and the moon would still be made of cheese.
          PS I have discovered a link between all life on earth and I am not talking about DNA. You can understand why I can't mention it. I am about to discuss it at a meeting tonight.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 12 2011: Birdia :
          I don't want to recieve comments in the scientific terminology or something like , I wanna see only the reason behind someones opinion , I have only contempt for someone who use this terminology and do not make too much sense logically , rationally .............but Birdia I also don't think it's enough for someone only to express his/her opinions without arguments (doesn't matter the terminology), and without trying to answer at some normal question about his/her belief.
          Thank you for your comments.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 12 2011: HI.
          @ Derek: I see where you're getting at, but I'm not sure how your reasoning has allowed you equate evolution with ability. Evolution is the gradual change in inherited traits in organisms, not ability. I see where you're getting at with the dormant thing though. If my assumptions are correct, are you referring to the fact that, at the most basic level, cells have the ability to express certain genes and not others? This allows cells to differentiate to different cell lines etc.

          @Birdia: You're line of thought seems pretty clear too. I agree that not all emotions are necessary and arts and the like do not have a concrete purpose other than to make us feel better about ourselves and communicate. But I think that in our more primitive state a few million years or so ago, emotions did play a larger role in our existence as, without the intellect and knowledge that we have now, humans had to rely on their 'gut-feelings' to judge precarious situations. That said, that really only applies to anger and fear and, maybe, to love. The rest is comforting but unnecessary in my opinion.

          I digress. Religion and evolution can survive together. Look at Charles Darwin, father of the theory of evolution and a regular church-goer. But it depends on what you rely on religion for. Is it a place for comfort or do you turn to it to explain every detail of life? If your idealisms follow the latter, chances are you won't look on evolution too highly as it refutes the whole idea that God created the world and everything on it in seven days.
          I personally find the religious standpoint to be false. There is clear evidence for evolution, from selective breeding (yes, pugs are an example of accelerated evolution), homologous structures and DNA. And say what you will about the structure of the eye, but scientists have modelled that such a structure is entirely possible by evolution and would even take even less time to create. Perhaps we should celebrate the power of the natural world.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          May 12 2011: Hi Elizabeth :
          You say that religion and evolution can live together , what do you mean by it : this both can exist together separated of persons or a person can believe both two ? It seems to me that you will agree with the second from what you said but how is it possible more exatcly?