Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 193 (20007)
10-16-2002 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 11:39 PM


In the Quran, there is a ayat stating" ... what!, you speak of what you do not know..".
Hence Im afraid of making any hasty conclusions of Allah`s intentions or His ways of creation.
But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence.
Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning.
Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure.
Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test.
The reason I started the topic was mainly to bring the debate to another level, Evolution Vs creation shouldnt only be a scientific issue, it should include the social aspects of the views as well.
For example, is it really in our nature as humans to feel related to animals, it has only been a litle more than a century since Darwin made the theory but humans have been around alot longer and it wouldn`t be so strange if our psycological and spiritual characters and our social structure as well dont coincide with that theory, what do you think?
Sincerely Delshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nos482, posted 10-16-2002 8:34 AM Delshad has replied
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 4:37 AM Delshad has replied
 Message 71 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 1:54 AM Delshad has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 193 (20013)
10-16-2002 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 11:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If (for example) Delshad believes that God prodded evolution at arbitrary steps, at some point this begs the quesiton - maybe God just created everything. It is a slippery slope to that creationism thing!
Irrelevant. That isn't what evolution is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:39 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 193 (20014)
10-16-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Delshad
10-16-2002 6:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
In the Quran, there is a ayat stating" ... what!, you speak of what you do not know..".
Hence Im afraid of making any hasty conclusions of Allah`s intentions or His ways of creation.
But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence.
Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning.
Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure.
Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test.
The reason I started the topic was mainly to bring the debate to another level, Evolution Vs creation shouldnt only be a scientific issue, it should include the social aspects of the views as well.
For example, is it really in our nature as humans to feel related to animals, it has only been a litle more than a century since Darwin made the theory but humans have been around alot longer and it wouldn`t be so strange if our psycological and spiritual characters and our social structure as well dont coincide with that theory, what do you think?
Sincerely Delshad

Again, not only are we related to animals we are animals.
"spiritual characters"? All this is is our need to find answers to questions, but otherwisw it is totally meaningless and doesn't exist in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Delshad, posted 10-16-2002 6:25 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Delshad, posted 10-16-2002 8:58 AM nos482 has replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 193 (20016)
10-16-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nos482
10-16-2002 8:34 AM


Anyone else besides Nos482 that care to discuss (not that I dont value his replies but he doesnt feel to happy about bringing the scientific issue at a more social and philosophical level).
Sincerely Delshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nos482, posted 10-16-2002 8:34 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nos482, posted 10-16-2002 9:17 PM Delshad has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 193 (20046)
10-16-2002 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 11:39 PM


Any evolutionary views that Delshad or anyone else might have that are unsupported by evidence, such as divine intervention, are unscientific and not part of the theory of evolution. An evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory of evolution. Any person who's evolutionary views include supernatural causes would be grouped among the Creationists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 11:39 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 9:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 193 (20049)
10-16-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
10-16-2002 8:28 PM


So, Percy, where does that leave the theistic evolutionists?
I certainly think one could have a religious faith, that somehow God was involved in the path evolution took, and still be a full blown evolutionist.
It's a matter of if one keeps ones science and religion separate, or if one lets ones science and religion blend.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-16-2002 8:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-16-2002 9:18 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 24 by nos482, posted 10-16-2002 9:22 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 193 (20050)
10-16-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Delshad
10-16-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Anyone else besides Nos482 that care to discuss (not that I dont value his replies but he doesnt feel to happy about bringing the scientific issue at a more social and philosophical level).
Sincerely Delshad

That is because they are irrelevant to science. When you bring such things in to hard science you usually get nonsense like pseudo-science which tries to appeal to public opinion.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Delshad, posted 10-16-2002 8:58 AM Delshad has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 193 (20051)
10-16-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
10-16-2002 9:05 PM


I guess it leaves them looking for evidence!
By the way, my religious persona believes just as you described, that God was involved in the evolution of the universe, of life, and of man himself. If that persona begun contributing here, in my view he would be a Creationist.
It is also as you describe that my religious and scientific personas are separate, never confused. I take a scientific approach to the natural world, and a spiritual approach to the supernatural world. It would be wonderful to find natural evidence of the supernatural world and bring the two together, but I'm not expecting it to happen.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 9:05 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-16-2002 11:37 PM Percy has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 193 (20053)
10-16-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
10-16-2002 9:05 PM


Originally posted by minnemooseus:
So, Percy, where does that leave the theistic evolutionists?
That they don't fully understand what evolution is about. It is not its purpose to include how it all got started, so adding GODDIDIT is irrelevant.
It's a matter of if one keeps ones science and religion separate, or if one lets ones science and religion blend.
Those who try to blend science and religion usually get nonsense like creationism. And the other is called compartmentalization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 9:05 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 193 (20060)
10-16-2002 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-16-2002 9:18 PM


Percy
We are showing that it is possible that the data shows this. You don't agree but we believe the data does demonstrate exactly what you think it doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-16-2002 9:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 10-17-2002 8:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 10-19-2002 8:51 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 193 (20080)
10-17-2002 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Delshad
10-16-2002 6:25 AM


Delshad
You are wondering whether pschologically and spiritually we have begun to think of ourselves as related to animals in parallel, or because of, Darwinism.
The answer would probably be yes and no.
Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind.
I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population.
What interests you about your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Delshad, posted 10-16-2002 6:25 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Delshad, posted 10-17-2002 7:14 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 29 by nos482, posted 10-17-2002 8:43 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 72 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 2:06 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 113 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 10:42 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 193 (20091)
10-17-2002 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
10-17-2002 4:37 AM


Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base
Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge.
Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.
Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.
Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact.
Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.
If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction.
Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.
Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans.
And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 4:37 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nos482, posted 10-17-2002 8:53 AM Delshad has replied
 Message 73 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 2:19 AM Delshad has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 193 (20097)
10-17-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
10-16-2002 11:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy
We are showing that it is possible that the data shows this. You don't agree but we believe the data does demonstrate exactly what you think it doesn't.

And you are wrong. You want to see what isn't actually there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-16-2002 11:37 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 193 (20098)
10-17-2002 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
10-17-2002 4:37 AM


Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind.
Irrelevant.
I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma.
Dogma? What dogma?
At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution.
Large minority? That's an oxymoron.
Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population.
Please, you're the one who is "brain"washed by your religious dogma. Science doesn't actually care if you believe or not since it is not solely based on belief itself as your's is. Without belief your god is nothing since there is nothing else. Even if people stop believing in gravity they are still going to be walking around instead of floating. Ignorance makes gods, science destroys ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 4:37 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 2:22 AM nos482 has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 193 (20099)
10-17-2002 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Delshad
10-17-2002 7:14 AM


Originally posted by Delshad:
Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base
Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge.
Where did you hear this?
Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.
???
Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.
Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact.
The survival instinct is hazardous to our health?
Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.
Negative mind? It is neither positive nor negative. They don't let such things cloud their judgement.
If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction.
What? An infant is not born with a fully formed mind. It is still operating on instinct.
Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.
Babble.
Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans.
Science is a method and not a belief.
And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.
Pseudo-science makes the same assertions as well. There is a difference between good facts and the ones which those who believe in pseudo-science use. The best lie uses just enough truth to make it look real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Delshad, posted 10-17-2002 7:14 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Delshad, posted 10-17-2002 10:27 AM nos482 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024