Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 1 of 60 (539693)
12-18-2009 5:19 PM


From time to time, whilst looking up at the stars at night and contemplating my connection to them, I get a transcendent feeling, the closest thing to what some might call a "religious experience" that I have. I stand there realising that I can't even begin to appreciate the grand scale of things. As wonderous and amazing as I think the universe is, it must, in fact, be even more astoundingly impressive than I can imagine.
In the distant past, when our solar system was just beginning to form from clouds of dust, the ingredients that led to you and I were there.
After a vast, impossible-to-imagine period of time, the system settled into a relative equilibrium, with the various planets having coalesced into their orbits around the sun.
Somewhere along the way something happened on that third planet that allowed self-replicating entities to emerge. Our understanding of this moment remains shrouded in shadow, but many interesting ideas have been suggested including iron pyrites that might provide a matrix for amino acids to link together, radioactive beaches, and hydrothermal vents. Whatever happened here, the stage was set for our ingredients to finally start getting mixed.
3.8 billion years later, I sit here typing about how amazing and wonderful it all is.
I cannot imagine a more incredible thing than the knowledge that I am made of starstuff - that I, insignificant though I may be, am deeply connected to this vast cosmos. Not only that, but I get to have a brief glimpse at the inherent truth of that knowledge through the lens of science. I simply cannot imagine a religion that could inspire such a feeling of genuine awe.
Carl Sagan writes:
We are made of starstuff... We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Some reasons why evolution trumps creationism specifically
-----------------
  • Evo: The theory of evolution provides a single framework for understanding the rise of complex life from simple origins. One size fits all.
  • Creo: Each origin myth handles the core details differently, and most are mutually exclusive. Which brand do you wear, and does it really fit?
    -----------------
  • Evo: In the ToE, all life is connected. We are all cousins.
  • Creo: The Creationists' "Kinds" are distinctly different groups, their only connection being that they were all deposited here fully formed by the same supreme being.
    -----------------
  • Evo: There is enough evidence supporting the ToE that any remaining doubts have more to do with specific mechanisms than the process as a whole.
  • Creo: Evidence doesn't seem to exist, but also doesn't seem to be important. There generally isn't even a "process" to be understood: We were put here, and someday we'll get armageddoned or raptured off again.
    -----------------
  • Evo: The ToE sheds light on otherwise mysterious forces, giving us one of Carl Sagan's "candles in the dark", so we can come out of the caves and quit being afraid of the moon.
  • Creo: Individual origin myths introduce more mysterious forces than they explain, and leave us wondering (for some perhaps just in the back of your mind) how accurate they really are. Whatever comfort we might gain from them is offset by doubt.
    -----------------
    Disclaimer:
    As has been illustrated in other threads, abiogenesis and the ToE are distinctly separate. The comparisons above relate only to the specific nature of evolution (which posits a gradual ramp of increasing complexity from a primordial form) versus the specific nature of creationism (which posits a creation moment in which many fully formed "Kinds" were placed). So, if you are a deist like RAZD, these comparisons don't necessarily apply to you.
  • Edited by Briterican, : Replaced 3.5 billion with 3.8 billion.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 5:13 PM Briterican has replied
     Message 10 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:51 PM Briterican has replied
     Message 36 by RickJB, posted 12-23-2009 5:49 AM Briterican has replied

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 2 of 60 (539814)
    12-20-2009 4:52 AM


    Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
    Thread copied here from the Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    Peg
    Member (Idle past 4929 days)
    Posts: 2703
    From: melbourne, australia
    Joined: 11-22-2008


    Message 3 of 60 (539818)
    12-20-2009 5:27 AM


    Briterican writes:
    I cannot imagine a more incredible thing than the knowledge that I am made of starstuff - that I, insignificant though I may be, am deeply connected to this vast cosmos. Not only that, but I get to have a brief glimpse at the inherent truth of that knowledge through the lens of science. I simply cannot imagine a religion that could inspire such a feeling of genuine awe.
    I am genuinely awed by the fact that there is a magnifigant being out there who had the mind and power to create the universe we exist in.
    You can be in awe of the universe much the same way you can be in awe of E=mc2...but im sure the man behind that equation is more awe inspiring then his equation.
    Briterican writes:
    The theory of evolution provides a single framework for understanding the rise of complex life from simple origins. One size fits all.
    im not sure if you can say that considering abiogenesis has not been worked out yet.
    Yes life is here, but they still dont have any way of proving just how it got here. Evolution is a simple theory...a simple theory with no way of proving its beginning or IOW a theory without a foundation.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 7:46 AM Peg has not replied
     Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 12-20-2009 11:39 AM Peg has not replied

      
    Briterican
    Member (Idle past 3948 days)
    Posts: 340
    Joined: 05-29-2008


    Message 4 of 60 (539836)
    12-20-2009 7:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
    12-20-2009 5:27 AM


    Equations are not awe-inspring, the underlying forces they describe are
    Hi Peg, thanks for the reply
    Peg writes:
    I am genuinely awed by the fact that there is a magnifigant being out there who had the mind and power to create the universe we exist in.
    I think it's obvious that I don't buy it. There is no evidence of this magnificent being, but instead quite the opposite, lots of evidence that everything progresses in the absence of such a being. Besides, where did his "mind and power" come from? Where did they originate? Turtles... all the way down.
    Peg writes:
    You can be in awe of the universe much the same way you can be in awe of E=mc2...but im sure the man behind that equation is more awe inspiring then his equation.
    The man was indeed amazing in his own right, but his insights into physics reveal an underlying beauty of nature, and that underlying beauty is the awe inspiring part. The equations are just our way of modeling and quantifying what takes place. Einstein didn't create relativity, he discovered it. So, no, I don't find the man more awe inspiring than what he discovered.
    Peg writes:
    Briterican writes:
    The theory of evolution provides a single framework for understanding the rise of complex life from simple origins. One size fits all.
    im not sure if you can say that considering abiogenesis has not been worked out yet.
    You'll notice I was careful in the statement to say "from simple origins" and not "from nothing". I think it has been adequately explained in other threads that abiogenesis and ToE are not connected. I was also careful to point out that we don't know exactly how life started, but we do know it has evolved since.
    Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
    Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 5:27 AM Peg has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 6:36 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 4189 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 5 of 60 (539878)
    12-20-2009 11:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
    12-20-2009 5:27 AM


    Yes life is here, but they still dont have any way of proving just how it got here. Evolution is a simple theory...a simple theory with no way of proving its beginning or IOW a theory without a foundation.
    As what has been pointed out in a number of threads, how life started has no bearing on evolution. It matters not whether life was abiogenically created or poofed into existence by some sky-daddy, evolution only deals with life not its formation. How many ways does this have to be stated before you realize this?

    There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
    Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
    Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 5:27 AM Peg has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 2:57 PM bluescat48 has not replied

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2106 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 6 of 60 (539911)
    12-20-2009 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by bluescat48
    12-20-2009 11:39 AM


    Brit missed one
    It matters not whether life was abiogenically created or poofed into existence by some sky-daddy, evolution only deals with life not its formation. How many ways does this have to be stated before you realize this?
    This stems from the comparison Brit omitted in the OP:
  • Evo: Facts matter. They must be accounted for, and cannot be ignored.
  • Creo: Belief matters. Divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge.
  • And never the twain shall meet.
    Edited by Coyote, : Missed name

    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 12-20-2009 11:39 AM bluescat48 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 3:22 PM Coyote has not replied

      
    Briterican
    Member (Idle past 3948 days)
    Posts: 340
    Joined: 05-29-2008


    Message 7 of 60 (539915)
    12-20-2009 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
    12-20-2009 2:57 PM


    Re: Brit missed one
    Coyote writes:
    This stems from the comparison Brit omitted in the OP:
    # Evo: Facts matter. They must be accounted for, and cannot be ignored.
    # Creo: Belief matters. Divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge.
    I sorta touched on that one with...
    Evo: There is enough evidence supporting the ToE that any remaining doubts have more to do with specific mechanisms than the process as a whole.
    Creo: Evidence doesn't seem to exist, but also doesn't seem to be important. There generally isn't even a "process" to be understood: We were put here, and someday we'll get armageddoned or raptured off again.
    ... but I think your wording is more succint and to the point
    The Creationists always have a "get out of jail free card" in this respect. The very nature of their approach to "research" invalidates it before it has begun. They are analytically incompetent.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 2:57 PM Coyote has not replied

      
    slevesque
    Member (Idle past 4640 days)
    Posts: 1456
    Joined: 05-14-2009


    Message 8 of 60 (540026)
    12-21-2009 5:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Briterican
    12-18-2009 5:19 PM


    I don't really get where you want to go with this, determining which view is ''best'' ? Or true ?
    Because you'll recognize that this is all subjective stuff in your OP. I could make an equal post about my feelings about God and how I'm in awe about him, but that wouldn't mean shizzles to you.
    Because personnally, I don't give a fudge about which one makes me feel better. I want to know what is true, what really happened historically.
    PS I'll won't comment on the strawmens of creation in the last part of your post

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Briterican, posted 12-18-2009 5:19 PM Briterican has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:01 PM slevesque has replied

      
    Iblis
    Member (Idle past 3895 days)
    Posts: 663
    Joined: 11-17-2005


    Message 9 of 60 (540038)
    12-21-2009 6:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Briterican
    12-20-2009 7:46 AM


    cults vs concepts
    Einstein didn't create relativity, he discovered it. So, no, I don't find the man more awe inspiring than what he discovered.
    We run into this line of thinking a lot though in this argument, don't we?
    What I mean is, we "insult Jesus" by pointing out that there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him poofing any critters into existence fully-formed about 6000 years ago, and in fact a lot of evidence that everything evolved from some complex crud starting more than 4 billion years ago. So they cry.
    Then when they recover their composure, they "get us back" by insulting Darwin, perhaps to the effect that he was a boat-riding nebbish who wasn't right about this or that and never even heard of DNA. We don't cry though, because we couldn't care less.
    We aren't Darwinists, or Einsteinites, or Branch Dawkinsians. We don't care if you print a picture of Heisenberg, or use Wheeler's name in vain. It reminds me of that sport that isn't called football in America. Are these basically just "ideology hooligans"?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 7:46 AM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

      
    iano
    Member (Idle past 1940 days)
    Posts: 6165
    From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 10 of 60 (540041)
    12-21-2009 6:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Briterican
    12-18-2009 5:19 PM


    I cannot imagine a more incredible thing than the knowledge that I am made of starstuff - that I, insignificant though I may be, am deeply connected to this vast cosmos. Not only that, but I get to have a brief glimpse at the inherent truth of that knowledge through the lens of science. I simply cannot imagine a religion that could inspire such a feeling of genuine awe.
    Romans 1 has words for this kind of idolatry (unconscious though it might be)
    quote:
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.
    Whilst agreeing that your musings should cause humilty and wonder to arise in you (I found the opening sequence of the Carl Sagan inspired Contact particularily profound, even as a believer) I find it hard to imagine quite why you suppose the potential for wonder to halt there.
    Imagine meeting a being who created all that and you have the potential for wonder, orders of magnitude apart from where you are. Especially when you suspect that the purpose of his creation is to cause wonder and humilty to arise in his created beings.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Briterican, posted 12-18-2009 5:19 PM Briterican has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 7:51 PM iano has not replied
     Message 13 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:41 PM iano has replied
     Message 37 by Larni, posted 12-23-2009 7:25 AM iano has replied

      
    Iblis
    Member (Idle past 3895 days)
    Posts: 663
    Joined: 11-17-2005


    Message 11 of 60 (540053)
    12-21-2009 7:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by iano
    12-21-2009 6:51 PM


    Especially when you suspect that the purpose of his creation is to cause wonder and humilty to arise in his created beings.
    Seriously? Quasars and Hubble expansion and galaxy clusters are just his way of showing off? He made black holes just to impress us? It's like a whole new level of anthropocentrism, there.
    Job does sound a lot like that, though. Endless reams of scholars debating over whether Behemoth and Leviathan were water-buffalo and crocodiles, or hippos and pythons, or whales and elephants, or Brontosaurus and the Loch Ness Monster; and all along there he is in heaven going Neener neener neener, let me know when you get a hook in one ...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:51 PM iano has not replied

      
    Briterican
    Member (Idle past 3948 days)
    Posts: 340
    Joined: 05-29-2008


    Message 12 of 60 (540054)
    12-21-2009 8:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
    12-21-2009 5:13 PM


    It is subjective
    slavesque writes:
    I don't really get where you want to go with this, determining which view is ''best'' ? Or true ?
    Because you'll recognize that this is all subjective stuff in your OP. I could make an equal post about my feelings about God and how I'm in awe about him, but that wouldn't mean shizzles to you.
    You're right that it is subjective. I sorta regreted the post not long after doing it, but only because I struggle to put into words these feelings. The feeling I wanted to get across is... "If only you guys would look at the stuff we REALLY KNOW is going on, it is amazing enough in itself without the need for Mr Magicstuff in the Sky".
    The difference between your "equal post about my feelings about God" is that your God isn't the subject of rigorous investigation like science is. He couldn't be. This God is not around for us to interview. This God is conspicuously absent and has left behind no calling card. This God is wholly and completely unimpressive in that he is something neither you nor any other believer can quantify or demonstrate. Science, on the other hand, is accessible to all and is present in every breath we take.
    slavesque writes:
    Because personnally, I don't give a fudge about which one makes me feel better. I want to know what is true, what really happened historically.
    Ah... the truth. We're all after the truth aren't we. You're right, that is what is important. So... which field of human endeavour is more interested in the truth, science or faith? Can things in science be demonstrated to be true to all observers? The answer is self-evidently yes. Can things in faith be similarly demonstrated? Clearly not, one of the reasons religions have split into separate sects countless times... one group's "truth" didn't sit well with the other's.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 5:13 PM slevesque has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:28 PM Briterican has replied

      
    Briterican
    Member (Idle past 3948 days)
    Posts: 340
    Joined: 05-29-2008


    Message 13 of 60 (540057)
    12-21-2009 8:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by iano
    12-21-2009 6:51 PM


    Imaginary superbeings don't add anything to the wonder of it all
    iano writes:
    Whilst agreeing that your musings should cause humilty and wonder to arise in you (I found the opening sequence of the Carl Sagan inspired Contact particularily profound, even as a believer) I find it hard to imagine quite why you suppose the potential for wonder to halt there.
    I'm pleased to hear you enjoyed that sequence in Contact. I would think that instead of "even as a believer", a religious person might be even more overwhelmed, feeling that they are getting a better look at God's creations. The potential for wonder doesn't STOP there. Like all others who are interested in these things, I'd love nothing more than to know the underlying workings of things, but this does not mean that I shall fly off in a fit of fancy and start inventing things, which is precisely what I think religion does.
    Idolatry? So you think i "worship science" ? As I pointed out before, Einstein doesn't awe me... the already present phenomena he discovered do. I'm not idolising the scientists, or anything for that matter. I am in awe of the accumulated knowledge we have as a species, and disappointed that some people find Bible quotes more relevant.
    iano writes:
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.
    So basically, those who don't believe in the Christian God are fools who subsequently worship men and birds and animals and reptiles? And then, because we are such sexually deviant creatures, we decide to degrade our bodies with one another? This stuff is just archaic nonsense to me. 21 exhibits the jealous god, 22 is rude, 24 is about sex (what is this preoccupation with sex?), and 25 posits a "truth of God" that isn't worth as much as the parchment it's written on.
    I see the relevance of 25 to the thread, but you mistake me for a worshipper. I do not worship Carl Sagan, or the birds and the bees, or the universe. I marvel at them, and I take satisfaction in being present at a time when we can truly appreciate the vast scope of existence. I will not allow the dusty binder of an ancient book to limit that experience in any way, and I think you deny yourself great intellectual satisfaction when you do so.
    iano writes:
    Imagine meeting a being who created all that and you have the potential for wonder, orders of magnitude apart from where you are.
    Sounds like you are saying I would be more fulfilled if only I would lie to myself and conjure up a nifty imaginary friend that is responsible for it all. That idea sullies the whole grand scope of things.
    Especially when you suspect that the purpose of his creation is to cause wonder and humilty to arise in his created beings.
    Wonder and humility are appropriate when contemplating the realities of this fantastic universe we inhabit. There is nothing wonderful or awe-inspiring about man-made origin myths that discourage free thinking and stifle investigation.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:51 PM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by iano, posted 12-22-2009 6:35 PM Briterican has replied

      
    hooah212002
    Member (Idle past 801 days)
    Posts: 3193
    Joined: 08-12-2009


    Message 14 of 60 (540146)
    12-22-2009 1:17 PM


    God is still active
    I wanted to respond to you Brit in the "flaws of ID" thread, but it would have been deemed as off topic. Your message, Message 249 in which you say:
    I just can't get over how you guys seem to miss the inherent beauty of a universe that does not require your imaginary designer, which is of course, the universe we live in.
    The newest APOD image shows that god is still actively creating new things in our universe because he failed with us. Just take a look for yourself and see that it MUST be god creating new planetary systems.
    (sarcasm so thick you could cut it with a butter knife)

    Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
    -Carl Sagan

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 2:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

      
    Briterican
    Member (Idle past 3948 days)
    Posts: 340
    Joined: 05-29-2008


    Message 15 of 60 (540165)
    12-22-2009 2:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by hooah212002
    12-22-2009 1:17 PM


    Re: God is still active
    Gorgeous picture, thanks for that.
    Amazing guy, this God, eh? I guess he's giving it another go in the Orion nebula since we've abandoned him. And to think, he can do all that whilst simultaneously listening to everyone's prayers, forgiving their sins, and manipulating time and space to ensure that certain football teams make it into the playoffs.
    The picture is beautiful, even more so to us because we don't attribute it to an imaginary tinkerer, but rather to inherent characteristics of our universe.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 1:17 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024