evolution vs......

I think there is an immensity of things to be inspired about which require no concept of a supreme being. Personally I look at the Hubble Deep Field pictures and just try to imagine the immensity, the grandness of it all. All those millions of galaxies with their millions and billions of stars i think can rightly be described as enlightening If anyone ever gets a chance to take a look at the Hubble deep field pictures and just sit back and think about the immensity of it all... Imagining all those galaxies and then thinking about our position in the universe makes me feel numinous. I don't need a God to feel special about our place in the universe. Just the fact that we can contemplate where we are is amazing. If you take a minute to think about all those stars and the possibility of planets with some form of life around just a few of the stars in each galaxy you are still talking MILLIONS of planetary systems. It might make you feel small but it might make you realize how special we are too. Here we are on this small planet with all its organisms...alive. Perhaps I am too much of a fan of Carl Sagan but when I read his books I am inspired.
By the way I definitly recommend Carl Sagan's book "A Candle in the Dark", it is definitly well worth the time.

Mike,23 & 31 please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hey DBlevins? You know, evolution (teleological-style) might be attractive to those who want to keep some notion of God directing the world... but someone came up with a quote "What's the end point of a dog?" in another forum here, and out goes teleology.Cosmology, measuring the immensity of things, can incite admiration; for me, the size of things scare me. I was taught that God is larger than the universe... and our planet is just a sand in the large void of space. There are stars and galaxies far larger than our solar system, and God created all that. But what for? Obviously He would not create the might star of Betelgeuse, zillions of miles large and zillions of miles far, just for us to put in our map of stars? And would an entity that big care for us, just like we care about minute bacteria?

hmm..i guess that is why teleological arguments for evolution fail. It is hard to get away from those type of arguments though i would admit.

My last post on this (in this thread at least). I wasn't insulted. I wasn't attacking Mike. I specifically said that I was fairly sure that he did what he did out of the best of intentions. I understand it very well (I also used to be Christian) but I also understand that this situation, intentionally or not, abuses a persons vulnerablity while their defenses are down. I wasn't picking on Mike. Did my message not make that clear?Anyway, anything more on this should maybe be move to a different thread.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy[This message has been edited by compmage, 06-25-2003]

'I wasn't picking on Mike. Did my message not make that clear?'its o.k compmage we know what you mean, but i knew what i was offering,if Crash was not visited by God in anyway i also knew that i would look a right wally , and then he could have said,
'Mike your talking bollocks,nothing happened' lol.
anyway thanks Crash my intentions were only good as you said!as crazy as it sounds (and i am) compmage, i dont have a religion, my topic 'none of the above' is exactly what i am about.religion to me produces awful things like the taliban ,my only intentions is to bag good guys fr heavenly destinations.lol

Sorry, I guess I read this:

quote:

---

You know, this is one part of religion that really gets my goat. If there is the smallest hint that you might be emotionally vulnerable and therefore maybe not thinking clearingly, then they pounce. Like a predator picking the the sick animal.

---

And misunderstood the tenor of your post. Didn't mean to slam the door on you. Naw, I'd just as soon let it go. Nothing to talk about, really.

Mike, some 20 messages back I challenged you to enlighten us with your view of the fundamentals of science; were you going to respond to that?I'll say, at the outset, I'm the least qualified person to "judge" your view in this regard - I'd just like to know if we're on the same page about what science is and how it is done.

'Mike, some 20 messages back I challenged you to enlighten us with your view of the fundamentals of science; were you going to respond to that?'i know as much as i know but you already know i am not a scientist ,i know the basics of each (evo - creo)like the populas i guess,i have never pretended to be a scientist though.you even offered me some tutoring remember?

Well, I'm probably not the one to be a tutor. But I'm sure we'd love to help you learn, if you really wanted to. But we can hardly teach you anything until we know how much you know.So, in your own words, you might start by describing the "scientific method". Or, if you prefer, the basics of evolution.

rhain, I HAVE NEVER forever ever seen an isolatable instance-entity of a scientific view=@=creationist view except by EXCLUSION. If you have some instance other than flatis ornis please enligten the board. I have always given evolution science a broader scientific divsion that creationism leaving that @ creation science vs scientific creation to which some neutral comments are possible meanwhile as I said leaving the evaluation of the science in evolution a state that divided Phillp Johnson's opnion not in his best nominal light.You move in your post to post 70s creation/evolution issues and yet the seperation of views can really reliably be differentiated before this which is why I had not qualms in taking Johnson to this task and tell Ken Ham ON AIR so to which all I got back was some stuff even further back aka Scopes. We will never get to pick strawberries if we insist only on REHTORIC that attempts to change the times involved the space of the movement probably needs more consideration no matter the naturalism itself.

iknow according to evolution we evolved from from a common ancestor of chimps and humans.this process supposedly took place over the millenia by slow changes through a process of natural selection,we evolved by adapting to survive the world in which we live in.this has nothing to do with the big bang nor life from lifelessnes,i dont know what else to say (laughs) you can test me if you want but being an honest chap (hopefully )i must tell you i got an f in science gcse as i find some things like 'natural selection' hard terms ,and all that chemical stuff lol. i have always struggled with science however to my own amazement i find it interesting,maybe its cos i am so poor at it!

HI Mike,Just an observation, please don't take it the wrong way. But by your own admission you suck at science, do you think that accepting the biblical account of creation you may just be taking the 'easy option' to satisfy your curiosity about human origins?Brian.

That's pretty accurate. Technically the theory of evolution isn't just about human evolution, but the evolution of all life. But this was an ok summary of the parts most relevant to the creationist position.I guess the point was to find out how you're able to square the scientific method, with its focus on testability and falsifiability of theory; with creationist accounts, which are by definition untestable and therefore unscientific.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-25-2003]

Hi mike,
Though you have not responded to my posts I would still like to say I appreciate that you have grasped that evolution is not abiogenesis "this has nothing to do with the big bang nor life from lifelessnes"..you would be amazed how many people do not grasp this concept and it is an important distinction.I would also say that though Crashfrog and others are very knowledgeable and could "tutor" you in the basics of evolution (and I encourage everyone to do so), I would still recommend you read a basic textbook on the subject as internet forums are not always the easiest or best sources of scientific info...just my 2 cents.cheers,
M