Creationism vs. Evolution

[Technosoul]

The point I have learned from this debate is that we should not fill in the holes, not with philosophy or religion or even scientific speculation.

What is wrong with just leaving some things unanswered - what is wrong with waiting until more discoveries can happen?

Have patience and do not rush to judgement.

We will know when it comes time to know.

Heck, I do not even know most of the stuff about what is already discovered so why worry about the holes not filled in yet.

Every answer just begets another question. I think they are reproductive. As the Q & As reproduce and evolve then the mystery sprouts another hole that needs to be filled in. At least that is proof that this debate is a holy thing. pun intended.

Hmm? well I am going back into my cave where I belong, but will be back later with my next revelation ( er.. insight). Have fun.

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: leegao A basic flaw here, Philosophy and Religion are 2 separate and entirely different things.

Religion is based upon philosophy (ethics), which is supported and strengthened by embellished by narration of the supernatural. The study of philosophy in religion is theology.

Quote by: leegao Religion is not scientific

Right.

Quote by: leegao Religion is not philosophical even if it does contain some philosophical parts

Morality is a major component of religion. Therefore religion is philosophical. And if it contains philosophical parts then it is philosophical... Unless you're going to argue the definition of "philosophical".

Quote by: leegao Philosophy is not scientific Science however could be philosophical Morality is not scientific

Agreed.

Quote by: leegao Philosophy is neither moral nor immoral

Philosophy includes ethics which deals with morality.

Quote by: leegao Philosophy is rational Philosophy can use rationalism to determine moral justification

Yup.

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: leegao By superstitious beliefs I mean supernatural explanations. Remember, the whole purpose of creationism is to explain the creation of mankind through supernatural ways. Also remember, philosophy is not scientific, yet science can be philosophical. Now with regards to ethics. True, it is an integral part of many religions yet by itself morality is not often explained supernaturally. Rational explanations still dominate moral justifications. Meaning of life = explanation of why we live. Pas exactement, due to the mutually exclusive nature of the topic, each side upholding different grounds, the 2 can not coexist therefore the 2 could not be at peace.

My whole point was that religious ideas should not be used to settle scientific question, and likewise science should not answer religious/philosophical questions such as is there a higher power.

[leegao]

Quote by: Michael Raizer Religion is based upon philosophy (ethics), which is supported and strengthened by embellished by narration of the supernatural. The study of philosophy in religion is theology.

The earliest religions had little or no meritorious values, therefore we can conclude that the definition of Religion does not necessitate morality.

Quote by: Michael Raizer Morality is a major component of religion. Therefore religion is philosophical. And if it contains philosophical parts then it is philosophical... Unless you're going to argue the definition of "philosophical".

Morality can be rationally justified
Morality can be a component of religion
Components of religion can be philosophical
Religion as a whole is not philosophical since there's no rational explanation of the supernatural processes.

All in all, Christianity just ain't Christianity if you don't believe in God

Unless you can rationalize all aspects of a religion, it is not philosophical

My whole point was that religious ideas should not be used to settle scientific question, and likewise science should not answer religious/philosophical questions such as is there a higher power.

So is this topic religious or is it scientific?

Also, in order to evaluate if God exists, the following scenario will exist.

The believers will unanimously vote that God exists due to their belief, no rationalization is involved thus the response is not philosophical

The scientists would conclude that because there is no conclusive evidence that God exists, and those that have been found were able to be proven naturally, God does not exist.

In my opinion the rationalists were the Scientists.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Michael Raizer Morality is a major component of religion. Therefore religion is philosophical. And if it contains philosophical parts then it is philosophical... Unless you're going to argue the definition of "philosophical".

I disagree. Religion may deal with morality, like philosophy. But while philosophy relies on a logical reasoning to draw its conclusion, religion just claim stuff. Then, while philosophy wants us to use critical thinking, religion is based of faith, which is by definition the contrary of critical thinking.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: nerdvincent I disagree. Religion may deal with morality, like philosophy. But while philosophy relies on a logical reasoning to draw its conclusion, religion just claim stuff. Then, while philosophy wants us to use critical thinking, religion is based of faith, which is by definition the contrary of critical thinking.

Why not just buy a dictonary then you do would not have to debate the differences.

[Technosoul]

Some scientific findings about evolution.

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Reason For Almost Two Billion Year Delay In Animal Evolution On Earth Discovered

Primitive Mouse-Like Creature May Be Ancestral Mother Of Australia's Unusual Pouched Mammals

Cassini Tastes Organic Material At Saturn's Geyser Moon

Correct Levels Of Stress Hormones Boost Learning, Squirrel Study Suggests

Plants Appear To Cluster The Genes Needed For Defense

Like Sweets? You're More Like A Fruit Fly Than You Think

Creationism and Baraminology Research News

ISSR Statement on the Concept of 'Intelligent Design'

[Matt]

Quote by: Isherwood So we can't grasp it or understand it, yet we can put conditions on it. That simply makes no sense. Either it's unknown and we can't say anything about it at all, or we know enough about it to be able to say what it can and cannot be. It can't be both. Science tries to make sense of nature by examining evidence. When there is no evidence, such as in the case of an afterlife, it can reach no conclusions. The supernatural, if it even exists, is beyond the interest of science. I, too, would enjoy seeing that proof. But not in this thread. It has nothing to do with the evolution vs. creationism debate.

"Animals and the Afterlife", by Kim Sheridan. I'm sure you can get it at your library.

In this world, we are looking for instant answers. Sometimes we can't get them, and we may never until we go into the next stage. Though in the case an afterlife, we are given some proof that it does exsist. Some people want to throw that proof out of the window, afraid it may harm their beliefs.

Quote by: gallo This is you answer to my question? My question was, "why can't there be an afterlife without a god/gods?" Your answer was the above question. As has been pointed out, there are religions that believe in an after life without gods. Gods are not necessary. Asked and answered. What is it that needs to be made? But no one has ever claimed that it has anything to do with your misunderstanding of science or evolution. No one claims that an afterlife is the result of evolution. Yes. It is not about the afterlife Because you are discussing neither creationism nor evolution. You are discussing your superstitions. Nonsense. Once again. You are discussing neither creationism nor evolution. So, unless you can actually add something meaningful and on topic to the discussion, I won't be responding to your superstitious rants in the future.

I'm trying to get to my point, though with people like you I don't think I ever will. And no, they are not superstitions.

I'm starting to see its useless to debate this topic with people that are either way one sided or have a closed mind. I know I'm one sided, but I thought I would just bring up one point that could prove my case. Though with the local 'creationism' attackers, it gets pretty hard.

Quote by: leegao Strictly speaking, after-life is not Heaven, but rather the continuation of an individual's existence after his/her physical death. Since we have vast amounts of evident showing that the mind can be explained by physical means, we can stick to the materialistic argument that if the body cease to exist then the conscious mind will also cease to exist after the physical death. Also, I believe what matt is trying to do here is to start with the premise that there's an afterlife, then there's this leap in logic with the conclusion that an after-life proves the existence of God. From there on he could support his views on creationism.

Yep, that is what I was trying to get at.

Quote by: Technosoul Proof of afterlife. Book Review: "The Afterlife Experiments" THE FLATLINER PARADIGM: THE NEXT STEP IN AFTERLIFE RESEARCH Not a lot of proof, eh?

Look at that book I suggested above....

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul Proof of afterlife. Book Review: "The Afterlife Experiments" THE FLATLINER PARADIGM: THE NEXT STEP IN AFTERLIFE RESEARCH Not a lot of proof, eh?

A quote from the first link:

The book chronicles a series of laboratory experiments conducted with a group of well-known mediums - including John Edward - to see if their claims of contact with "the other side" could be scientifically measured and documented.

And by the second sentence all credibility is out the window.

Don't you think if this research was credible it would've been embraced by mainstream science by now? TV show hosts which have been debunked many times and pseudoscientists looking for publicity, hardly 'proof'.

[leegao]

Quote by: Matt Quote by: leegao Strictly speaking, after-life is not Heaven, but rather the continuation of an individual's existence after his/her physical death. Since we have vast amounts of evident showing that the mind can be explained by physical means, we can stick to the materialistic argument that if the body cease to exist then the conscious mind will also cease to exist after the physical death. Also, I believe what matt is trying to do here is to start with the premise that there's an afterlife, then there's this leap in logic with the conclusion that an after-life proves the existence of God. From there on he could support his views on creationism. Yep, that is what I was trying to get at.

I do agree that the debaters in this area should keep an open mind since the debate is "Creationism vs. Evolution" not solely Evolution.

2 Immediate problems with this argument.

First is obvious, as I said, you made a leap in logic with the presumption that the existence of an after-life proves the existence of God. The only support you put out was a circular statement:

After-life proves the existence of God because After-life necessitates a God.

So what many of the people at this board were asking you to do was to explain thoroughly why the existence of an after-life proves the existence of God or why does an after-life necessitates a God.

The next problem concerns with the initial presumption of a very debatable subject, the existence of an After-life.

First of all, due to the fact that the existence of an after-life is not a physical "fact", mere examples or observances can not be used to fully support this presumption. The only way to prove the existence of an after-life then, is through rationalism.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite A quote from the first link: And by the second sentence all credibility is out the window. Don't you think if this research was credible it would've been embraced by mainstream science by now? TV show hosts which have been debunked many times and pseudoscientists looking for publicity, hardly 'proof'.

as I noted, not a lot of proof.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: leegao I do agree that the debaters in this area should keep an open mind since the debate is "Creationism vs. Evolution" not solely Evolution. 2 Immediate problems with this argument. First is obvious, as I said, you made a leap in logic with the presumption that the existence of an after-life proves the existence of God. The only support you put out was a circular statement: After-life proves the existence of God because After-life necessitates a God. So what many of the people at this board were asking you to do was to explain thoroughly why the existence of an after-life proves the existence of God or why does an after-life necessitates a God. The next problem concerns with the initial presumption of a very debatable subject, the existence of an After-life. First of all, due to the fact that the existence of an after-life is not a physical "fact", mere examples or observances can not be used to fully support this presumption. The only way to prove the existence of an after-life then, is through rationalism.

Or you can use drugs.

The original way to experience those extra-reality dimensions was with African Mushrooms but LSD is better known about.

A few chemicals and wammy, you are in the presence of God, or you might have a bummer trip and find your self among gothic like creatures.

While in that state of para-normal conscousness it seems very, very real.

So it is possible to test the possiblity of the "Other" in a lab with those mind expanding chemicals. A slight shift in consciousness and zoom, within a moment you are someplace else, in a whole new landscape mentally. People were once conducting scientific experiments in that field until the government make it illegal. Many of our most highly educated intellectuals were impressed by the results.

The book "Breif History of Time" also suggests that such a para-universe is possible, if you do the supportive physics.

Who is to say for sure, that consciousness is limited to dwelling in just one body inside of one dimension?

As they said in Finnigan's Wake "woof your wings and up beyonder go",

Take time to listen to the following link

Millennium Tour - Alien Dimensions

YouTube - Terence McKenna & the I-Ching Pt.1

[Tycoon]

Or you can use drugs.

Yes, after all, drugs do affect your judgement center....

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul as I noted, not a lot of proof.

I thought it was sarcasm, my bad

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon Yes, after all, drugs do affect your judgement center....

You took one line out of context and so debating your remark can shift things off topic.

The idea is to make your judgements after the influence of the drug wears off.

The concepts about an afterlife are normally the hind-site caused by a near death experience.

That might happen due to an accident when a emergency reponse team gets your heart and lung working agian, and you recall what your mind was seeing during that breaf time.

There are a number of ways to reproduce such a experience, sometimes with religious riturals.

Here are some of the methods.

Fasting - until you reach a point of nearly starving to death.

Prolonged meditation - where you slow down the bodies activities to a point close "not being alive".

Drugs used for vision quests, where the mind disconnects from the body.

Each of those ways can produce an illusion, or a extra-reality experience. Via "extreme sedation of the body but not the consciousness".

Or you can use "extreme stemulation".

Methods.

A situation of war where you are surrounded by the reality of sudden death.

A tramatic accident.

Running or dancing past a certian threshold ( extended sex also ).

Experiencing torture or induced pain.

Each of those activities can also shift concsiouness to produce a kind of visionary experience ( illusion ).

The illusion of images in the mind, being so novel, have a much more profound effect on our thoughts then what we sense or feel normally because we are used to how we normally vision things. Because the effect is stornger we tend to blieve it is truer or more supernatual then our average daydream or even how we percieve reality while in a state that is not overdosed with stemuation or a sedative.

These speculations I arrived at in my own reserach into metaphysical ideas and their orgins. ( a layman's research ).

Many shamans claim that a vision happened when they were very ill. A high fever can also cause such illusions or visions. It is natural for the mind to provide an escape into he imagination during times when we do not want to confront reality.

[Tycoon]

The idea is to make your judgements after the influence of the drug wears off.

Judgements based on hallucinations and visions induced by judgement affecting drugs...

It is natural for the mind to provide an escape into he imagination during times when we do not want to confront reality.

And it is exactly that... the mind fleeing to God in order not to confront reality. Because God is not real...

All of the examples you listed are examples of extremely traumatic experiences or drugs that induce unrealistic visions. Why is it that when it involves God suddenly an exception is made and it becomes a holy vision?

[Sorreltail]

It is down to belief .. I personally believe it was science .. others would say it was God who created the universe.

[Magnus]

Quote by: Sorreltail It is down to belief .. I personally believe it was science .. others would say it was God who created the universe.

Sorry no. Science didnt create the universe, it explains how it was created. And science isnt there for you to "believe" thats like saying do you believe youre reading this on your computer screen? No, you ARE reading this on your computer screen.

[Sorreltail]

The belief that God created the world is a belief .. there is no proof.. what do you think created this world?

[gallo]

Quote by: Sorreltail It is down to belief

Well, for you and the religionists, maybe.

.. I personally believe it was science

And I thought that science was the investigation of natural phenomena through natural explanations, theories, and testing, or the body of knowledge produced by such investigation. Now it turns out that science is a magical being that goes around creating universes.

.. others would say it was God who created the universe.

Yes. They say so without evidence.

Quote by: Sorreltail The belief that God created the world is a belief

How informative. A belief is a belief.

.. there is no proof..

That's true, but what makes it even worse is that there is no evidence for this magical being. Science, on the other hand, is based on evidence so belief isn't necessary.

what do you think created this world?

Unknown. But I see no reason to postulate an invisible, supernatural being.