ForumGarden

What are you and why? Maybe you think its not quite that simple.

I'm an evolutionist. I've come to that conclusion not only because its my latest focus of interest. Actually that combined with autism. But I've lived and studied the religious alternatives, but evolution definitely far out does creationism.

Thats not a knock on anyone else's beliefs or theology...its simply my personal conclusion.

For now I'll take creationist via evolution. If we are strictly a chance thing through evolution, why is there a universe and what is it's purpose. The universe has to be here for a reason so maybe we are also.

YZGI;1262120 wrote: For now I'll take creationist via evolution. If we are strictly a chance thing through evolution, why is there a universe and what is it's purpose. The universe has to be here for a reason so maybe we are also.


Why has something as large as the universe that we have yet to agree was "created" *got* to have a purpose.

Once you conclude that it has a purpose then it presupposes that it was created deliberately for that purpose - I have yet to be convinced of that.

Evolutionist

YZGI;1262120 wrote: For now I'll take creationist via evolution. If we are strictly a chance thing through evolution, why is there a universe and what is it's purpose. The universe has to be here for a reason so maybe we are also.Valid questions for anyone, Y (is it okay to call you Y? The all capital thing is difficult for me). However I think its worth noting that we are not talking about the beginning of time or existence. Instead, we are taking about origins of life.

For example; evolution is defined as the observation or study of organisms to their environment. Creationism claims that there is an ever present pair of hands constantly molding and remolding life, while ID suggests its all pre planned. Creationism and ID are for all intents and purposes Identical and inseperable as the trial in Dover, Pa illuminated.

Thats my take on it all, but I'm not beyond being corrected or challenged regarding those statements.

Bryn Mawr;1262123 wrote: Why has something as large as the universe that we have yet to agree was "created" *got* to have a purpose.



Once you conclude that it has a purpose then it presupposes that it was created deliberately for that purpose - I have yet to be convinced of that.
I didn't say it was created. I have no idea.



How can something exist without purpose? Where did it come from? When did it start?

Robert J;1262126 wrote: Valid questions for anyone, Y (is it okay to call you Y? The all capital thing is difficult for me). However I think its worth noting that we are not talking about the beginning of time or existence. Instead, we are taking about origins of life.



For example; evolution is defined as the observation or study of organisms to their environment. Creationism claims that there is an ever present pair of hands constantly molding and remolding life, while ID suggests its all pre planned. Creationism and ID are for all intents and purposes Identical and inseperable as the trial in Dover, Pa illuminated.



Thats my take on it all, but I'm not beyond being corrected or challenged regarding those statements.
Y, wisey, wiseass I don't care.



What ID?

YZGI;1262138 wrote: I didn't say it was created. I have no idea.



How can something exist without purpose? Where did it come from? When did it start?


Purpose implies intent - without intent how can it have purpose?

Bryn Mawr;1262142 wrote: Purpose implies intent - without intent how can it have purpose?
Maybe the intent is as a housing implement for stars and planets.???

YZGI;1262139 wrote: Y, wisey, wiseass I don't care.



What ID?ID = Intelligent Design....or just show your license at the beverage counter.

Robert J;1262165 wrote: ID = Intelligent Design....or just show your license at the beverage counter.
:-5 duh, I got ya. lol

Bryn Mawr;1262142 wrote: Purpose implies intent - without intent how can it have purpose?
So, can things exist without intent or purpose?

YZGI;1262175 wrote: So, can things exist without intent or purpose?Happens all the time, Y. Most people are left with the impression that change occurs for a reason, but thats actually backwards. Take for example the tail fin on a fish: it didn't grow because there were deeper waters for the fish swim into, it grew and it permitted the fish to get to deeper waters and hence a larger food supply (survival of the fittest). In fact, there have been many other mutations which were either neutral or did not assist with survival that as a result became extinct.

Robert J;1262182 wrote: Happens all the time, Y. Most people are left with the impression that change occurs for a reason, but thats actually backwards. Take for example the tail fin on a fish: it didn't grow because there were deeper waters for the fish swim into, it grew and it permitted the fish to get to deeper waters and hence a larger food supply (survival of the fittest). In fact, there have been many other mutations which were either neutral or did not assist with survival that as a result became extinct.
What exits or has existed without an intent or purpose?



(no fair bringing jimbo up on this):wah:

YZGI;1262184 wrote: What exits or has existed without an intent or purpose?



(no fair bringing jimbo up on this):wah:You left me no choice since hes the last of his species and I needed to make an important point.

Bryn Mawr;1262123 wrote: Why has something as large as the universe that we have yet to agree was "created" *got* to have a purpose.

Once you conclude that it has a purpose then it presupposes that it was created deliberately for that purpose - I have yet to be convinced of that.


Perhaps you're aloud to make that purpose for yourself? :yh_think Hmmmmm...Veeeeerdy Interdesting!!!!!!!

I'm in agreement because we as human beings have failed to get 1 from 0 that it's hard to distinguish why or how we exist. Without that reasoning you cannot make an accurate assessment which leaves you guessing.

For the sake of the thread, however, I will say that I'm a creationist/evolutionist. The creation being everything and the evolution being the reaction.

YZGI;1262175 wrote: So, can things exist without intent or purpose?


Obviously - that which comes into being without concious intervention.

It is not created with a purpose and the is no creator to have any intention in the making of it.

Until we have agreed whether the universe was consciously and deliberately created or whether it came into being through natural forces we cannot decide whether it has purpose.

Bryn Mawr;1262368 wrote: Until we have agreed whether the universe was consciously and deliberately created or whether it came into being through natural forces we cannot decide whether it has purpose.


Can't help thinking, "What if God farted...?"

Evolutionist as far as the practicalities are concerned. Whether there is purpose to it...dunno. Hope so.

Bryn Mawr;1262368 wrote: Obviously - that which comes into being without concious intervention.



It is not created with a purpose and the is no creator to have any intention in the making of it.



Until we have agreed whether the universe was consciously and deliberately created or whether it came into being through natural forces we cannot decide whether it has purpose.
These type topics make my head spin, so I will stumble in and out of this thread until I have some sort of insight that sobers me up.



Thanks for adding to my confusion Bryn.

Thinking about it a bit, it's quite exciting even if there is no god and no purpose to it - except that which we give it. It is then up to us as a species to colonise and even out-evolve and outlast the universe. Assuming of course we don't stifle ourselves to death in the meantime.

Bryn Mawr;1262368 wrote: Obviously - that which comes into being without concious intervention.

It is not created with a purpose and the is no creator to have any intention in the making of it.

Until we have agreed whether the universe was consciously and deliberately created or whether it came into being through natural forces we cannot decide whether it has purpose.


Yes but logic tells us we cannot get 1 from 0. Taking that into consideration wouldn't it be, at least, more reasonable to assume the Universe was created by some sort of divine intervention?

K.Snyder;1262497 wrote: Yes but logic tells us we cannot get 1 from 0. Taking that into consideration wouldn't it be, at least, more reasonable to assume the Universe was created by some sort of divine intervention?


Whats logic got to do with it ? Believing in a Creator is about faith not logic. I don't see it being reasonable, using logic, to assume divine intervention at all. The Creation isnt about reason, its about the total belief in what is written in the scriptures. To believe the world was created in 7 days by a supreme being requires no logic at all. Just faith.

We can never know what happened at "point zero", the beginning. We spend our lives playing about with ideas as to how "it" all started. Logic gives us/me your 1 from 0 scenario, if thats how you want to put it. Faith gives us/you creation

Snowfire;1262520 wrote: Whats logic got to do with it ? Believing in a Creator is about faith not logic. I don't see it being reasonable, using logic, to assume divine intervention at all. The Creation isnt about reason, its about the total belief in what is written in the scriptures. To believe the world was created in 7 days by a supreme being requires no logic at all. Just faith.

We can never know what happened at "point zero", the beginning. We spend our lives playing about with ideas as to how "it" all started. Logic gives us/me your 1 from 0 scenario, if thats how you want to put it. Faith gives us/you creation


I never at all mentioned anything about logic pertaining to unexplained phenomenon.

I said the exact same thing you did with exception to my reasoning for the very definition of "faith" that's all. I'd asked if it were expected to assume that a divine intervention created the Universe because of the fact logic tells us we cannot get 1 from 0. Which blatantly implies if we as humans have discovered how to get 1 from 0 would scientifically rule out the notion of divine creation, and not only that, would clearly explain a great deal of things. Including the fact it would completely ruin the very opinion of religion altogether.

It's there.

K.Snyder;1262497 wrote: Yes but logic tells us we cannot get 1 from 0. Taking that into consideration wouldn't it be, at least, more reasonable to assume the Universe was created by some sort of divine intervention?


Whose logic - theory predicts it, even predicts that it's still happening and the evidence shows that it is.

Trouble is, we have no evidence one way or the other so we're just guessing and making assumptions based on what we want to be true - never a good basis for a decision.

Bryn Mawr;1262723 wrote: Whose logic - theory predicts it, even predicts that it's still happening and the evidence shows that it is.

Trouble is, we have no evidence one way or the other so we're just guessing and making assumptions based on what we want to be true - never a good basis for a decision.


I think anything that cannot be explained automatically rules it out as a theory. Based off of what we know it would be appropriate to assume that it's impossible to get 1 from 0 seeing as how we haven't achieved it.

Talk about quarks and neutrinos all anyone wants but until it's proven there is proof of Infinitesimals then 1 from 0 is the question.

It's my logic. I thought it would be appropriate. You disagree?

K.Snyder;1262753 wrote: I think anything that cannot be explained automatically rules it out as a theory. Based off of what we know it would be appropriate to assume that it's impossible to get 1 from 0 seeing as how we haven't achieved it.

Talk about quarks and neutrinos all anyone wants but until it's proven there is proof of Infinitesimals then 1 from 0 is the question.

It's my logic. I thought it would be appropriate. You disagree?


Doesn't the theory that 1 = 0 also apply to a supreme being. One would imagine that even with a creator there would have been a "point zero". A point were "it" all began. If we are to use the term logic, it doesn't fit the theory of the Creator being there for an infinite amount of time in the past. Forever, absolutely. What was there before that point ? Nothing ? Then POP, a supreme being. A supreme being materialising from complete nothingness.

Our tiny minds are inadequate in understanding what there was before before that point zero, if indeed there was one. Unless of course there has always been something and there never has been a point that nothing existed

Well thats my logic and equally appropriate

Snowfire;1262786 wrote: Unless of course there has always been something and there never has been a point that nothing existed Sort of, yes.Snowfire;1262786 wrote: Doesn't the theory that 1 = 0 also apply to a supreme being. One would imagine that even with a creator there would have been a "point zero". A point were "it" all began. If we are to use the term logic, it doesn't fit the theory of the Creator being there for an infinite amount of time in the past. Forever, absolutely. What was there before that point ? Nothing ? Then POP, a supreme being. A supreme being materialising from complete nothingness.

Our tiny minds are inadequate in understanding what there was before before that point zero, if indeed there was one. Unless of course there has always been something and there never has been a point that nothing existed

Well thats my logic and equally appropriate


Logic would tell us that any given point above 0 would define "forever".

It's not about thinking before the point above 0, it's about recognizing any point above zero has always existed. "Thinking back" would inherently be void of contemplation. It quite simply wouldn't be fathomable enough to even suggest it.

It's why we have control over ourselves, from which incidentally enough defines our personalty, being the first of our kind and seemingly our last. Your birth gave rise to your "forever" in that you'd never known the world that existed before you were born. For all you know, everything around you could be an illusion.

It remains that if science cannot prove an equation exists to get 1 from 0 that it's not only reasonable but divinely true that either 1 from 0 has been bestowed upon us by God, or we don't naturally exist. Until of course we discover the formula to get 1 from 0.

The point above 0 defines God, not "god" defining the point above 0.

K.Snyder;1262787 wrote: For all you know, everything around you could be an illusion.




Rather like the Dark City. " ....the Strangers altering the city's landscape and people's identities during the still period at midnight, during which time everyone else is unconscious."

Dark City (1998 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snowfire;1262793 wrote: Rather like the Dark City. " ....the Strangers altering the city's landscape and people's identities during the still period at midnight, during which time everyone else is unconscious."

Dark City (1998 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sort of like "Ground Hogs Day" played backwards! :yh_rotfl

K.Snyder;1262753 wrote: I think anything that cannot be explained automatically rules it out as a theory. Based off of what we know it would be appropriate to assume that it's impossible to get 1 from 0 seeing as how we haven't achieved it.

Talk about quarks and neutrinos all anyone wants but until it's proven there is proof of Infinitesimals then 1 from 0 is the question.

It's my logic. I thought it would be appropriate. You disagree?


Certainly I'll talk of quarks and neutrinos, and positrons as well.

I disagree with you logic to the extent that it disagrees with a well established theory backed up with solid observations - you cannot discount it just because you don't like it.

Bryn Mawr;1262983 wrote: Certainly I'll talk of quarks and neutrinos, and positrons as well.

I disagree with you logic to the extent that it disagrees with a well established theory backed up with solid observations - you cannot discount it just because you don't like it.


I love whatever is true. My love is truth. I'm merely suggesting a divine intervention until it's proven with 100% certainty of how everything began.

Without discovering the exact proportion of "dark matter" I think is most of the problem isn't that correct, or no? Not to mention all of the latest M-theory 11 dimensions. I personally don't know much about it because quite frankly I stopped being interested in the cosmological aspect of the Universe after reading "The Universe: In a nutshell" By Stephen Hawking. I just don't know enough of what he knows to follow along. :wah: I still read it to read it anyway because I love space.

I personally don't believe in the 11 dimension theory but like I said I don't know much about the subject so my lack of interest is more to do with intuition. :yh_wink

I do love reading about the universe, any suggestions?

other = Practical Joke

YZGI;1262175 wrote: So, can things exist without intent or purpose?


whats that dumbass the universe evolved from a porpoise ??? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Robert J;1262182 wrote: Happens all the time, Y. Most people are left with the impression that change occurs for a reason, but thats actually backwards. Take for example the tail fin on a fish: it didn't grow because there were deeper waters for the fish swim into, it grew and it permitted the fish to get to deeper waters and hence a larger food supply (survival of the fittest). In fact, there have been many other mutations which were either neutral or did not assist with survival that as a result became extinct.


and more to the point my head evolved baldy style as it was too good looking to have hair

YZGI;1262184 wrote: What exits or has existed without an intent or purpose?



(no fair bringing jimbo up on this):wah:


your threads have evolved without any purpose other to make you and me look dummer than the rest of fg :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Robert J;1262187 wrote: You left me no choice since hes the last of his species and I needed to make an important point.


damn right i'm just evolving into big foot

oops its a proper thread

Y took it off topic

so let me see ,god made the world and the stars as everyone knows 6000 years ago from his rib

but the kin folk of jimbo and wisey were living in caves 2 million years ago having evolved from a porpois just waiting for god to make everyone else so we could make them look cleverer than us

does any one really believe that god made every thing

and just where did he come from did he evolve ???



a being that has always been there and made us in his own image ??

and just sits by watching for eg the nazi's kill 6 million of his children give me a break :rolleyes:

farmer giles;1263119 wrote: oops its a proper thread

Y took it off topic

so let me see ,god made the world and the stars as everyone knows 6000 years ago from his rib

but the kin folk of jimbo and wisey were living in caves 2 million years ago having evolved from a porpois just waiting for god to make everyone else so we could make them look cleverer than us :thinkingI know you chose the first option in the poll but It seems you could have also chosen the fourth one as well.

Worth thinking about though, and who knows, you may be right.

Its nice to see you, Jimbo.

BTW- Did you know that natural baldness (not this wannabe bald stuff like shaved heads) is said to be due to higher than average levels of testosterone? You macho man you!

mikeinie;1263112 wrote: other = Practical JokeAt least amuse us with something creative.

One of the interesting aspects of the question is why what other people believe seems to be so important to a lot of people. Not to criticise the asking of the question on FG, just as a note to how heated the discussions can get and how important it can become to some.

Not sure how I want to answer the question yet. All I know is that I know nothing.

koan;1263176 wrote: One of the interesting aspects of the question is why what other people believe seems to be so important to a lot of people. Not to criticise the asking of the question on FG, just as a note to how heated the discussions can get and how important it can become to some.

Not sure how I want to answer the question yet. All I know is that I know nothing.Thanks for that, Koan.

I can tell you what my motivations were for opening this up, but certainly cannot speak for the rest of the participants.

Mainly, the study of evolution is somewhat new to me and I'm seeing that evolution is both narrow and broad in scope depending on who it is that one engages on the subject. I have personally now permitted myself to look deeply into both evolution and religion (Christianity anyway).

My intent had nothing at all to do with causing problems among members through participation. I think its been a mostly respectful discussion.

The truth is that evolution, at least here in the U.S. get very little exposure due to the political influences of certain groups in my country, but we've got to learn how to discuss this subject as civilized adults. Given the make up of forum garden, with the sophistication level of many of its members on both sides of the issue, its as good a place as any.

If you think I could have done a better job with the OP, I'm all ears and up for any and all constructive criticisms.

No, not a criticism at all of the OP... like I said in the other post.

I've been reading some psychology that offers an explanation for why people get so concerned with what others believe so I jumped to that approach in my response. The proposed and well researched answer has to do with denial of death... but it's a long explanation why. :p

The desire to determine origin is almost more intriguing than the answer.

Robert J;1263181 wrote: Thanks for that, Koan.

I can tell you what my motivations were for opening this up, but certainly cannot speak for the rest of the participants.

Mainly, the study of evolution is somewhat new to me and I'm seeing that evolution is both narrow and broad in scope depending on who it is that one engages on the subject. I have personally now permitted myself to look deeply into both evolution and religion (Christianity anyway).

My intent had nothing at all to do with causing problems among members through participation. I think its been a mostly respectful discussion.

The truth is that evolution, at least here in the U.S. get very little exposure due to the political influences of certain groups in my country, but we've got to learn how to discuss this subject as civilized adults. Given the make up of forum garden, with the sophistication level of many of its members on both sides of the issue, its as good a place as any.

If you think I could have done a better job with the OP, I'm all ears and up for any and all constructive criticisms.


I keep reading about that but it's kind of hard to imagine that anyone still believes the creation myth is any more than a myth.

you might find this link of interest.

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

He's pushing his current book but the links to discussions between him and the religious are quite interesting

My jury's still out.

Zapata;1263195 wrote: My jury's still out.On what? And who are the jury members?

Robert J;1263196 wrote: On what? And who are the jury members?


On what? On what it is I believe. I believe there is truth in all the choices. (Well, maybe not in the "diet" thing. I've tried every diet there is and I wonder if any of them work. ) My ideal jury would be professors I have studied under on the subjects of philosophy, logic, psychology, anthropology and theology, and they would be armed with a myriad of thoughts and evidence of religious leaders, scientific genii, science fiction enthusiasts, great thinkers, etc..

Zapata;1263199 wrote: On what? On what it is I believe. I believe there is truth in all the choices. (Well, maybe not in the "diet" thing. I've tried every diet there is and I wonder if any of them work. ) My ideal jury would be professors I have studied under on the subjects of philosophy, logic, psychology, anthropology and theology, and they would be armed with a myriad of thoughts and evidence of religious leaders, scientific genii, science fiction enthusiasts, great thinkers, etc..Thanks for the response. As long as you're the jury foreperson.

Couldn't there be a part of us that chooses belief as in theology and philosophy and evidence for the rest?

Most people here in the U.S. are completely unaware how easily understood evolution is. We get so much mis-direction and have been fed so many mis-conceptions on the subject that it makes heads spin. This is a wonderful site for learning what evolution is. And Here is evolution101 which links from the welcome page.

Robert J;1263204 wrote: Thanks for the response. As long as you're the jury foreperson.

Couldn't there be a part of us that chooses belief as in theology and philosophy and evidence for the rest?


Hmm. I think I know what you mean but examples, please.

Zapata;1263222 wrote: Hmm. I think I know what you mean but examples, please.Examples of what?

Robert J;1263215 wrote: Most people here in the U.S. are completely unaware how easily understood evolution is. We get so much mis-direction and have been fed so many mis-conceptions on the subject that it makes heads spin. This is a wonderful site for learning what evolution is. And Here is evolution101 which links from the welcome page.


How can you teach a subject like biology, for instance, without covering evolution?

Bit of an issue here as well but the govt have recently announced they intend to include evolution in he primary curriculum in England. I'd have to check but I think we do already in Scotland.

gmc;1263287 wrote: How can you teach a subject like biology, for instance, without covering evolution?

Bit of an issue here as well but the govt have recently announced they intend to include evolution in he primary curriculum in England. I'd have to check but I think we do already in Scotland.I think at the elementary, middle and high school level in the U.S. biology can and must of course at least infer evolution without using terms and references such as Darwinian or natural selection and such but does not offer evolution as a subject, however, at the university level evolution is freely offered I think.

U.S. officials are aware that as a culture we've been losing ground on science and technology due to our reluctance to take a stand for what is overwhelming evidence for evolution, but they lack backbone.

Over here, our government officials react to whomever does the best job of selling to the public, and politicians should listen to the majority, but this subjects viability is reaching a crescendo and will hopefully emerge as a necessary part of the curriculum throughout our educational system.