Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?

[Prober]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you only get something as stupid as creationism/intelligent design if you start with something as stupid as reading the ma'aseh bereishit (creation account from the Torah) in a literal sense. i mean, think about it. how can it have been "evening and morning, the first day" without a sun and moon? that ought to be a clue at least that we are not talking about a conventional 24 hours here.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Does "Chookim" fit into that?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Prober

Does "Chookim" fit into that?

Like, how?

You really shoulda studied hermetics insteada all that Commander Rainbow stuff Mark!

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.

Evolution is a FACT. It happens every day, has been observed in the lab and is a useable system for designing complex circuitry and robots. You don't need faith to believe that.

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.

What you are calling "love and beauty," I would call "lust."

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by intrepidlover

And if humans did in fact evolve from monkeys (primates)

Hi,

I think it's more accurate to say that humans share common ancestry with the great apes (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee), rather than monkeys. Such notions obviously pose problems for certain religions.

"As Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories. Fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. A related concept is a scientific law. It is common to encounter reference to the "law of natural selection" or the "laws of evolution." For example, see the article on physical law. Fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge: how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[InLove]

I love Lucy.

Not that I don't believe in an intelligent Creator.

I just think that the Creator is a lot more intelligent than we are.

My not very scientific 2c.

InPeace,
InLove

[Blizzardry]

Yeah, those little creatures with the big eyes and the friendly faces . It's almost as if they trigger some sort of social nurturing neurochemistry. But no, sorry. I must be thinking about something else. Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me! The golden ratio is a daft piece of numerology with no real application in, for instance, choosing models or making beautiful works of art, and beauty certainly can't be reduced to a blend of good genes and mathematics.

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense

[cyberpi]

I agree with the atheist that both the chicken and the egg evolved from naturally selected mud. Yes... naturally, God selected the mud.

Evolution without a soul is a great way of inventing ways to destroy. The heart of it is a pseudo-random event and destruction of the weakest... or as one prefers to say, survival of the fittest. So someone has to drink the radioactive coolaid to give evolution a fighting chance. Any volunteers?

[Prober]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Like, how?

You really shoulda studied hermetics insteada all that Commander Rainbow stuff Mark!

Chris

Hermetics, Shmermetics!

Where would I start?

P.S. Here's a big rainbow beam of happiness from my tummy for ya!

[Prober]

Seriously,

Why do we have to know all the mysteries? Why can't we leave some things as mysteries? That leaves a little magic in life.

And why isn't "because I said so" good enough?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

Yeah, those little creatures with the big eyes and the friendly faces . It's almost as if they trigger some sort of social nurturing neurochemistry. But no, sorry. I must be thinking about something else. Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me! The golden ratio is a daft piece of numerology with no real application in, for instance, choosing models or making beautiful works of art, and beauty certainly can't be reduced to a blend of good genes and mathematics.

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense

Well, any woman who has gone through labor and childbirth can tell you all about oxytocin. It has a depression-inducing side effect. (Post partum depression is a very real thing. Your body produces massive amounts of oxytocin during labor, childbirth, and post-partum.) That's why I referred to this as lust, not love. Producing oxytocin through sex is not love. The depressive rebound highlights the fact that lust and sex without love is empty. (Sometimes referred to as idolatry.) You are confusing an empty container with the spirit it should express. JMHO.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Blizz!

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense

And I am sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities with my nonsense.

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me!

I am operating under the presumption that my contribution is somehow…ummm, considered daft. That what I said about Seratonin, etc. as being "markers" was taken to mean that neurochemicals somehow do not exist, or something. It is obvious that a broader view is not to be considered (as though somehow I am closed minded?). And more, that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to serve as "hard, evidenciary proof." Seratonin and other neurochemicals exist, therefore love exists. Correct?

If I may return to your earlier comments:

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.

OK, so…since seratonin (and other neurochemicals) are hard evidence that love, beauty, and other abstract notions exist, I would like to posit another abstract for consideration; G-d exists. Whether termed G-d, supernatural, paranormal, transcendental or simply religious experience; there are definitely registered and marked neurochemicals and receptors at play. Love exists because seratonin exists…therefore G-d exists because seratonin exists. See:

"This study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience." - Université de Montréal - Press releases - Brain scan of nuns finds no single “god spot” in the brain, Université de Montréal study

"Professor John Bradshaw, an Australian neuropsychologist from Monash University, says the brain's medial temporal lobe is rich in *seratonin* receptors and has previously been described as the 'G-d spot' because it is active in transcendental states." -
Health & Medical News - Magic mushrooms hit the God spot - 12/07/2006

Please note, seratonin *specifically* implicated in "trancendental states."

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.

"There is the quandary of whether the mind created G-d or G-d created the mind." -
New Page 2

"In their research, Beauregard and Paquette weren't trying to prove or disprove G-d's existence." -
Brain's 'God Spot' Hard to Pin Down

"Whether G-d exists or not is something that neuroscience cannot answer." -
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

"Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin,…et al" Hmmm, I've heard of love and beauty, and I've heard of seratonin (the chocolate drug) and endorphins (pain killers), and even a few more (like the opioids in the evolutionarily incorrect grain diet). I simply do not see the *absolute* direct cause and effect. Like I said before, after feeding more than a dozen nurses chocolate for over 5 years, one of them should love me *if* love were a simple chemical process. Don't get me wrong, they care for me, in a brotherly sort of way, and this has been made known to me on more than one occasion. But the implication that "love is a chemical process" is a bit too simplistic to account for the total reality. The error, in my humble opinion, lies in the extreme reduction(ism) of the whole abstract concept. Looking at the finger, not at the moon to which it is pointed. Same for beauty, and same for G-d.

So, in conclusion, I want to be certain I am seeing things correctly. Love and beauty exist because seratonin and other neurochemicals exist. Yet, whether G-d exists or not is something that neuroscience cannot answer…even though G-d evokes the exact same neurochemicals (within even more areas of the brain!) being held out as "proof" of love and beauty. Hmmm…sounds to me like a bit of a double standard. Either that, or somebody has selectively interpreted the "facts" in complete disregard for: "Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith."

Of course, I'm just a narrow minded fool who happens to believe G-d exists *by preponderance* of circumstantial evidence, not selective interpretation or double standard. What's good for the goose, and all that jazz!

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Prober

Seriously,

Why do we have to know all the mysteries? Why can't we leave some things as mysteries? That leaves a little magic in life.

And why isn't "because I said so" good enough?

"Because I said so" doesn't even work on kids! But I agree that not everything can or should be quantified, so how about "I don't know" and just leave it at that?

Chris

[Prober]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

"Because I said so" doesn't even work on kids! But I agree that not everything can or should be quantified, so how about "I don't know" and just leave it at that?

Chris

You're certainly right about that!

And I like "I don't know" as well.

I'm comfortable taking things I don't know on faith and leaving it at that. But I admit that it may seem to some a lazy or uninformed way of looking at things.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Truth be told, I'm content with "I don't know" as well. Sometimes that is simply not an adequate answer.

[juantoo3]

I'd like to post a follow on for Blizz, to maybe clarify what I tried to say. There is a logical fallacy, I forget the name, that says "the sun doesn't rise because the rooster crows." It is easy to suggest that because the rooster crows at dawn, that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise. Yet, we know well, the sun will continue to rise long after there are no more roosters to greet it. There is an association between love / G-d and seratonin...this we have both pointed to. You suggest seratonin is the cause of love / (to which I add G-d). I suggest that seratonin is not the cause, and my logic is based on this logical fallacy (of roosters causing the sun to rise) in combination with evidence from at least three studies I provided links to. Is there an association between seratonin and love / G-d? Likely, just as there is between roosters and the sun. I simply do not see direct cause and effect.

In short, no, I cannot prove love by association with seratonin. If I could, I could prove G-d by that same association. And atheism will have none of that...will it?