Evidence for the Creationist Model

[n4h1z]

Peace to all....and sorry for the late post


The evidence of creationism, to be generally speaking is all around us and in almost everything.
This would be my first argument on the evidence of creationism. Here I would like to use the law of repetition in nature as my first evidence of creationism. Generally the law of repetition in creationism observes the repetitive design or repetitive event in different branches of science. It then will attempt to answer the question what and who is the cause of this repetition.

Humans and animals share many repetitive features. On the outside they have symmetrical organs - two hands, two or four legs, two eyes, two ears - all arranged symmetrically. The repetition pattern is also seen in the arrangement of these organs. A majority number of multi cellular organisms have their eyes, ears, nose and mouth placed on their heads. Seldom have we seen any of these organs placed far apart. From fishes to amphibians to reptiles, insects, birds, mammals, marsupials - the whole animal kingdom...we can see this law of repetition is being applied.

Again we can see this law of repetition in the arrangement of the internal organs. Internal organs of humans and animals are arranged to use the space inside efficiently. The human left lung has fewer lobes so it can accommodate the heart, which nestles inside it. Nearly every species from cow to chicken to human, has its' heart on the left. Nobody can really explain as to what pushes the cells of the heart to the left in the embryonic stage. Most of the multi cellular organism has the same arrangement for their internal organs. The respiratory system is always between the head (home to the brain) and the digestive system. This uniformity can be seen in most of the multi celled organism. This clearly reflects the law of repetition in the arrangement of internal organs.

The law of repetition here may be stated as: Organs in multi cellular organism is arranged symmetrically. What is the cause of this symmetrical arrangement and who did it?

This law of repetition can also be seen in atoms, cells, solar system and galaxies.
An atom is made up of a nucleus and a number of electrons moving in orbital shells at great distances from the nucleus. Inside the nucleus are other particles called protons and neutrons.

The cell, in a glimpse consists of a nucleus in the center which is surrounded and orbited by organelles. Each organelle serves a specific function. Both the nucleus and organelles is enclosed inside the cells’ membrane.

The solar system consists of thousands of celestial bodies. These bodies orbit the sun which is the "center of attraction" which is comparative to the nucleus. The celestial bodies rotates in its' own path orbiting the “nucleus”.

The sun is just one of the 100 billion stars traveling together that makes up a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way. The center of orbit in the Milky Way shapes like a bulging foam full of stars just like the our sun.


A galaxy is a massive group of hundreds of millions of stars, all gravitationally interacting and orbiting about a common center. The Milky Way is one of a small group of 20 galaxies that astronomers call the local group. Andromeda is also a member of this group. This group and other known clusters of galaxy travels together circling a common center.

The law of repetition here can be stated as: The building block of basic objects has a nucleus and smaller things / components orbiting it. What is the cause of this similar pattern in these building blocks behavior? Who caused all this?


All studies in different branches of engineering schools consist of studying and solving equilibrium equations, studying the physical properties of matter and designing a system that satisfies the equilibrium and the properties of material. E.g.

Electrical engineering: studying the equilibrium of flowing electric currents in circuits and the physical properties of electric and magnetic fields.

Mechanical / thermodynamics: Studying the equilibrium of different kind of energies such as heat and the physical properties of the vibrating objects.

Chemical engineering: studying of equilibrium of chemical processes and the physical properties of the elements involved in the chemical process.

Pharmacology: The study of chemical reactions in the human body and the effect of medication on diseases. We can say that pharmacology involves the study of equilibrium of chemical reaction inside the body as well as the properties of each organ and system in the human body.

The law of repetition is demonstrated here as:
All systems are in a state of static or dynamic equilibrium. What shapes the mold of these different fields of studies? Who sets it all to be in such way?



The law of cause and effect attributes one cause to one effect. Since the phenomenon of law of repetition can be found in all branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. This leads us to the One Being that caused all the effects directly or indirectly. The Uncaused Cause is God which in His unlimited wisdom creates everything from nothingness.
These are just few examples of law of repetition in Gods’ work.


Peace...

[bob x]

The evolutionary model gives a simple explanation why the asymmetry in the placement of the heart is toward the left in all the vertebrates: because they have a common ancestor, and whichever way it was in the ancestor, it tends to remain that way. What is your explanation for it in the creationist model? None.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Nahiz,
I too find the repetition found throughout the universe fascinating. And I believe there may even be some things we have thus far missed in this 'harmonic resonance'. But I also understand it as a simple function of mass and gravity.
Throw a pebble in a pond and you will get repeated ripples expanding in just the same way. It does not take a dvine hand to throw that pebble, a little rockslide or a simple raindrop will have the same effect. The cause of the effect that we see can in no way, in the terms you describe, be accredited to intelligent design.



Regards

TE

[sara[h]ng]

Unfortunately, I am unimpressed by this latest argument. Like other creationist-science ties, it includes jumps, assumption, and exaggeration. While some of these are interesting points, they are simply unexplained things. When something is unexplained and not understood, one cannot say, 'Well, it must be evidence that God created us.' It is only evidence that we do not know.

- Sarah

I don't intend that this thread would drop to the level of bickering over small points, but to back up what I said in the previous paragraph, I have added a nit-picking section below.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

Humans and animals share many repetitive features. On the outside they have symmetrical organs - two hands, two or four legs, two eyes, two ears - all arranged symmetrically. The repetition pattern is also seen in the arrangement of these organs. A majority number of multi cellular organisms have their eyes, ears, nose and mouth placed on their heads. Seldom have we seen any of these organs placed far apart. From fishes to amphibians to reptiles, insects, birds, mammals, marsupials - the whole animal kingdom...we can see this law of repetition is being applied.

Again we can see this law of repetition in the arrangement of the internal organs. Internal organs of humans and animals are arranged to use the space inside efficiently. The human left lung has fewer lobes so it can accommodate the heart, which nestles inside it. Nearly every species from cow to chicken to human, has its' heart on the left. Nobody can really explain as to what pushes the cells of the heart to the left in the embryonic stage. Most of the multi cellular organism has the same arrangement for their internal organs. The respiratory system is always between the head (home to the brain) and the digestive system. This uniformity can be seen in most of the multi celled organism. This clearly reflects the law of repetition in the arrangement of internal organs.

All of this is a strong argument for evolution.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

The law of repetition here may be stated as: Organs in multi cellular organism is arranged symmetrically. What is the cause of this symmetrical arrangement and who did it?

Actually, not true. There are many things in the body which are not symmetrical. If you want to get technical, nothing is. If you want to be basic, then back to evolution. The cause is the symmetric nature of a common ancestor. As to why it was symmetric is open for speculation, and while it could be some supernatural intervention, symmetry's mere existence is not evidence of it.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

The cell, in a glimpse consists of a nucleus in the center which is surrounded and orbited by organelles. Each organelle serves a specific function. Both the nucleus and organelles is enclosed inside the cells’ membrane.

Organelles do not orbit the nucleus in a cell, nor are they necessarily surrounding it. The similarity, between that and the nucleus of an atom, is in name only.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

The solar system consists of thousands of celestial bodies. These bodies orbit the sun which is the "center of attraction" which is comparative to the nucleus. The celestial bodies rotates in its' own path orbiting the “nucleus”.

The similarity between an atom and a solar system is interesting. Calls to mind, 'as above, so below.' But still, this is not evidence of divinity.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

All studies in different branches of engineering schools consist of studying and solving equilibrium equations, studying the physical properties of matter and designing a system that satisfies the equilibrium and the properties of material. E.g.

I think that the profession examples are a stretch. To go through each one and explain why is too nit-picky even for me.

Originally Posted by n4h1z

The law of cause and effect attributes one cause to one effect. Since the phenomenon of law of repetition can be found in all branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. This leads us to the One Being that caused all the effects directly or indirectly. The Uncaused Cause is God which in His unlimited wisdom creates everything from nothingness.
These are just few examples of law of repetition in Gods’ work.

There are several illogical jumps in this. No need to point them out, I think.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards. all!

The more I see of the debate between evolution and creation, the more I am inclined to agree with Stephen Gould about the two distinct "magesteria" (sp?) of science and religion, of how one cannot adequately address the other.

What is being asked is for religion to answer to science from one side, and science to answer to religion from the other side.

I think we tend to stay toward the side of answering the "facts," because there is some degree of commonality. Since this thread is dedicated to "evidence for the creationist model," allow me to ask a few questions for science to address.

What is beauty?

What is love?

What is faith?

Why do we have or need hope?

Why do we cherish our loved ones? Even after they are dead?

Why are we moral to those we hold within our "family?"

What is awe?

Why do we dream? Why do we have prescient dreams?

I can go on. There are things science addresses, very appropriately and adequately. It is with those "answers" that we are able to manipulate our world around us, ostensibly for the better. Like medicine, for example. Medical science has advanced so much in the last one hundred years alone, and what lies on the horizon holds such great promise. Yet, for all of the promise medicine holds, it has not replaced prayer. How many sick and dying people still pray in the hope of a miracle? Whatever medicine offered may be that miracle for that person, but that person will not pray to the medicine, that person will pray to Divine Providence for a healing miracle. And lest our good-natured but swell-headed doctors justify themselves in a misbegotten "god-complex" within their own minds, how many "hopeless" patients have recovered, "miraculously" with little more than prayer and palliative care? (Not a lot, but sufficient to let doctors and patients alike know there is hope in prayer!)

Science is a wonderful tool. It is not to be maligned. But it is not, repeat (for emphasis) *not*, the final or total answer, to anything. There is no hope in science, there is no faith in science, there is no respect for elders (or ancestors) in science. There is no love in science. There is no life in science. Science is about answers to what is, in an effort to remake something that already is. Faith can see beyond that, into what might be, and it allows for possibilities. Faith explains love, not with words but with deeds, actions, experiences. Not necessarily recreateable in a laboratory environment, therefore not proof in the scientific sense. But very much proof on an individual level, sufficient and remarkably consistent across cultural divides and across individual experiences. Not always everyone, but sufficient to prove to enough people the world over that there is something "out there," something a whole lot bigger than all of us combined.

If you want scientific proof of this, then science better get crackin'. Because there is no "proof" does not mean it does not exist. Religion has faith, and personal experience, will science accept that as an answer?

[juantoo3]

BTW, Tao Equus, I have been looking into what you said about the Higher Critical Movement, and I find you are correct, in that the references I have found under that name are not the group to which I had meant to refer. I recall learning of this pre-internet era, and I admit to not following it up back then. However, my intention was in reference to the "birth" of Renaissance atheism / humanism / skepticism / rationalism. Under those terms I think you will find reference to what it was I was trying to get at. There was a distinct period of time wherein scholars of such inclination dismissed the Bible with a wave of the hand by stating there was no proof, no "evidence" to back up the Bible. (I seem to recall this movement stemming from France and Germany) Even though I still sometimes hear the same old argument (over 300 years old now), there have been many ancient cities from the Bible that have been uncovered in that time (Jericho being perhaps the biggest and most famous) that do in no small degree supply some evidential validity to the Bible.

[n4h1z]

Peace to bob x and all…

The evolutionary model gives a simple explanation why the asymmetry in the placement of the heart is toward the left in all the vertebrates: because they have a common ancestor, and whichever way it was in the ancestor, it tends to remain that way. What is your explanation for it in the creationist model? None.

If the position of the heart is due to the common ancestor, then the common ancestor must have had a heart. This is total contradiction to the theory of evolution. From what we know the common ancestor according to the theory of evolution is a unicellular organism which appears in a primordial pond as a result of chance.

Then again if the common ancestor of vertebrates has had a heart on the left side, it must have evolved through time just like the external organs. Why should there be any exceptional for the internal organs arrangement to change.

If evolution was to really happen, the symmetrical organ arrangement in organism will certainly can’t be seen as it is today. This is because different organism lives in different environment.

If all organisms were to experience evolution at all, by right giraffes should have a flexible serpent-like neck to help it drink easily. We all know how giraffes drink from the ground. It looks as if they’re going to break their front legs. And I strongly believe that water is much more important to giraffes than the tall leaves.

Another example, by (evolution) right owls should have their eyes on the side of their head not in the front like what it is today. Owls have to turn their head in order to see their back. A typical bird has their eyes put on the side of their head so they can see what’s on their back.

Generally speaking, most animals including humans have to look over their shoulder when they want to see the rear view. If evolution was to took place in existence, most of them would have developed a 360 degrees, x and y-axis, all-direction kind of eye. We know how we always wanted to watch our back and the same goes to most animals especially the non-predatory animals.

Why do owls and giraffes have such irregularities? According to theory of evolution an organism should evolve into something that suits its’ behavior, diet, environment etc etc.

There are more similar cases like the giraffe and owl in the animal kingdom which we never thought of before.When we observe the entire animal kingdom, there is some kind of uniformity in their organs arrangement. This is an interesting point to ponder on. All these uniformity we see couldn’t just exist as a result of chance. If it was, it would be like throwing thousands and thousands of dices all at once hoping the same digit will appear on each and every dice. Even if you do it for millions and millions of years….the odds of it to occur are still unacceptable.

The law of repetition which we see in multi cellular organisms is the evidence of an intelligent design behind the existence of all living things.


Peace....

[juantoo3]

I would like to see evidence for Creationist theory presented for debate. It would be good to see the views of supporters from all faiths that hold such a theory represented and justified with empirical evidence to support their ideas.

Two separate magesteria...you cannot ask religion to conform to "empirical evidence," any more than I can ask science to conform to "faith, hope and charity." They are two very different paradigms.

[bob x]

If the position of the heart is due to the common ancestor, then the common ancestor must have had a heart. This is total contradiction to the theory of evolution. From what we know the common ancestor according to the theory of evolution is a unicellular organism which appears in a primordial pond as a result of chance.

The common ancestor of the vertebrates had a heart, on the left. The common ancestor shared by the vertebrates and other organisms with or without hearts is not relevant to the question.

If all organisms were to experience evolution at all, by right giraffes should have a flexible serpent-like neck to help it drink easily.

Evolution has to work with what is given; it is creationism which would predict that creatures would have whatever was best for them, designed from scratch. The giraffe evolved from creatures with vertebrae in their necks, so they have them also.
Another peculiarity about giraffes is the vomeral nerve, which in all vertebrates goes from the face into the brain making a detour through the cervical vertebrae: this happens in the giraffe also, even though that means a detour of several feet. It is trivial to understand in evolutionary terms why this would be so; but one would not expect an intelligent designer to do such a thing.

Another example, by (evolution) right owls should have their eyes on the side of their head not in the front like what it is today. Owls have to turn their head in order to see their back. A typical bird has their eyes put on the side of their head so they can see what’s on their back.

A typical bird needs to see behind, in case some predator is chasing them. The owl is a predator: it is more useful to the owl to have a double view of what is in front, to get depth perception on what they are chasing.

[sara[h]ng]

To add to what bob x said,

Originally Posted by n4h1z

If all organisms were to experience evolution at all, by right giraffes should have a flexible serpent-like neck to help it drink easily. We all know how giraffes drink from the ground. It looks as if they’re going to break their front legs. And I strongly believe that water is much more important to giraffes than the tall leaves.

Another example, by (evolution) right owls should have their eyes on the side of their head not in the front like what it is today. Owls have to turn their head in order to see their back. A typical bird has their eyes put on the side of their head so they can see what’s on their back.

Notice that giraffes do not break their legs when drinking, nor do they have a problem getting water. Their bodies are perfect for their needs or they would die out. As for a flexible neck, think about the engineering requirements for that.
bob x is absolutely right about the owl. Prey animals have their eyes on the sides of their head for maximum range of sight. Predators have their eyes on the front for increased depth perception. Owls would not have evolved to have eyes on the side because it would have decreased their ability to successfully hunt. Instead, they evolved the ability to turn their heads completely around. This is the best solution for the problem.

There is no issue here other than you presuming that you know better than millions of years of nature or, since you accept creationsim, God. If owls and giraffes could be more perfect, as you say, why didn't God make them so?

- Sarah

[Abogado del Diablo]

Personally, I don't think there actually is any conflict between science and faith . . . just people who haven't carefully considered the purpose and methods of each.

Science doesn't "disprove" faith (and can't), unless you have a problematic understanding of what constitutes "faith."

On the flip side, "faith" doesn't "prove" anything, and needs to stay out of science classrooms.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo ,
Great post. I dont think there would be one person here on CR that does not empathise with the sentiment you highlight, I certainly do. And thats why it pains me to greatly to have to use a little three letter word as though it were a four letter word......
"But"....I believe I see science from a different perspective to you. And I certainly see the worlds montheistic religeons differently from you. Science to me is nothing but a tool. Monotheisms a misrepresentaion,( and I chose that word carefully as I will explain), of reality.

I feel such an enormous sense of excitement and privelege to have been born into this age. I feel great gratitude to all the men and women who studied so hard at their chosen sciences to bring us to this point where we can land probes on distant moons and cure children with leukemia with bone marrow translpants. I say thanks also to those folk of science that helped make possible my fridge, my washing machine, my car, my phone and my computer. Science was able to do these things for us becauses it searches for answers and solutions in a particular way that gets results.

Your questions: What is beauty ?,What is love ?,What is faith ?,Why do we have or need hope? etc all have answers in the science of psychology. And there we might equally ask: What is ugliness?, What is hate?, What is despair? etc etc. I understand that you are approaching them from a particular angle and I have no disagreement with it, but it is not the only angle. The thing about the scientific method is it can be applied to anything and free's us from any predjuidice if correctly undertaken.


I personaly dislike 'holy books' as a work presented as the word of God. I fully appreciate that almost all contain great wisdom, valuable lessons and sage advice. But I feel most of it is lost when transferred verbatim into a concept of what 'God' really is. The authenticity of most of them is also very questionable. Monotheisms especially are also to prone to hijacking by mostly self-proclaimed 'religeous leaders' that manipulate large numbers of people to do anything but seek the truth. The message of Jesus for example does not need the whole new testament......it can be summed up in a few lines. Everything else has been put there by religeous leaders of all to often dubious intent. The debates on this forum about gospels omitted or included only in part show clearly the political decision making involed in the new testament composition. In short it is a corrupted piece of scholarly history and in no sense the 'word of God'. But saying this makes Christians angry and think I am trying to provoke or insult them. I am not....I merely state a fact as I see it. No christian would dare take me to a court of law on a slander charge because a court of law would uphold my statements to be true. Science on the other hand is constantly faced with the court of 'peer review'.
That said I do believe that there is what we all know and feel as God. And I feel that monotheisms miss the point in that God is not one of itself, but the totality of all things. It may be a subtle difference, but its an important one. And all the things you say science cannot answer like prayer, love and faith are explainable and indeed proveable with science. Science is not disproving the existance of a Universal Spirit......its proving it is there. It is understanding its true nature from an unbiased perspective, free of the shackles of religeous leaders who are really political aspirants, using so called sacred texts to stifle thinking and progress.

So my 'problem' with the creationist is one of truth. Creationism in its literal sense is peddled to stifle the real debate, the real search for truth by those who have a vested interest in church politics. It is nothing but a diversion. Anyone who has felt God knows that no holy place of worship nor piece of scripture is required to feel that knowledge. Sure some people find it useful to use those for focus but they are not absolute requirements. I believe each of us is a part of God. God is not removed from us in any way. We are all equal parts of God....the Pope is no closer than I am, and I am no closer than the tree outside, or the stars that twinkle in the night sky. All the 'fear God' is politics, all the this is the 'one book' is politics and so are the vast majority of the rules these religeons demand be followed. They are about controling people, not enlightening them. And I dont require any religeon to have faith and love nor to pray and have my prayers answered.


Respect and regards

TE

[wil]

Seems like everyone explores intelligent design the same way...with cannon, and shotgun. No need discussing, let us just blow holes....

I guess both sides resort to since I can't prove difinitively mine to you, I'll just attempt to destroy yours in your eyes...or at least beat you up till you run away with your (highly evolved) tail between your legs.

We've gone a far cry from the elementary school playground and 'If you show me yours I'll show you mine.'

I for one miss the old days where we could just play together and celebrate our differences.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao Equus!

Your post took a lot of courage, and I commend your most noble attempt to treat the subject with dignity.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I believe I see science from a different perspective to you. And I certainly see the worlds montheistic religeons differently from you. Science to me is nothing but a tool. Monotheisms a misrepresentaion,( and I chose that word carefully as I will explain), of reality.

Actually, I think we share much the same view on science, I have as much called it a tool, as well as calling it a religion.

Perhaps in calling science a religion I have not been so tactful as you have been here, but it is still something I have observed almost exclusively. As for monotheistic misrepresentation, I cannot argue without bearing in mind the interdenominational strife between the various sects and denominations that fall under the umbrella of monotheism.

I feel such an enormous sense of excitement and privelege to have been born into this age. I feel great gratitude to all the men and women who studied so hard at their chosen sciences to bring us to this point where we can land probes on distant moons and cure children with leukemia with bone marrow translpants. I say thanks also to those folk of science that helped make possible my fridge, my washing machine, my car, my phone and my computer. Science was able to do these things for us becauses it searches for answers and solutions in a particular way that gets results.

I do not wish to seem flippant, my question is sincere. Would you feel equally excited and privileged living in any age before now? I would feel equally so in any age I happened to be born, all else being equal.

Your questions: What is beauty ?,What is love ?,What is faith ?,Why do we have or need hope? etc all have answers in the science of psychology. And there we might equally ask: What is ugliness?, What is hate?, What is despair? etc etc. I understand that you are approaching them from a particular angle and I have no disagreement with it, but it is not the only angle. The thing about the scientific method is it can be applied to anything and free's us from any predjuidice if correctly undertaken.

You see, that's the thing, psychology doesn't really answer these things. Think of it this way for a moment, there are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. 1+1=2, fact, indisputable, hard science. (Which in my view is where the likes of Newton and Einstein can see "God") Soft science is not nearly as certain, it is guesswork and subject to all sorts of conditions. Biology falls somewhere in between, which is probably why evolution draws such a fierce debate. Psychology on the other hand, is about as purely guesswork as a science can possibly get and still be called science. (Had this discussion with a good natured psych professor). So I must respectfully disagree, psychology, and the rest of the sciences, do not have hard, solid, indisputable scientific answers for the questions I posed. My faith, on the other hand, does. Not only answers as to what these things are, but even reasons for them existing in the human condition to begin with.

I personaly dislike 'holy books' as a work presented as the word of God. I fully appreciate that almost all contain great wisdom, valuable lessons and sage advice. But I feel most of it is lost when transferred verbatim into a concept of what 'God' really is.

I suppose in this sense all holy books are equally suspect and simultaneously invaluable. I cannot argue the attempts by the misguided and self-righteous to "convert" unbelievers, I argue just as vehemently with them, perhaps more so (they are less fun to argue with though! ).

The authenticity of most of them is also very questionable. Monotheisms especially are also to prone to hijacking by mostly self-proclaimed 'religeous leaders' that manipulate large numbers of people to do anything but seek the truth. The message of Jesus for example does not need the whole new testament......it can be summed up in a few lines. Everything else has been put there by religeous leaders of all to often dubious intent. The debates on this forum about gospels omitted or included only in part show clearly the political decision making involed in the new testament composition. In short it is a corrupted piece of scholarly history and in no sense the 'word of God'. But saying this makes Christians angry and think I am trying to provoke or insult them. I am not....I merely state a fact as I see it. No christian would dare take me to a court of law on a slander charge because a court of law would uphold my statements to be true.

I am accepting your position as one being presented politely and sincerely, accept my response in a similar vein please. I see a great deal of narrow sight in this, it is pointedly focused at Christianity. Where I see these same issues relative and relevent to all faiths, all religions, including science. It is not a fault of religion per se, it is a human fault. Which is why I made the comment earlier:

Originally Posted by jt3

I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics...This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.

Science on the other hand is constantly faced with the court of 'peer review'.

I would almost agree with you but for one thing; the human ego. That "peer review" is conditional. Officially, no, and I cannot prove it. Unofficially, I believe this to be so, and I back it up with Thomas Kuhn's book. (The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions I believe is the name).

That said I do believe that there is what we all know and feel as God. And I feel that monotheisms miss the point in that God is not one of itself, but the totality of all things. It may be a subtle difference, but its an important one. And all the things you say science cannot answer like prayer, love and faith are explainable and indeed proveable with science.

With all due respect, I am afraid I missed this part in science class.

Science is not disproving the existance of a Universal Spirit......its proving it is there. It is understanding its true nature from an unbiased perspective, free of the shackles of religeous leaders who are really political aspirants, using so called sacred texts to stifle thinking and progress.

I want to believe this, at least in some manner, but you must admit this is not typical scientific thinking. This is not normative science in any sense of the term. One might get an occasional scientist to acknowledge, off the record of course, that they believe in some kind of "God" in whatever supernatural manner that might be expressed. But this is not normative science because science cannot hold it, dissect it, test it, prod it, probe it or otherwise manipulate it. So I do agree that science cannot disprove God, God is outside of the parameters of science. Any scientist who attempts to use science to disprove God does great disservice to science.

Anyone who has felt God knows that no holy place of worship nor piece of scripture is required to feel that knowledge. Sure some people find it useful to use those for focus but they are not absolute requirements.

Does it suprise you that I agree with this?

I believe each of us is a part of God. God is not removed from us in any way. We are all equal parts of God....the Pope is no closer than I am, and I am no closer than the tree outside, or the stars that twinkle in the night sky. All the 'fear God' is politics, all the this is the 'one book' is politics and so are the vast majority of the rules these religeons demand be followed. They are about controling people, not enlightening them.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. As friends we can do that.

And I dont require any religeon to have faith and love nor to pray and have my prayers answered.

I would add, I do not need any science for these things either.

Remember, I entered this discussion to play "devil's advocate." Large parts of my thoughts are open to change, other than the one core I feel most deeply; there is a Creator. In that sense, and that sense only, I can be considered a creationist. Otherwise, I do not fit the label and resent it being thrown in my direction with the animosity it is typically thrown by the scientific religionist in the throes of a dogmatic hissy-fit. Thankfully, I do not see this tendency in you, Tao.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

Seems like everyone explores intelligent design the same way...with cannon, and shotgun. No need discussing, let us just blow holes....

I guess both sides resort to since I can't prove difinitively mine to you, I'll just attempt to destroy yours in your eyes...or at least beat you up till you run away with your (highly evolved) tail between your legs.

We've gone a far cry from the elementary school playground and 'If you show me yours I'll show you mine.'

I for one miss the old days where we could just play together and celebrate our differences.

Its a very good point Will. If everybody is searching we have some chance of that happening, if we let the politics of belief continue to reign then there will always be elites that seek to divide us. This is not about the core of faith, that which we all share, its about whether or not we shake off the irrelevant packaging.

Regards

TE