Subject:

Comments:
: >>>>>: : Actually there's no evidence for this statement. Religious expression appears abruptly in the fossil record with the Neanderthals. Since the Neanderthals are supposed to have split from the human line with the Antecessor fossils about 750,000 years ago, this would mean that mysteriously the capacity for religion appeared in Antecessor at least that long ago. It was then not expressed for 700,000 years. It then was expressed, and has continued to expressed since then, in both Neanderthals, until their end, and in the human line. : : There is less evidence for your statement than his. The religious expression that Neanderthals had that we even know of is the care of the dead. That is a long cry from golden crosses and giant cathedrals.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< : No it isnt. Care of the dead indicates care of something beyond the natural. This is the core of religion, and ALWAYS has been. Why do YOU choose to focus on the SUPERFICIAL? : >>>>>>: : This just happens to fit in perfectly with the postmodernism of the day. What a lucky conincidence. : : So what?<<<<<<< : Because BELIEF systems are not just religious. They can be areligious or antireligious as well. Postmodernism is a belief system, a worldview, the current set of tenets held by moderns from which they base their lives. The statements made are not scientific. They are not true. They are simply expressions of the reigning philosophy of the day. When that reigning philosophy changes, so will the latest version of the "truth". : : >>>>>>>: : Another good postmodernist statement to begin. But if the bible books "lose their relational meaning", that does make them untrue doesn't it? : : As true for us today as Neanderthals were for them I suppose.<<<<<< : What does that mean? Say it. You do think the bible is untrue correct? Come on. You can do it. I'm sure you will feel better for it. : : >>>>>>>: : Besides the question begging, you are also wrong regarding the New Testament. The Christian community after the resurrection soon encompases the peoples of many nations not just one. : : : In general, this portion of your piece displays your clic reductionist viewpoint, the logical end of your evolutionary belief system. : : :How did you relate this to the New Testament? : : Isn't uming that there will be a ressurection reductionist in the extreme?<<<< : To your first question, the original posting claimed that the bible was the musings of the people of ONE nation. I am saying that that statement is untrue, inoperative, false, wrong, incorrect, and not objectively real. Is that clear to you? : In regards to your second statement, you don't appear to understand reductionism. Reductionism is the philosophy that everything observed has a material cause. Later on in the posting you let it be known that this is in fact what you believe. So I ume you believe it, but don't understand it. : Since by definition, belief in a resurection requires the objective existance of the nonmaterial (spiritual) it is in fact the opposite of reductionism. : : >>>>>: : Compared to what? Name a religious, nonreligious or antireligious point of view, that hasn't had all and most of the same characteristics you note. Human beings are nothing if not flawed. Every system they produce is : : : flawed. But is the bible itself flawed or does it rather flawlessly record the flaws and the underlying history? : : : You also said earlier that the bible was neither true nor untrue. Now you change your mind. Is such changability a genetic characteristic of those predisposed to an evolutionary mindset? : : The Bible itself is flawed.<<<<< : There you go, now don't you feel better? : >>>It is inconsistent and condradictory to itself.<<<< : No, it isnt. You do so enjoy being wrong. No wonder you are into postmodern reductionism. : >>>>Also the Mosaic Law has little or no relational meaning in todays society except for the no-brainers.<<<<< : It doesn't? So adultery is now a good thing? Theft is now a good thing? Coveting (envy) is now a good thing? Killing is now a good thing? It has NO relevance to today's society except for the "no-brainers"? By the way, where did you pick up your brains Mark? : : >>>>: : The means to fight against oppression where inherited via evolutionary means? Please detail the story of how this happened. The tragedies coming from relgious sources you mentioned are terrible. Do you have any evidence that tragedies coming from other sources like ideological (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao) or ethnic (Turks on Armenians, Tutsi on Hutu) are any less severe? Is the religious source particularly aggregious, or do all these tragedies have a common source in something more deeply flawed in the human character? Does the bible indicate a source for this flaw? Is there any evidence that the bible's theory is incorrect and that perfect people and/or systems DO exist? If so, provide sources. : : All of our culture is an expression of our instinctual development as it relates to the demands of our environment.<<<<<< : Let me get this right, Mark. When the Tutsi where butchering the Hutu that was an expression of instinctual development as it related to the demands of their environment? Same for Pol Pot? Same for Hitler? Same for the Crusades? Same for the Turks on the Armenians? : Are you trying to make a point? Does that even sound like it makes any sense to YOU? : : >>>>>: : The reason God won't go away, much to the distress of many people, is because the universe and everything in it shows every evidence of insufficiency and incompleteness. This has been true in every age. It is true today. It will always be true. Each new level of understanding also indicates a new or several new layers of complexity underneath it. But at some point, randomness breaks down in explaining complexity, especially of the specified kind. Only intelligence remains, an intelligence in back of it all. : : Insufficiancy and incompleteness are entirely human sentiments and have nothing to do with the reality of the Universe. Insufficient in what way? Doesn't this imply that it is we who are insufficient and not the Universe? Doesn't this imply that intelligence isn't enough? Doesn't this imply intelligence after the fact?<<<<< : Questions: If insufficiency and incompleteness have nothing to do with the reality of the universe why did they come into being as human sentiments? If they exist as human sentiments, doesn't that make them a reality of the universe? If they are a reality of the universe doesn't that make your statement incorrect, wrong, false and nonoperative? : As far as insufficient in what way? : 1. The universe has a beginning. What came : before? : 2. If you say, something like a superuniverse has : always existed, you have a problem. Our : universe has entropy, it is winding down. How : did the superuniverse, from which our universe : was born, produce something with entropy if : entropy was not a condition to which it was : also subject. But if IT is also subject to : entropy, that means IT is also winding down, : meaning IT ALSO had a beginning, meaning using : a superuniverse in whatever form explains : nothing. You still have a beginning. What : came before? : 3. The observable universe is not entirely : reducible to the material. Information exists. : The products of intelligence exists, both in : terms of the intelligent beings themselves, : irreducible complexity in nature and design : on a universal scale. The material of the : observable universe could not have produced : this information in the time available to it : since its beginning. Hence, where did it come : from? : There is more, but that's enough for now. : >>>>: : The human genetic program is a good example. It achieved its goal of "reading" our genetic code. This produced 30,000 genes instead of the 90,000 expected, indicating that each gene is much more complex than thought. These 30,000 genes code for 300,000 proteins meaning that the old theory of each gene coding for one protein is untrue. But if genes are so complex, aren't they even more mysterious from an evolutionary point of view? Isn't the best og to a gene an artificial intelligence program? But what put that information in the gene? Now that we have "read" our genetic code do we understand it? : : : In other research, it has now been found that "junk" DNA is not. Some genetic diseases are due to mutations on the "junk" part of the code. But if the "junk" DNA is not, then the randomness expected from a mutational development of genetic sequence isn't there. Aren't we on a "dangerous" slippery slope where it is found that a lot, maybe even most, maybe even almost all, the genetic code is NECCESSARY? But if that turns out to be the case, a major prediction expected if evolutionary theory is true will be proven wrong. Only time will tell. : : : The logic of your philosophy has taken you to the endpoint of your belief system, that is evolutionary reductionism. Bottled up by your own thought processes, you will now have to wait and see if you have made the correct decision. Good luck. You'll need it. : : It may be that DNA is a form of intelligence. : The computational powers of recombination far exceed those capable of the human mind.<<< : No they don't. Recombination has to work with existing materials. The human mind does create new things. The human mind does create new ideas. The human mind does create new forms. As far as DNA being a form of intelligence, do you have any technical backing for your claim or is it just something you made up? : : >>>>But just because its intelligent doesn't mean its conscious as is being seen in todays computers. In fact it may be conscious and be the basis for our own consciousness.<<<< : Computers are not intelligent. They do what they are programmed to do. Tell me when a computer upgrades its own programming. Then we'll talk about their intelligence. : As far as your second statement, I must admit you have left me speechless. I have no idea what you are talking about. : >>>I have found it helpful to look at it as if we are an expression of DNA as DNA is an expression of the atom as the atom is an expression of the quantum world. An expectation to a theory that is wrong doesn't necessarily prove it wrong, it may even prove something even more profoundly true. Scientific inquiry ius not a belief system. It is a system of observation and testing that conforms to the observations building a verifiable understanding of the workings of all things.<<<< : You say a lot here. Let's break it down: : 1. The problem with your DNA expression theory has : to do with the laws of chemistry and : probability. Chemistry tends towards the : lowest energy state. DNA is a very high : energy state. It is packed with lots of : information. Random chance and chemical laws : will not even create one DNA strand over the : entire time since the universe begin, so your : theory falls apart in a sea of improbability. : 2. As far as scientific inquiry not being a belief : system, I actually agree with you. BUT, : NATURALISM IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. Moderns equate : scientific inquiry with naturalism and : therefore turn it into a belief system. : 3. The same observations can be, and are : interpreted through an observer's preexisting : belief systems. After interpretation, the : throwing out of data that doesn't fit the : theory and other filters, the "objectivity" : can be and often is, quite at variance with : the actual reality of the situation. : One more point, which anticipates a future question. Where did God come from? : I would propose the following. The observable universe shows evidence of design on many levels, including that of the overall universe itself (universal constants, expansion etc). The observable universe is limited in terms of time and space. : It was created by an intelligent being limited by neither time nor space as we know it. A being not limited by time is eternal. A being not limited by space is omnipresent. That is God's condition. : He gives evidence of his presence in the observable universe. Enough so that those with an eye to see, will observe him in every age. But not enough to force himself on those without an eye to see. God will neither be absolutely provable nor disprovable in any age. : This is true in every age; past, present and future. Ultimately it always comes down to faith. This goes for the atheist as much as the theist and everyone in between. : BUT, this does not mean there is no objective evidence for God's existence. It just means that some people will always choose to ignore it, supress it, or excuse it. : That's the way it always has been, that's the way it is now and that's the way it will always be.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: