Darwin

[Wild Bill]

I don't believe anything in the bible has been scientifically validated at all. When the bible was written the human race did not have much of an understanding about the universe. So simplistic analogies were the word of the day. After a few thousand years of using the scientific method, we have moved beyond those simplistic analogies and stories to understand the universe.

And this is the reason I suspect those who follow Betsy's beliefs will always be disappointed. It is possible that someday we may find some proof of a God. Not likely, but possible. However, it is NOT likely that ANY of the biblical explanations of how the Universe was created or how it works will ever be proven!

Evolution, quantum physics and the like are all far better explanations of the world around us than anything found in the Bible. When the Bible talks about matters of science, it will forever be just a collection of myths and allegories written by the ignorant and primitive.

[betsy]

And that's the only reasonable stance to take when one isn't provided with convincing proof otherwise. Doesn't scientific thinking "awe" you?

Yes, it awes me in way. I speak here as a Christian. Hard to explain what I really mean, so I'll try:

They have this knowledge and wisdom....intellect...this great capability.....and yet this also seem like a curse (can't find the right word) for along with it must come ego. Just like it must be more difficult for those with riches and fame to follow the teachings of Christ...it must be more difficult for someone with ego to humbly accept without question and submit.

That is why I am fascinated by those atheist scientists who ended up converting to Christianity. From one extreme to the other. Why not just be an Agnostic?

That is why I said in the other thread, something convinced them without any question. They'd discovered or seen something without any doubt. it's like they've seen some sort of a miracle.

I am awed by their spiritual experience

[betsy]

Agnostic is the way to go for me. It's not a cop out and it does not pose 'grave implications' for me.

Of course it does not. You are an Agnostic! It's the neutral zone.

The grave implication is on the Atheists for they've been waiting with baited breath for science to prove that there is no God. Because only then can their belief be validated. They need that validation. Otherwise, why would there be so much excitement over these theories that supposedly will prove just that...it's like sports fans eagerly watching the game every step of the way.

But Agnostic scientists are throwing a damp towel over that....by saying the possibility of a God exists!

Furthermore, the possibility of an existing God - which Agnostics believe - is greatly enhanced when Atheist scientists ended up converting to Christianity - most of whom while in the midst of working on a theory.

[GostHacked]

Yes, it awes me in way. I speak here as a Christian. Hard to explain what I really mean, so I'll try:

They have this knowledge and wisdom....intellect...this great capability.....and yet this also seem like a curse (can't find the right word) for along with it must come ego. Just like it must be more difficult for those with riches and fame to follow the teachings of Christ...it must be more difficult for someone with ego to humbly accept without question and submit.

If you really believe in a god and want to be a good Christian, fame and money won't stop that from happening. You will do it because it's your choice and beleif. Money and fame won't stop me from being a good agnostic!

I also think that independant and free thinkers don't like the idea of sumbission to anything really. I do not think it has anything to do with ego either. But how it could deal with ego see next paragraph. It might be a little abstract.

That is why I am fascinated by those atheist scientists who ended up converting to Christianity. From one extreme to the other. Why not just be an Agnostic?

Good question Betsy, why have you not become agnostic yet?

That is why I said in the other thread, something convinced them without any question. They'd discovered or seen something without any doubt. it's like they've seen some sort of a miracle.I am awed by their spiritual experience

For those scientists, it may have something to do with being mortal. We can't live forever and many want to. For me, I don't think there is this other side were we become immortal and live forever in this so called utopia that is heaven. Personally, I'd like to live a very long time, way longer than this body could ever sustain. Call it quits when I wanted to type of thing. But I know that that will not happen. When it comes to lights out, it will be just that. So maybe in a last ditch effort these scientists are converting to a certain religion and believing in a god and heaven, hoping they can acheive some immortality in the next 'life'. They simply may not like the idea of death and the finality of it all. They want to cheat it. We all do, maybe religion and the belief of a god and heaven is a mechanism we try to use in order to comfort ourselves. If we believe it hard enough it will be everything we wanted it to be. We seem to by lying to ourselves in either stance if don't take the middle road which is agnostic. Belief in a god, you are delusional, not believing in a god, you are delusional.

Edited September 2, 2010 by GostHacked

[betsy]

If you really believe in a god and want to be a good Christian, fame and money won't stop that from happening. You will do it because it's your choice and beleif. Money and fame won't stop me from being a good agnostic!

I am not saying that fame and money will stop me or anyone from being a good Christian. I am sure that there are wealthy and famous people who are good Christians.

It only makes it harder to follow the teachings of Christ....temptations abound all the more. It's easy to lose focus in that kind of environment. Christ Himself likened it (wealthy person) to a camel going through the eye of a needle.

Good question Betsy, why have you not become agnostic yet?

I'm happy to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor....that's good...quite refreshing to get this far without us slamming each other.

For those scientists, it may have something to do with being mortal. We can't live forever and many want to. For me, I don't think there is this other side were we become immortal and live forever in this so called utopia that is heaven. Personally, I'd like to live a very long time, way longer than this body could ever sustain. Call it quits when I wanted to type of thing. But I know that that will not happen. When it comes to lights out, it will be just that. So maybe in a last ditch effort these scientists are converting to a certain religion and believing in a god and heaven, hoping they can acheive some immortality in the next 'life'. They simply may not like the idea of death and the finality of it all. They want to cheat it. We all do, maybe religion and the belief of a god and heaven is a mechanism we try to use in order to comfort ourselves. If we believe it hard enough it will be everything we wanted it to be. We seem to by lying to ourselves in either stance if don't take the middle road which is agnostic. Belief in a god, you are delusional, not believing in a god, you are delusional.

Btw, just to remind you that the only reason I got embroiled in this discussion about agnostic scientists namely Einstein and Darwin.....was because of the reaction of both ToadBrother and TruMetis in the Einstein thread when I just simply stated a sentence: Einstein was an Agnostic.

I was just reiterating a fact....is all. Not my intention to get to any lengthy debate.

If I'm not mistaken, the reason Darwin was Agnostic was because he cannot reconcile himself to the idea of a "brutal God"....perhaps this was brought on too by the loss of his daughter. I assume that some Agnostics (and perhaps some Atheists) don't want a God or any god that do not conform to their own idea of how or what God or a god should be like.

As for the reason of these scientists' conversion to Christianity, they may have their own reasons ....what is truly in their hearts....only God knows.

Belief is personal. You have your own reasons for yours, I have mine.

It was nice exchanging views with you GostHacked.

Edited September 3, 2010 by betsy

[Bonam]

Personally, I view the belief or disbelief of other scientists in God as completely irrelevant to my own rational evaluation that led to the conclusion that the existence of God is unlikely enough as to not be worth considering, similar to the existence of unicorns, little elves in my drawer, etc.

But, for those of you who for some reason put great weight in the religious thoughts of prominent scientists, Hawking just recently published a book in which he rejects the notion of God having initiated the creation of the universe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/hawking-rejects-divine-role-in-big-bang-creation-of-the-universe/article1693616/

[betsy]

Hey GostHacked, I made a blooper! At Einstein thread....I just saw that I said Einstein was a deist! Oh brother.....

[wyly]

Of course it does not. You are an Agnostic! It's the neutral zone.

The grave implication is on the Atheists for they've been waiting with baited breath for science to prove that there is no God. Because only then can their belief be validated. They need that validation. Otherwise, why would there be so much excitement over these theories that supposedly will prove just that...it's like sports fans eagerly watching the game every step of the way.

But Agnostic scientists are throwing a damp towel over that....by saying the possibility of a God exists!

Furthermore, the possibility of an existing God - which Agnostics believe - is greatly enhanced when Atheist scientists ended up converting to Christianity - most of whom while in the midst of working on a theory.

you live in a delusionary world, no matter how often you repeat the lie to delude yourself it doesn't make it true...you're really Wendy Wright aren't you?

[GostHacked]

Hey GostHacked, I made a blooper! At Einstein thread....I just saw that I said Einstein was a deist! Oh brother.....

No worries, you've made many bloopers in your life, but once you move over and convert to being an agnostic, you will feel better.

[Wild Bill]

This was on my Net provider's home page today:

http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/scientist_stephen_hawking_asserts_that_god_not_needed_to_create_the_universe/0b46edd2

"British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking says no, arguing in his new book that there need not be a God behind the creation of the universe."

[wyly]

This was on my Net provider's home page today:

http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/scientist_stephen_hawking_asserts_that_god_not_needed_to_create_the_universe/0b46edd2

"British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking says no, arguing in his new book that there need not be a God behind the creation of the universe."

but understanding the advanced math behind the creation of the universe is too difficult for most it's far easier to believe a magical sky pixie did it all...

[Wild Bill]

but understanding the advanced math behind the creation of the universe is too difficult for most it's far easier to believe a magical sky pixie did it all...

You're quite right! That leads to another question: What is it about so many folks that they need to accept something simple that's likely wrong, since they are apparently unable to just admit they don't know enough to grasp the REAL explanation?

There's a LOT I don't understand but I see no shame in admitting it. Swallowing some lowbrow hokum instead DOES seem shameful, as far as I'm concerned!

[bloodyminded]

The grave implication is on the Atheists for they've been waiting with baited breath for science to prove that there is no God.

No, they haven't.

But Agnostic scientists are throwing a damp towel over that....by saying the possibility of a God exists!

How does this throw a damp towel over anything?

Furthermore, the possibility of an existing God - which Agnostics believe - is greatly enhanced when Atheist scientists ended up converting to Christianity - most of whom while in the midst of working on a theory.

One can ber a scientist, including an evolutionary bilogist, and still be a Christian, or of any other religious faith.

Being a person of Faith does not mean you are a Creationist (or, euphemistically, an "intelligent designer"). Obviously.

[wyly]

You're quite right! That leads to another question: What is it about so many folks that they need to accept something simple that's likely wrong, since they are apparently unable to just admit they don't know enough to grasp the REAL explanation?

There's a LOT I don't understand but I see no shame in admitting it. Swallowing some lowbrow hokum instead DOES seem shameful, as far as I'm concerned!

good question Bill...maybe it gives them comfort like when you're a kid and mom and dad protect you and take care of all your needs, I miss those days sometimes life was easier being a kid oblivious to the worlds perils...

I admit I'm never going to understand the kind of advanced math ability required to explain the beginning of the universe but I don't feel the need to invent what is for me an even more difficult concept of a sky pixie that did it all...2+2=4 and always will equal 4 that's easy to verify and understand and the math for the universe will be the same...Hocus Pocus+Kalamazzoo=Universe is a hard sell and not verifiable by anyone..

Edited September 3, 2010 by wyly

[betsy]

good question Bill...maybe it gives them comfort like when you're a kid and mom and dad protect you and take care of all your needs, I miss those days sometimes life was easier being a kid oblivious to the worlds perils...

Actually, that analogy is quite right.

[Wild Bill]

Actually, that analogy is quite right.

And there's the difference between us, Betsy! At times I envy those with faith. I recognize how it can be a comfort and a powerful tool to motivate and to cope with adversity.

Still, when all is said and done it still looks to me like someone fooling themselves! For that reason I have never been able to accept it. The idea makes me feel like a hypocrite.

My coping mechanism consists of some old blues LPs and my harmonica!

[GostHacked]

And there's the difference between us, Betsy! At times I envy those with faith. I recognize how it can be a comfort and a powerful tool to motivate and to cope with adversity.

And if one believes in oneself above all others, then you already have the motivation you need to cope with adversity.

My coping mechanism consists of some old blues LPs and my harmonica!

Music is where I find comfort as well. But I really like a nice solid house beat , gimmie somethin to dance to !!!

It's fascinating in some churches, a black congregation, with the music and soul i really dig the peppy church choirs with a little jazz and funk thrown in .. slap a nice house beat on that, and you have some damn fine music. OH I think I got an idea!!

[cybercoma]

bump

[Saipan]

Wonder how would poor Charles explain sabretooth tiger.

[kimmy]

Wonder how would poor Charles explain sabretooth tiger.

He would probably say that changing conditions (likely the availability of prey) led to an environment that was unfavorable for large predators, resulting in declining numbers and finally extinction.

Why would you imagine that the disappearance of creatures like mammoths or sabretooth tigers would be such a "gotcha" for evolution? It makes me wonder if you actually understand what you're even talking about.

-k

[cybercoma]

You wonder that? I thought everyone was in agreement a long time ago.

[Saipan]

He would probably say that changing conditions (likely the availability of prey) led to an environment that was unfavorable for large predators, resulting in declining numbers and finally extinction.

Prey declined? Which ones? Rather than eating moose, deer rabbit, beaver....sabretooth tiger, dire wolf, and shortface bear just decide to die. Very scientific

And who was eating mammoths?

[g_bambino]

It makes me wonder if you actually understand what you're even talking about.

He doesn't.

[betsy]

He would probably say that changing conditions (likely the availability of prey) led to an environment that was unfavorable for large predators, resulting in declining numbers and finally extinction.

Why would you imagine that the disappearance of creatures like mammoths or sabretooth tigers would be such a "gotcha" for evolution? It makes me wonder if you actually understand what you're even talking about.

-k

He would probably say that changing conditions led to extinction - but I don't think availability of prey would be one of them.

Anyway, what happened to the simplest form of evolution? ADAPTATION?

Did all food source -prey - suddenly disappeared that there's no time to adapt?

If availability of prey is a problem, you'd think they'd at least learn to live on other things? Develop gills and start doing some dive-fishing? How about eating plants?

Becoming vegetarians?

Isn't evolution supposed to be for survival? My cat prefers to be a vegetarian - and there's not even any meat shortage in her diet! If my cat can eat veggies, why didn't the large predators of the past learned and adapted, considering it was a matter of life and death situation?

Edited August 29, 2011 by betsy

[Saipan]

You wonder that? I thought everyone was in agreement a long time ago.

You asked everyone?

Like the "climate consensus"