Huge!

[debussy symbolism]

Yes. However, as science is disproving more and more things that we once thought of as supernatural, it is logical to see that the divine nature isn't so divine afterall. For that reason, the logic of science contradicts the logic of God.

[debussy symbolism]

I see the name of the subject has been altered.

[pianistimo]

i think you are looking for evidence in the wrong place.  perhaps when you experience the birth of a child (vicariously) and hear them take their first breath - it will be simplified.  did you know the process of labor is fairly miraculous and i don't think any scientist can explain exactly why a woman's muscles go from squeezing in (contractions) to suddenly at the last 5-10 to 1/2 hour begin automatically pushing.  if we had evolutionized ourselves - many more women would have died in childbirth.  when you experience a miracle (just our being alive is a miracle) you feel it from your inner core (whether childbirth, a sudden joy at understanding finally what God's word means, or to see an answer to prayer).  these are not easily put into scientific terms although they certainly can be categorized as something that is observable in people.

from my perspective, if more children were allowed into the birthing room and process - they would have more of an awe for our creator.  because, as i see it, we are created from the womb and are born into a totally different system than the womb.  in the womb we are surrounded by water - but at the process of birth we switch to lungs (squeezed free of fluid) and breath our first breath of air.  to explain how a baby can exist in fluid and not drown has been done - but do we understand this?  will we ever?  such minute steps to every day of the creation of a baby or animal (for animals) in the womb.  each one is a precision guided step. 

[ada]

i don't think any scientist can explain exactly why a woman's muscles go from squeezing in (contractions) to suddenly at the last 5-10 to 1/2 hour begin automatically pushing. 

uh, I think you will find they can. It's called, like, hormones. Just because YOU don't understand something P, doesn't mean no one else does.

[ada]

but do we understand this?  will we ever?  such minute steps to every day of the creation of a baby or animal (for animals) in the womb.  each one is a precision guided step. 

Uh yeah, sorry we've worked that one out. It's called DNA.

[pianistimo]

can you show me documentation for this hormonal process that totally eliminates God's hand in childbirth.  people can SAY - this is hormone related only.  but, God, in the bible - proclaims his sovereignty in every act of childbirth.  'children are a gift of the Lord...'

what i read in one textbook was that scientists agree that hormones cause the initial contractions - but they do not know what causes the muscles to switch direction at the second stage.

[ada]

Pianistimo, I'm sorry, I don't get into debates about creationism.

[prometheus]

Did you know the process of labor is fairly miraculous and i don't think any scientist can explain exactly why a woman's muscles go from squeezing in (contractions) to suddenly at the last 5-10 to 1/2 hour begin automatically pushing.

If they don't the child won't be born. That means genes will not be passed on. That means these genes will die with their carrier. They will be eliminated from the human gene pool. So it is impossible for humans to exist than can't bear children. You either have humans with muscles that do make childbirth possible or you don't have humans at all.

If we had evolutionized ourselves - many more women would have died in childbirth.

No, because then the child would also die. You see, the problem is that humans have large skulls because of their large brains.
Because of this all humans are born too early. A child without a mother will die. Even if another female adopts this baby, without mother milk it won't develop that well and have a weaker immune system. And the earlier human babies are born the more they need their mother.
With modern humans the baby is still 'part of the female body' after it is born. It should still be in the womb.


This means that the heads of our hominid ancestors wouldn't be able to get any bigger unless the problem of childbirth was solved. This means either nature found a solution or  hominid brains remained smaller than they are now.

It would be a lot smarter to bear your child through your stomack instead of through the hip bones. If we would be able to do that then we probably would have had even bigger brains. If we were created one would expect to see that.

The problem is that evolution can't make a solution like that because you can't gradually progress from bearing through the hip bones to bearing through your stomack. The hip bones would need to dissapear for that. And then human legs wouldn't work. And without our legs we would have a lot less fitness.

One can see that hips can gradually become broader and that babies can be born gradually earlier and that the pelvic muscles can become gradually more flexible.

So unless the problem was solved homo sapiens wouldn't exist.



Anyway, the only way creationism can explain the problems and pains of childbirth is to say it is Gods punishment to woman. That's a pretty poor thing to believe in. You can easily see which theory has the biggest problem explaining reality.

I guess the punishment of the male is that it needs hundreds of thousands spermazoids...

[donjuan]

can you show me documentation for this hormonal process that totally eliminates God's hand in childbirth.  people can SAY - this is hormone related only.  but, God, in the bible - proclaims his sovereignty in every act of childbirth.  'children are a gift of the Lord...'

here's "god's hand": adrenergic neurotransmitters stimulating alpha1  receptors on the uterine walls, causing contraction for childbirth. 

It's entirely chemical, and the woman does it all on her own, pianistimo.

[pianistimo]

no.  it's involuntary muscles that contract and release (with the help of the hormones that are transmitted).  i had no control over my childbirth muscular happenings.  only over breath control - which sometimes helps the process - but does NOT determine it.

if more men fully understood childbirth - they would be in awe instead of - oh, that's just another baby.  it's such a complicated process (just as babies are when knit in the womb).  it's a CREATION.

[prometheus]

If it's involuntary or not hasn't got to do with who controls it. Your conscience doesn't control your body.

If you have to think every time you need your heart to beat the human body won't work. Same if you have to think to create an ATP molecule which happens 10 million times a second on average in each of your body cells. My body does it all on it's own without me needing to control it.

You don't know how complicated it is because of your god delusion. I have some idea of it because of science.

[pianistimo]

no...i see the complicatedness from textbooks - but i do not see the attribution of this to a random process as natural selection.  it has been disproven.  the processes are too precise and intricate.  and, dna is chained together by absolute necessity of mother/father genes and not some mutation.

do you think if we fully understood birth we would fully understand death?  i think the biggest miracles occur at both ends of our physical life - and some are simply unexplainable because we cannot go there except once in our lives.  and at birth we are too young to tell of it, and dying we cannot return to the living to tell of it either.

anyways, despite our heated conversations - at least we agree to disagree politely.  imagine occasionally i cause you to spit in your coffee - and you cause me to choke once in awhile.

[prometheus]

no...i see the complicatedness from textbooks - but i do not see the attribution of this to a random process as natural selection.

This is an oxymoron. By definition selection is not random. Otherwise it wouldn't be called selection. How the idea gets in your mind to call natural selection random is beyond me.

It has been disproven.

That what you talk about has not even been proposed. You aren't talking about Darwinistic evolution, which has not been disproven. Natural selection is anything but random and is not disproven at all.

The processes are too precise and intricate.  and, dna is chained together by absolute necessity of mother/father genes and not some mutation.

The processes are too intricate to have been created all at once. It would have to have gradually progressed.

Mutations only change the base pairs in DNA.

do you think if we fully understood birth we would fully understand death?

The two have nothing to do wih each other. But we do fully understand death. We can even revive dead people if they have only been dead for a little while.

anyways, despite our heated conversations - at least we agree to disagree politely.  imagine occasionally i cause you to spit in your coffee - and you cause me to choke once in awhile. 

I would if you would just admit that you have this personal idea about how the world should be and that you choose to believe in that instead of that what science deducts from reality. But instead you make claims about science and show a lack of understanding about that what science proposes. That's just ignorance. Not an agreed difference in world view.

[donjuan]

no.  it's involuntary muscles that contract and release.  i had no control over my childbirth muscular happenings.  only over breath control - which sometimes helps the process - but does NOT determine it.

you're right; the adrenergic receptors are part of the sympathetic nervous system, which is part of the autonomic nervous system, which you have no control over.

and when I said 'the woman does it all on her own,' I meant 'God' doesn't do anything' because it's chemical. 

no...i see the complicatedness from textbooks - but i do not see the attribution of this to a random process as natural selection.  it has been disproven.  the processes are too precise and intricate.  and, dna is chained together by absolute necessity of mother/father genes and not some mutation.

do you think if we fully understood birth we would fully understand death?  i think the biggest miracles occur at both ends of our physical life - and some are simply unexplainable because we cannot go there except once in our lives.  and at birth we are too young to tell of it, and dying we cannot return to the living to tell of it either.

I've done my physiology courses, pianistimo. Have you?  As a pharmacy student, I have to learn all about the human body, including birth and death.  We learned so much about the science behind fetal development, programmed cell death and the causes of necrosis, pianistimo.. 

I wish you could see yourself talking about things you don't understand, so you would stop it.

[asyncopated]

and when I said 'the woman does it all on her own,' I meant 'God' doesn't do anything' because it's chemical.  I've done my physiology courses, pianistimo. Have you?  As a pharmacy student, I have to learn all about the human body, including birth and death.  We learned so much about the science behind fetal development, programmed cell death and the causes of necrosis, pianistimo.. 

I'm going to try to help pianistimo out here.  I think that there arguments are getting skewed because it seem like there are many against one.  Anyway, pianistimo seems like a nice guy and really deserves some help here.

Having said this I'm really out of my depth for a number of reasons.  Firstly, I am a practicing theoritical physicist, and probably don't see the world the way he does.  I've only read the last page and am jumping into the middle of a fray. Lastly, I'm not religious in anyway, sometimes I wish I could be but I'm not.

I suppose the question is one of life and consciousness.  Despite all the scientific advances, from darwin (theory of evolution) to watson and crick (dna), we still don't know how intellegence or consiousness sets in.  We don't know if its during the point of conception, some stage in the of fetal growth, at the point of delivery or even later after a couple of months as a baby grows, that consciousness sets in.  We don't know if it is a suddern process, or occurs over time, or even how to define consciousness in a clear quantitative (measurable) way.   All we know is that a stem cells as part of a fetus has the potential for consciousness. 

The point I am trying to make is that in this whole process, to claim that god has absolutely no role in this process of becoming self-aware is not a sound argument, simply because we know too little. 

In science, one always uses the occum's razor principle.  Given a number of argmuments the simplest argument is usually the most likely.  In all this, despite the advances in science, I have to admit that how a human being becomes is still a big mystery.  So much so saying that god makes us who we are (in the literal sense) is just as good a arcum razor argument as any.

Perhaps one day we can build a computer large enough, such that it can think and become self-aware. {erhaps that is impossible, and it takes a more complex biological or physical code (which seems to be the case) to do that.  Till that day comes, I would not rule god out as a possible source of consciousness.  I have already ruled most of the teachings of the church and divine morality in many instances.  But if there is an area where god still has a place and a role to play in our understanding of humanity, this is certianly one of them.



Just as an addendum, despite many prominant scientist starting to take a stand as atheist (c.f. Richard Dawkins and Steven Wienberg) it is (currently) not the place or intention of to science to preclude god.  The reasons for this backlash are I would say more political and social in nature.

Science is only as good as it's models are.  The aim of science is three fold, none of these three elements can be omited or diluted.  To observe, to theorise and to predict.  As far as I know, the models that we have for many aspects of how are universe works are very good.  To the extent that you can predict how something as minute as an atom or as large as a galaxy will behave. 

However, there are many areas that have yet to be explored.  And the quest to understand the world around us continues, and if fortunes shine (ironically), will continue for as long as there is humanity.

edit. corrected spelling.

[donjuan]

I'm going to try to help pianistimo out here.  I think that there arguments are getting skewed because it seem like there are many against one.  Anyway, pianistimo seems like a nice guy and really deserves some help here.

well, SHE is a stay-at-home mom who likes to hijack threads to rant about evidence for religion, based on lack of evidence against it.

In science, one always uses the arcum razor principle.  Given a number of argmuments the simplest argument is usually the most likely.  In all this, despite the advances in science, I have to admit that how a human being becomes is still a big mystery.  So much so saying that god makes us who we are (in the literal sense) is just as good a arcum razor argument as any.

This is definitely not the simplest argument:

childbirth .... it's such a complicated process (just as babies are when knit in the womb).  it's a CREATION.

Science is only as good as it's models are.  The aim of science is three fold, none of these three elements can be omited or diluted.  To observe, to theorise and to predict.  As far as I know, the models that we have for many aspects of how are universe works are very good.  To the extent that you can predict how something as minute as an atom or as large as a galaxy will behave.

so in your support for pianistimo's argument, do you also back up her idea that babies are 'knit' together in the womb?
and then here's her take on childbirth, based on her experience:

did you know the process of labor is fairly miraculous and i don't think any scientist can explain exactly why a woman's muscles go from squeezing in (contractions) to suddenly at the last 5-10 to 1/2 hour begin automatically pushing.

you see, she thinks "God" did that.    she completely ignores the physiology she doesn't understand.

[prometheus]

Asyncopated, I don't see how you are helping out Pianistimo since you did not even try to support any of the things she said and I opposed.

Then you are trying to explain some things about science to us which I, and probably Donjuan aswell, already understand and I have personally tried to explain to her at least 20 times. But she will just not read or refuse to understand it.

It's kind of strange that you say you are going to help her out. If you didn't I would assume you are on the side of knowledege instead of on the side of orthodox religion. Actually, you still seem to be.

BTW it's Crick and Occam.

[asyncopated]

Pianistimo -- Sorry for getting your gender wrong.  I haven't been around long enough.

Don Juan -- Btw I love Michael Angelo.  Thanks for the lovely painting.

Promethus -- thanks for the spelling corrections.  I'm mildly dyslexic.  As you can tell .

so in your support for pianistimo's argument, do you also back up her idea that babies are 'knit' together in the womb?

I wouldn't use the word 'knit' or assembled, or even created -- i think words almost fail to describe the process as a whole.  It is a complicated process involving stem-cells a large number of homonal responses, etc. etc. .  Again, we have a good rough picture of how it works.  But most cell differentiation processes are still not clearly understood (we can and certainly will understand them in the near future).  But you have to agree she is right in saying that 'building' a bably is a and somewhat complicated and miraculous process, just by the shere number of things that have to happen, at the right place at the right time, even if you did understand the science.

I wouldn't claim that god has a hand in this process explicitly, but at the same time the biology involved is not something that you can wave your hand at and come to grips with imediately.  We don't really know if god had a hand in the design, despite natural selection.

did you know the process of labor is fairly miraculous and i don't think any scientist can explain exactly why a woman's muscles go from squeezing in (contractions) to suddenly at the last 5-10 to 1/2 hour begin automatically pushing.

you see, she thinks "God" did that.

I see your point.  Still, I like to play devils advocate .  It "levels" my head sometimes, as a scientist.

To make it up, I saw a couple of vids on you tube which you might like.

Dawkins on his new book, which I am told is good but have not picked up. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjpfBc7Jmw&mode=related&search=
I agree with many of his ideas, but there are some which i consider 'extreme'.

Here is Weinberg.  He is one of the most prominant theoretical physcists of our time.  Very good interview. 
https://www.meta-library.net/far/sw1-body.html
He has also written a number of interesting essays.

Asyncopated, I don't see how you are helping out Pianistimo since you did not even try to support any of the things she said and I opposed.

I'm trying to show that god and science are not mutually exclusive.  And "reinterpreting" some of pianistimo's ideas (at least the essence) so that it can be argued within the context of science.  I'm not yet in the habit of saying, "god (or the church or the bible) says so, and that's that."  I will try to argue the only way i know how.

[pianowolfi]

I'm trying to show that god and science are not mutually exclusive. 

That would be the good deed of the week! or even more.

[prometheus]

I did not read Dawkins new book but I did see the youtube video before and read some of his others and saw his BBC thing 'The root of all evil?' (don't forget to add the question mark...).
I agree largely with Dawkins though for social reasons I sometimes think one should not be as harsh as he is.

For example, eventhough today Islam is more barbaric than christianity I think I should oppose christianity when I oppose religion because I live in a Christian country(though it's probably the most secular of all Christian countries). I don't think I should lash out against Islam becuase I think I should be careful because they are a minority.


But since you seem to familiar with Dawkins lets talk about one of the points he repeats (it's not really his). If there is no shred of evidence of god in our reality then why should one not say god does not exist? Why the exception for the god of the bible?

Why are you forced to assume goblins don't exist? Fairies don't exist? And then you do make an exception by being agnostic on God? Right? I think the only reason to do this is to not be too extreme because almost all humans believe in some form of a god. But I think one should ignore culture when one questions the nature of reality. Then when one comes to a conclusion one can consider culture. Like I explained above.

Otherwise you will corrupt your truthfinding and make it less effective.

[donjuan]

Don Juan -- Btw I love Michael Angelo.  Thanks for the lovely painting.

you're welcome.  But I'd expect someone who loves him to at least know his name.

It's "Michelangelo," not "Michael Angelo" as in the guitarist Michael Angelo Batio:

I wouldn't use the word 'knit' or assembled, or even created -- i think words almost fail to describe the process as a whole.  It is a complicated process involving stem-cells a large number of homonal responses, etc. etc. .  Again, we have a good rough picture of how it works.  But most cell differentiation processes are still not clearly understood (we can and certainly will understand them in the near future).  But you have to agree she is right in saying that 'building' a bably is a and somewhat complicated and miraculous process, just by the shere number of things that have to happen, at the right place at the right time, even if you did understand the science.

well, we do understand the science, and we know humans form in the uterus from a flat disc of three layers: the ectoderm, the mesoderm, and the endoderm.  From historical research, we know:

the ectocerm forms the skin, brain, and spinal cord,
the endoderm forms the lining of the gut tube, and
the mesoderm forms all the connective tissue.

It's remarkable, for sure, but it's no religious miracle:
We know everything can be explained by science, and that "God" doesn't play a role in whether or not the baby forms correctly.  If something goes wrong, it could be haemolytic disease because of the mother's hypersensitive reaction to the baby's hemoglobin antigen, it could be due to the physicochemical properties of a drug the mother's taking (for example, anti-morning sickness drug thalidomide was banned in 1960's because it stunts babies' limb formation), it could be many things, most of which have been explained. 

But if pianistimo (or any religious fanatic) heard about a baby not developing right, she would probably talk about Satan and God and how it's a test of faith blah blah blahhhh

[prometheus]

I think Asyncipated is largely speaking about that we understand a lot but that it still is 'miraculous'. I think his use of the word 'miraculous' is a bit polluted because it is based on 'miracle'. He didn't mean to say it is a miracle. I think he meant to say it is amazing. Also, life on the molecular level is still not well understood in many cases.

But then I also don't see how this counters our opinions. I think we can assume that God has nothing to do with it. Or Thor, or Zeus, etc.

Ok, I am assuming he or she is a he, taking the change of making the same mistake as... he did.


As for dyslexia, I have it too it seems. Though I did pass the dyslexia test as a child. I instinctively knew that you knew who you were talking about. I just wanted to correct their names to show I knew them as well


As for Michaelangelo and Michael Angelo. When I first read it without the space I had an assosiation with the guitar player too, just becuase of the lack of the space and th capital letter. It seems my brain does still work a bit.

[donjuan]

But then I also don't see how this counters our opinions. I think we can assume that God has nothing to do with it. Or Thor, or Zeus, etc.

exactly!  we don't know everything, but certainly enough is known to rule out godly figures as being anything other than useless figureheads people only see if they want to (like the Queen ).

As for Michaelangelo and Michael Angelo. When I first read it without the space I had an assosiation with the guitar player too, just becuase of the lack of the space and th capital letter. It seems my brain does still work a bit.

It's not just the space; there's only one "a" in michelangelo.

[prometheus]

Hey, disleksia... I'll try to remember. My memory is quite good so maybe that will work.

[pianistimo]

if evolution was slow and gradual - then we should see a continuation of it to the MACRO level - where we see new species.  why does that not occur?  that is why i believe in creation.  the original species were species specific and have had minor genetic changes and not major ones on the MACRO level.  if you just show me a pile of bones - what does that proove.  show me a new species.  (and not one made in a laboratory).

dear asyncopated,

i thought i was posting to about 7 posts back - and now i'm reading your recent posts and appreciating your help!  at least there are two sides to everything - and people can decide based on evidence if they do not fully believe by faith.  even one of the disciples didn't (doubting thomas) and had to see the holes in Christ's hands to believe that such a thing as a resurrection of the dead was possible.  we, who have not seen God, will be blessed for believing that He is based on what evidence and help we have by the Holy Spirit (granted at pentecost) that is free for anyone who will take it.  unless you experience faith at a simple level, you will probably not believe that the impossible is possible with God.  but, with His creation, it seems that He more consistent than scientists give Him credit for.  the minutes, days, months, seasons...the cycles of life...the orbit of the planets...and genetically.  our dna isn't constantly doing anything different than it did 6,000 years ago.  it was created for a potential diversity WITHIN a species.  humans, in my way of thinking, could never be apes according to what has recently been found out about dna.  dna is much more complicated code and very hard to break.  a new species would be a downright MIRACLE -and one that you would have to prove to me - despite darwin's attempts to draw things that he considered to be evolutionary.  such as the duck-billed platypus.  but, then , he didn't look far enough back to see that that species already existed and he had never known it.  many birds and animals are RE-discovered and not invented.

[asyncopated]

But since you seem to familiar with Dawkins lets talk about one of the points he repeats (it's not really his). If there is no shred of evidence of god in our reality then why should one not say god does not exist? Why the exception for the god of the bible?

Why are you forced to assume goblins don't exist? Fairies don't exist? And then you do make an exception by being agnostic on God? Right? I think the only reason to do this is to not be too extreme because almost all humans believe in some form of a god. But I think one should ignore culture when one questions the nature of reality. Then when one comes to a conclusion one can consider culture. Like I explained above.

I'm going to argue this from two perspectives.  Let me put a disclaimer in (again) that these are just arguments for arguments' sake.  I think of it more of an intellectual exercise than as a believe system.

To the two viewpoints I'm going to consider are a scientific and a social view point. In generaly, I dislike catogorising things like that, but for the moment it seems useful to present my argument.  I'm leaving arguments from a polititical stand-point, although it should be covered, because the subject might get touchy.

Scientifically, there is no direct(!!) evidence for god, but there is no evidence against god either.  Thank you for allowing me to talk about god in an agnostic sense instead of a chritian one.  JC is hard to explain due to historical reasons.  One of the oft quoted  possible characteristics of god is that he is a omnipotent, non-interventionist god.  So that, we can't speak to him everyday, but in observing the world around us we do see evidence of a unified design.  And if you do study the science, you will see that the more advanced thoeries have a glimmer of pure, undescribably beauty about them.  (This is why I choose to do physics in the first place.)  Although there is no direct evidence of god's existence there is evidence by design of a possible omnipotent entity that set the world in motion.   ( I have excluded the many universes argument because at the moment, it's more science fiction than science fact, so if I use that I may as well include faries and goblins as well. )

Apart from this, we will always have gaps in our understanding.  Here is why.  There is something called Goedel's theorem that says that given some consistently logical set of axioms.  There will be statements that I can make which you will never be able to prove or disprove.  To give you an example.  Take the number PI (3.141...) as ask the question, is the digit 7 as likely to occur as any other digit?  You can show computationally that this tends to be true (counting digits after calculating 10 pi to 10 million digits), but I think you can also show that mathematically you can never show (given the axioms of the real number system) that this statment is true.  In other words, despite our best efforts.  There will be gaps in our knowledge.  There are things that simply cannot be answered.  What I am saying is that there is possibly a point where science is not a solution to every question.  There are valid and well formed questions within the context science that simply cannot be answered.  I'm not saying that god therefore exists, but I'm saying that already with the little we know we see that it's perfectly possible that science can't "eliminate" the need for god (or the unexplained) altogether.

Here is the last argument I have, again to do with the fact that we know so little. Science is young it's been around for the last maybe 4000 years.  And our mordern understanding has only come around probably science einstein in 1905 (special relativity) .  I dare go further to say that more than 80%(if a number is at all sensible) of current scientific human knowledge was discovered in the last 100 years.  In otherwords, given that we know close to nothing in the larger scheme of things, how dare we presume that god doesn't exist?

This post is getting too long.   I will leave my social arguments to a later post and will be interested to see what people in have to say!   

[asyncopated]

if evolution was slow and gradual - then we should see a continuation of it to the MACRO level - where we see new species.  why does that not occur?  that is why i believe in creation.  the original species were species specific and have had minor genetic changes and not major ones on the MACRO level.  if you just show me a pile of bones - what does that proove.  show me a new species.  (and not one made in a laboratory).

Actually pianistimo, there are many examples of minor changes in species.  There are some species that are more visually varied and there are some that are less.   It very much depends on the selection landscape and criterial.  The reason why species fall into pockets ( you don't see a cross between a dog and a cat)  is that many times, these are not biologically viable.  Somehow, the dogcat inherits a trait that is non sustainable biologically (like a genetic disease) or socially (they get eaten too quickly because they are not agile enough and can't run fast enough).

However, you do see variaton in sub species, and both dogs and cats are a good explanation of biological variation.  Dogs can vary in size by up to 4 or 5 times.  They can also vary alot in shape, color and characteristics.  The closest species to a dog is a wolf. 
However the wolf does not vary as much because it has not been domasticated. 

You can't really turn a wolf into a chiwawa or a pekinese overnight.  It takes hundreds of years (if not thousands) of selective breeding. 

There are also examples of fish and other sea creatures where scientist can't decide the exact species.  Our categorisation system is more for convenience, so that we know what we are talking about.  It works most of the time but not all the time.

BTW you can't see these in animals over a short period because their structure is much more complicated, but you can see this in plants.  Lately, supermarkets have introduced new types of fruit that are cross between different trees like lemons, oranges and parmelos. I don't know if these are classified as different 'species', sub-species or an altogether new species... but here is what some recipies for them --

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1216/is_1996_Spring-Summer/ai_18166781

[donjuan]

if evolution was slow and gradual - then we should see a continuation of it to the MACRO level - where we see new species.  why does that not occur?  that is why i believe in creation.  the original species were species specific and have had minor genetic changes and not major ones on the MACRO level.  if you just show me a pile of bones - what does that proove.  show me a new species.  (and not one made in a laboratory).

the earth is estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old, using the geological time scale/radioactive dating (this disproves the biblical age of earth, by the way, as well as the "7 days" thing). 

In the grand scheme of things, humans have only been around for a few blinks of an eye.  Pianistimo, you are like a dinosaur from the triassic period wanting to see dinosaurs from the jurassic period.  You'll have to be patient and wait a few million years for natural selection to show it's changing face.

No offense pianistimo, but everyone learns that in grade school.

[pianistimo]

thanks!  yes.  that's my point!  'selective.'  that means WE select for them - put them in cages together and expect them to hump each other.  in the wild - each species prefers it's own kind.  purebreds are the result.  but, genetically, even in the wild - as you say - there can be minor genetic changes.  but - again as you say - genetically viable ones are MINOR and occur over a period of years. 

to give some room - as you do - for both sides of the picture - there is this site:
www.bioedonline.org/news.cfm?art=1318

i know that i am no scientist and my major area of study is music.  but, when i am pointed to an area of the sky that looks as though it has nothing - and ends up being a galaxy with lots in it...i am in awe.  i don't see why i don't have as much right to enjoy it as a scientist.  perhaps it's the visual image more than the mental - but at least there is some enjoyment of the process.  to look and be amazed.

now, i will go and listen to the u-tubes and hopefully not accidentally use the stick glue in front of me as chapstick whilst viewing.

dear donjuan,  this is getting nasty - you're telling me i'm trying to act like i'm from the triassic period waiting for the jurrasic?  this reminds me of the show where people see who can insult each other the worst.  just because it's in a textbook proves nothing.  if God recreated the world and dinosaurs lived before mankind - they would have needed a separate sun moon stars - warmth, food, etc.  all i'm saying is that it is just possible that all we really need to know is how to care for one another and keep the world at peace.

[sissco]

What the hell is happening here  I see pictures of gitare playing freaks, where is my *** universe 

[asyncopated]

What the hell is happening here  I see pictures of gitare playing freaks, where is my f.u.c.k.i.n.g universe 

Don't panic, it's still here, i still exist .

[pianistimo]

sorry about your universe.  it makes one wonder about the speck in the toothpaste.

[prometheus]

...but in observing the world around us we do see evidence of a unified design.

Do we? I don't think we do.

And if you do study the science, you will see that the more advanced thoeries have a glimmer of pure,undescribably beauty about them.  Although there is no direct evidence of god's existence there is evidence by design of a possible omnipotent entity that set the world in motion.

First about the nature of scientific theories. You must realise they are still creations of man. Not of the universe itself. Though they are models of the universe, if they work, they don't embody reality. The beauty in these theories, if any, is not the beauty of the universe itself. It can be an approximation, it can also be a distortion.

Also, I wouldn't call the theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity aesthetically pleasing. I think they are only perceived as a glimmer of pure beauty because they are 'true'. Because they work, becuase they are powerful. Because they give us insight. I think they are pretty ugly, actually.

Also, why would we share the same notion of beauty as god if we were created by evolution? Or do you think this god was aware of all the consequences that followed from her creation?

There is only evidence of a special universe. Why our universe is special is a mystery. If you say that the universe is special because it was designed than this is just a myth like any other. It will explain the unexplainable. But then how did God come into existance? From a scientific point of view this is much harder to explain because the creator of the universe should be more amazing than the universe itself. Or at least be equally amazing. So we have all the amazingness of the universe concentrated and united into one entity.

The trick here is that God requires no explanation. Why this is is beyond me. Some people say that human logic has no relevance to God.
If this is true there can be two reasons. Either human logic is no good because logic is no good. If so then there will be total chaos. All things imaginable should be considered true. This is not the case. No logic works and is good

Then if human logic is no good because human thinking is no good then why is human theology any good? We know logic is good. We assume that human thinking is good. Then when you combine them they can't make clams about God that naturally follow?
If human thinking is no good when applied to god we shouldn't make any claims about god at all. So while this may be a way to get around the problem it does at the same time claim that religion is bad.

So it is just a trick to leave something unexplained. It doesn't do anything and there is no evidence for it. Occams razor says you should cut it away. Leave it unexplained at the last stop.

Apart from this, we will always have gaps in our understanding.  Here is why.  [...] In other words, despite our best efforts.  There will be gaps in our knowledge.  There are things that simply cannot be answered.  What I am saying is that there is possibly a point where science is not a solution to every question.  There are valid and well formed questions within the context science that simply cannot be answered.  I'm not saying that god therefore exists, but I'm saying that already with the little we know we see that it's perfectly possible that science can't "eliminate" the need for god (or the unexplained) altogether.

I don't see why the unexplained requires or even justified the need for god. I agree that there are probably things we can't explain. And I also agree that you can put God in the gaps left by science. But why? There is no reason to do so.

If you think it is reasonable to do so then do you also think it was a reasonable thing to do for the people of the bible? We know it led to incorrect claims about reality. And we know that god was abused to defend authority, established morality, and many other bad things.

In otherwords, given that we know close to nothing in the larger scheme of things, how dare we presume that god doesn't exist?

Why wouldn't we. Why wouldn't we dare? Why do you use the word 'dare' anyway? This was just my question and the one I expected you to address.

You think that we can't assume god does not exist based on lack of evidence pro and con and based on our lack of understanding and because god is such a mighty figure? Are you afraid to offend god? Should I be?

Why would one need 'dare' to assume god doesn't exist while everyone uses the same logic in the exact same situation all the time without anyone ever having a doubt?

So one should not apply the usual logic and make an exception because we are talking about the creator of all? Or because God is such a sensitive issue? Because god is such a dominant idea?

These arguments have no valid in truth finding.

[donjuan]

thanks!  yes.  that's my point!  'selective.'  that means WE select for them - put them in cages together and expect them to hump each other.  in the wild - each species prefers it's own kind.  purebreds are the result.  but, genetically, even in the wild - as you say - there can be minor genetic changes.  but - again as you say - genetically viable ones are MINOR and occur over a period of years.

This statement is so typical 'pianistimo.' You argue against natural selection, yet you clearly have no idea what it is.

Here's the theory: natural selection takes place in the wild (not in cages), and it has nothing to do with gophers humping elephants.
Mutations (mistakes in nucleotide bases) are constantly occurring, but they are fixed by DNA polymerase.  The problem is that the average cell has 6 meters of DNA nucleotides.  That is a LOT of work for DNA polymerase to do. 

Every now and then a mistake slips through the cracks.  The change will either help the organism survive better than organisms w/o the mutation, or it will kill them off.  The 2nd case is most common, but if it is the former, then the environment will eventually have more organisms with the mutation. (I remember the "peppered moth" study from highschool, when a mutation allowed the moth to camoflage better, and therefore, was eaten less than moths w/o the mutation.  Eventually, mutated moths were more common, and the original was considered rare.)  In other words, the environment selected the mutated organism.

This is just a theory, like your religion, but it is a lot easier to swallow for someone reading with a blank slate.

dear donjuan,  this is getting nasty - you're telling me i'm trying to act like i'm from the triassic period waiting for the jurrasic?  this reminds me of the show where people see who can insult each other the worst.

I didn't say anything nasty at all.  Actually, the fact that you interpreted my attempt to explain evolution as an insult shows that you are not listening at all.  I merely wanted to show the time difference between the triassic period and the jurassic period.

just because it's in a textbook proves nothing.  if God recreated the world and dinosaurs lived before mankind - they would have needed a separate sun moon stars - warmth, food, etc.  all i'm saying is that it is just possible that all we really need to know is how to care for one another and keep the world at peace.

huh?

[prometheus]

if evolution was slow and gradual - then we should see a continuation of it to the MACRO level - where we see new species. 

If micro evolution happens then micro-evolution + time equals macro-evolution. If not there should be a system limiting change in DNA. You don't propose such a system.

Creationists just deny evolution as large as that that has not happened in written human history.

There have been new species, there have been new beneficial mutations. I have shown you all of them before. The counter of your macro-micro misconception I have also made many many times, I have never gotten a reaction.

why does that not occur?  that is why i believe in creation. 

Because Darwinistic evolution claims it does not occur. It takes more time. That is why I believe in Darwinistic evolution and not in something else. Becuase it describes reality accurately.

The original species were species specific and have had minor genetic changes and not major ones on the MACRO level.

If this is correct than you believe the wolf, the coyote, the jackal evolved more away from each other the last 4000 years than I do.

If you believe that after Noah released two dog-types from his arch we can see as much diversity as we see now than how can you criticize evolution on this point? Your view is a lot more extreme and amazing. Evolution would never be able to do that. But you claim it did! If you really believe this you believe 'more' in evolution than I do.

It would be a piece of cake for Darwin's evolution to create all what we see now in 4.5 billion years compared to your Noah's evolution creating all we see now from 2 types in 4000 years. The latter needs a lot higher evolution-per-time ratio. If you can't observe enough change per time for Darwinistic evolution than how can you see enough for Noahian evolution? Noahian evolution requires more change in time.

The ancestor for all dogs we see today is dated 14,000 to 17,000 years ago. Yet your Noah theory dates the whole Canidae family only 4000 years ago. Science with Darwinian evolution places this at least 800,000 to a million years ago. Do the math. Your claim requires 250 times more change-per-time yet you claim there is not enough change-per-time for Darwinistic evolution.

if you just show me a pile of bones - what does that proove.  show me a new species.  (and not one made in a laboratory).

This is stupid. You are asking for evidence evolution claims cannot exist to prove evolution is right. Straw Man!

[donjuan]

im confused.  pianistimo, ignore my last post unless your post:

thanks!  yes.  that's my point!  'selective.'  that means WE select for them - put them in cages together and expect them to hump each other.  in the wild - each species prefers it's own kind.  purebreds are the result.  but, genetically, even in the wild - as you say - there can be minor genetic changes.  but - again as you say - genetically viable ones are MINOR and occur over a period of years. 

was a response to my post:

You'll have to be patient and wait a few million years for natural selection to show it's changing face.

No offense pianistimo, but everyone learns that in grade school.

If you weren't responding, I'm sorry for my last post.

[asyncopated]

I have to apologise for not being able to give a rebutt all your comments this evening.  I need to sleep and look at some equations tomorrow.  I'll answer a small bit and leave the rest to tomorrow.

Do we? I don't think we do.

Well, actually neither do it, but isn't a matter of opinion isn't it.  I have a number of esteemed and religious collegues who do and I respect them for that.

First about the nature of scientific theories. You must realise they are still creations of man. Not of the universe itself. Though they are models of the universe, if they work, they don't embody reality. The beauty in these theories, if any, is not the beauty of the universe itself. It can be an approximation, it can also be a distortion.

Also, I wouldn't call the theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity aesthetically pleasing. I think they are only perceived as a glimmer of pure beauty because they are 'true'. Because they work, becuase they are powerful. Because they give us insight. I think they are pretty ugly, actually.

Also, why would we share the same notion of beauty as god if we were created by evolution? Or do you think this god was aware of all the consequences that followed from her creation?

How much of relativity or quantum mechanics have you learnt?  (not a rhetorical question.. so i can guage the amount of jargon I can throw around).  Basically, I have to agree that quantum mechanics is bulky and not too pleasing.  But remember that it is a young field not completely developed -- in particular there are a number of "problem" areas with the measurement process, quantum logic, the understanding of entanglement and decoherence. 

Relativity is slightly more pretty.  It's difficult to think about if you did first year physics.  But if you go into a lagrangian framework (3rd year/phd level) you will see what I mean. 
There what you try to do is not start with lorentz transformations (this are the basic transformations of special relativity)  but instead postulate a minkowski space-time metric, and set that in the lagrangian framework.  You can even extend this to fields and pose the same invariance and get Maxwell's eqauations (light and electromagnetism).  I've just told you how to derived like 4 chapters worth of advanced phyiscs in a paragraph so this is not very helpful. 

But what I am trying to say is that with an incredibly small amount of information about the world, you can derive quite a lot of things.  Special relativity is pleasing in that way.  What einstein did say in special relativity is that --  it is not how we have been thinking about how forces moves things around that is wrong.  That is, it is not newton's law's or the more advanced version, Lagragian/Hamiltonian mechanics that is wrong.  The problem is in how we see space and time.  And he gave us the right way to view space and time so that we can describe the world of fast moving objects and electromagtic fields correctly.  Like i say... If you looks carefully at what einstien said, there are only to main postulates.  You measure distance using a minkowski metric, and that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.  That's it.  You than add in whatever particles or fields you want and viola, you get light and stuff moving around and what else nought (ok, not quite that simple, but not far from it.) 

There is a certian amout of simplicity and elegance in the design.  I'm not claiming that this is beauty as god intended, but it may be just a glimmer, or a small part of a big picture that he/she did intend.

P.S.

Definitions ..
Minkowski metric/space-time -- this is how special relativity trys to combine space and time into a distance.  It says distances space and time should be measured on the same footing.  This is as opposed to a Galilean method, where spatial disances are measured seperately from time. 

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics --  this is a more advanced from of newtons laws.  It abandons the traditional concept of a rectagular coordinate system with three dimension, and instead allows us to measure distances between objects using a coordinate system of our choosing.  So you don't need (x,y,z) rectangular coordinates but any grid map will do, even curved coordinates.  It allows you to derive the correct laws of motion in that particular coordinate system, of which newton's laws are the correct physical laws for a rectangular coordinate system.

[prometheus]

I understand a fair amount of both theories.

I could see how you could call special relativity elegant. But you should know better than me that this elegance is only artificial because special relativity only limits itself to the large scale. Quantum mechanics and special relativity seem to contradict each other. Yet both are correct. That's the point. The elegance of special relativity is only our simplification of what really happens since we can't address gravity on a quantum level.

I could see that string theory is a elegant theory. But there is no evidene for it at all. It is not science yet.

So I didn't really mean that both of them are counter-intuitive though because of this I think it would be hard to judge if it should be considered beautiful or not.

So I think the only reason to be amazed and touched is by their truth/power/significance rather by their pure beauty. It is what they are that makes them beautiful. Not in which way they are themselves.

[debussy symbolism]

This statement is so typical 'pianistimo.' You argue against natural selection, yet you clearly have no idea what it is.

Here's the theory: natural selection takes place in the wild (not in cages), and it has nothing to do with gophers humping elephants.
Mutations (mistakes in nucleotide bases) are constantly occurring, but they are fixed by DNA polymerase.  The problem is that the average cell has 6 meters of DNA nucleotides.  That is a LOT of work for DNA polymerase to do. 

Every now and then a mistake slips through the cracks.  The change will either help the organism survive better than organisms w/o the mutation, or it will kill them off.  The 2nd case is most common, but if it is the former, then the environment will eventually have more organisms with the mutation. (I remember the "peppered moth" study from highschool, when a mutation allowed the moth to camoflage better, and therefore, was eaten less than moths w/o the mutation.  Eventually, mutated moths were more common, and the original was considered rare.)  In other words, the environment selected the mutated organism.

This is just a theory, like your religion, but it is a lot easier to swallow for someone reading with a blank slate.I didn't say anything nasty at all.  Actually, the fact that you interpreted my attempt to explain evolution as an insult shows that you are not listening at all.  I merely wanted to show the time difference between the triassic period and the jurassic period.huh?

That is right out of the biology textbook

Sorry to appear repetitive of already presented ideas, should they indeed have been presented, evolution occurs at the genetic level as well. Look at bacteria. When presented to an antibiotic, they die because they have no gene that protects them from it. To make matters simple, through regular administration of the same drug, they aquire that gene and hence become immune to the drug. This is a specific way of evolution. "Donjuan" has made a good point in claiming that various mutations have either positive or negative benefits, and all of the mutations are purely random, and thus play a role in survival.

Pianistimo, I don't mean to insult you in any way, but I think that it is better for you to actually pick up a book other than the Bible.

Pianistimo, you are also almost always evading points made by me and others. Perhaps this thread has been going for such a "long" time, is because you persist on your point without actually backing up with evidence, and, you seem to ignore most information that is presented by anyone.

[ada]

The problem with trying to talk sense to creationists is that by definition they are lacking in scientific education, and you can't really talk to them until they get their heads around some very basic concepts.

Pianistimo's amazement over how a baby forms indicates that she hasn't heard of DNA or its role as a blueprint for human life.

So because they don't understand this stuff they resort to the "well I can't understand it so god must have done it" argument.

Which is patently absurd.

I don't understand how computers or cars or aeroplanes work. But I know they are made by people in factories. That doesn't mean god made them.

[debussy symbolism]

I think that the Creationists do in fact understand such simple concepts as that, but their ultimate argument for God relies on a question of "what is it that causes us to behave in such a way, as to be able to design and those airplanes and computers". The creationists naturally assume it to be of God's doing, based on a fact that their education may not be up to the "standart".

In my opinion, which is based on facts and basic findings, it is completely natural and random, with evolution playing a huge role of course.

[asyncopated]

I could see how you could call special relativity elegant. But you should know better than me that this elegance is only artificial because special relativity only limits itself to the large scale. Quantum mechanics and special relativity seem to contradict each other. Yet both are correct. That's the point. The elegance of special relativity is only our simplification of what really happens since we can't address gravity on a quantum level.

Actually special relativity does not address the gravitational issue, general relativity does.  And you can combine special relatitivity with quantum mechanics and instead of schrodinger, you get the klein-gordan equation for boson and the dirac equation for fermions.  Of course, in all this it's easier to go into second quantisation with creation and annihilation operators. (Again sorry about throwing advanced physics terms around,  its is rather unfair, because it's my territory.)  But  in short, special relativity seems to fit well with the other theories.  General relativity sits well with special relativity, in that it is the non-curved space-time limit of general relativity, but you are right in saying that general relativity and quantum mechanics is very difficult to combine.

They don't contradict one another, explicitly, it's perfectly possible that we don't know the answer because we as a species are just too dumb.  Nevertheless each describes some aspect of our universe in a rather special and elegant way, and that's the original point i was trying to make.

I think trying to judge if these theories are beautiful, or and therefore of god, is rather like the fable of the 5 blind men and the elephant.  Each thinks the elephant has one property and proclaims it.  The truth, however is more complicated.  In the case with elephants, we know roughly how they look like. But with this debate, we are the blind men, without much hope of ever seeing the elephant.  So maybe the extrapolation of how to interpret science into a meaningful spiritual context is a social question and not a scientific question. 

To give another example of why this is so.  Trying to interpret if a particular theory is  beautiful to a particular person is like asking the quesiton is bach or chopin is better.  The main problem, is that first you need to tell me what you mean by better.  If you think it's just the number of published pieces, I will get some clerk to count the pieces and bach wins.  If you say better is that people emphatise better with chopin's music, I can whip out my eeg, and brain wave measuring devices and chopin wins.  But really, it's completely subjective, and the question is not really a well posed one. 

So, what I'm saying is that it's difficult to argue for or against god just trying by trying to  interpret the complexity or beauty of science.  It's really closer to an art critique than a scientific study.

Btw, occam's razor doesn't really apply that well to an non-intervenist god because you have, by logic, asserted that he/she is non-interventionist and for the reasons I have previously given.  It's really an interpretation issue, rather than a logical one.

Studying any area of advanced physics is like studying bachs works.  Say you are given only music by sound and not the score, which you can play over and over again.  You need to do quite a lot to boil it down and figure out what at then end a beautify 5 min long fugue comprises of but of two rather simple themes, a main subject and a conter.  It than take even more to understand how bach, at every turn takes the subject and creates mood and tension, and later releases it to spectecular effect. 

[pianistimo]

just as you want to force me into a box (know everything about science to rebutt your arguments) - i feel that science does not explain, as asyncopated says, how the laws got here.  what caused the law of gravity to be here in the first place.  the various scientific laws you mention, etc.  the reason i say laws - is that we cannot step outside of them.  take time/space.  can we ever step outside of it to prove if our theories are correct?  no.  the closest we can come - if i understand asyncopated correctly is to assume time and distance are equal at some point - and therefore also the speed of light - can further us into space exploration and understanding how things can be so far away in our literal physical creation - and how we can get to them.

noone, so far, has come up with a way to teleport.  if someone did - we might attribute godlike features to that person.  if someone made lightening come down from the sky by their command.  if someone raised a person from the dead.  what are the chances of that?  what we are talking about is creation vs. frankenstein.  how far can the frankenstein model go?  we can create whatever 'universe' we want to live in temporarily - but it will still go back from whence it came - to NOTHING.  everyone dies.  and, then - according to the bible - the judgement.  we are not judged according to our scientific experiments.  (although, i in no way am denigrating those who are scientists, or phyicists - and have great respect for their ability to know and remember so much knowledge.  and, yes, it is important as we are each told to develop whatever talents lie inside our creative beings).

as i see it science, beauty, music...whatever - all points a finger at God.  others may not see this.  why argue about it.  it's just how we individually view things.  perhaps God is so complex and yet so simple that it would make us cry to meet Him.  i believe that we have not experienced the kind of love that He wants to share with us at the ressurrection.  there is really no model in evolution that shows a potential for humans beyond their physical life.  we are limited by God right now (as we are 'under the angels') but we know that he promises that we will be 'above the angels' and at the right hand of Christ as he is at the right hand of the Father.  that means that He wants to share a certain amount of knowledge with us.  direct from the Source.

[ahinton]

can you show me documentation for this hormonal process that totally eliminates God's hand in childbirth.  people can SAY - this is hormone related only.  but, God, in the bible - proclaims his sovereignty in every act of childbirth.  'children are a gift of the Lord...'

what i read in one textbook was that scientists agree that hormones cause the initial contractions - but they do not know what causes the muscles to switch direction at the second stage.

Why do you challenge "ada" (for I presume that it is "ada" to whom you are addressing this) to reveal documentary evidence to support the non-existence of something when there has never been documentary evidence of its existence in the first place? I think that this is an example of trying - as they say in UK - to "put the cart before the horse".

If we then take your second paragraph (as quoted above) at its face value, why should anyone expect there to have to be some kind of automatic assumption that, just because certain scientists are not yet sure as to the precise causatory circumstances of that second stage, it must be down to "the hand of God", especially if in blatant disregard of whether either parent actually believes in Him? Were we to seek to extrapolate from that a one-size-fits-all attitude on such matters, we would be obliged to conclude that "the hand of God" was in more things in the past than is the case now; the farther back one goes in history, the more things there were which humans did not yet understand, so, to take the example under consideration here, adherence to such an attitude would have made it logical also to attribute that first stage in the process to "the hand of God" in those days before scientitsts felt able to agree that it was actually due, as you write, to hormonal activity.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,

hello.  you're up early too, i see!  you pose a couple of good questions.  i was not really challenging ada.  i thought she was challenging me.  and, she, as you - want to both know why i would 'assume' that 'God did it.'  as i see it - science - although GREAT - will never know all the mysteries of God.  that doesn't mean that science should stop now.  i hope they do discover what is behind the mysteries of some things.  but, just because we discover what previously was a mystery doesn't mean it wasn't created.  it merely means it wasn't discovered. 

[asyncopated]

Why do you challenge "ada" (for I presume that it is "ada" to whom you are addressing this) to reveal documentary evidence to support the non-existence of something when there has never been documentary evidence of its existence in the first place?

Have you ever watched yes minister?  You sound like humpfrey!  I'm still trying to decipher your sentence, and will tell you when I have.

[asyncopated]

just as you want to force me into a box (know everything about science to rebutt your arguments) - i feel that science does not explain, as asyncopated says, how the laws got here.  what caused the law of gravity to be here in the first place.  the various scientific laws you mention, etc.  the reason i say laws - is that we cannot step outside of them.  take time/space.  can we ever step outside of it to prove if our theories are correct?  no.  the closest we can come - if i understand asyncopated correctly is to assume time and distance are [equal at some point] invarient - and [therefore also] (so is) the speed of light - can further us into space exploration and understanding how things can be so far away in our literal physical creation - and how we can get (rather at time moment is seems NOT get) to them.

The general idea is certainly correct.  Sorry about changing your terminology, this is so that it is scientifically accurate.

noone, so far, has come up with a way to teleport.  if someone did - we might attribute godlike features to that person.  if someone made lightening come down from the sky by their command.  if someone raised a person from the dead.  what are the chances of that?  what we are talking about is creation vs. frankenstein.  how far can the frankenstein model go?  we can create whatever 'universe' we want to live in temporarily - but it will still go back from whence it came - to NOTHING.  everyone dies.  and, then - according to the bible - the judgement.  we are not judged according to our scientific experiments.  (although, i in no way am denigrating those who are scientists, or phyicists - and have great respect for their ability to know and remember so much knowledge.  and, yes, it is important as we are each told to develop whatever talents lie inside our creative beings).

I don't agree so much with this paragraph.  There has been evidence of teleportation, although not in the science fiction, star trekky way.  It's a little more complicated.  The main reason I disagree with this is that as a race, human being must not stay stagnant.  If we did, we would still be in the stone ages. The only reason why you can sit here having a meaningful discussion over the internet, is because of advances not only in science, but in human knowledge in general.  I think that pandora's box must be treated carefully and with respect, but saying that "I don't want to open it because I'm scared of what may come out" isn't really a way forward either. 

You are right as a physicist/scientist we don't really "measure judgement" by scientific experiements.  Most scientist belived that our souls may or not be "judged" by god depending on religions believes, but almost all of us believe that our work is "judged" (perhaps a different meaning of judge) by future generations of mankind, in the legacy we leave, in terms of changing or forwarding the understanding of this precious world we have around us.

As i see it science, beauty, music...whatever - all points a finger at God.  others may not see this.  why argue about it.  it's just how we individually view things.  perhaps God is so complex and yet so simple that it would make us cry to meet Him.  ...

This reflects my arguments accurately,  although for various reasons, I have as yet choosen not to put a "human face" on god, which you carry on to do.  The main reason, is that I am arguing from the point of view of science, which is impartial to the human condition.  But the general ideas are the same.

[ahinton]

Have you ever watched yes minister?  You sound like humpfrey!  I'm still trying to decipher your sentence, and will tell you when I have.

Yes, I have. And the person's name was Humphrey, not Humpfrey. My sentence is easy to understand - "pianistimo" appears to have understood it (although "ada" has not yet responded to say whether or not she has a problem with it). I'll try to put it even more simply. "Pianistimo" wrote

"can you show me documentation for this hormonal process that totally eliminates God's hand in childbirth.  people can SAY - this is hormone related only.  but, God, in the bible - proclaims his sovereignty in every act of childbirth.  'children are a gift of the Lord...'

what i read in one textbook was that scientists agree that hormones cause the initial contractions - but they do not know what causes the muscles to switch direction at the second stage."

I simply asked why she would want "ada" (or anyone else) to give documentary evidence for this hormonal process that shows that it's not down to God at all, when there is no such evidence that says that it IS down to God.

Does this make sense to you now?

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I simply asked why she would want "ada" (or anyone else) to give documentary evidence for this hormonal process that shows that it's not down to God at all, when there is no such evidence that says that it IS down to God.

No one should try to do this because it is logically impossible.

Just try to prove that I don't control all of your brains and thoughts though the supernatural. Can't be done. Does that mean you believe I do?

asyncopated, I did know the difference between SR and GR. I know this stuff of science but I don't know the math so my understanding is shallow. I usually get this correct but last night was too late, I guees. Yes, that's my excuse.

But would you like to address the last point, which is the main point, in my first reaction on your attempt to justify belief in God.


Also, seems that this kind of reasoning can only argue for a Spinozian/Einsteinian god-view. That's not really a god in the conventional sense, is it?

[ada]

Yes, I have. And the person's name was Humphrey, not Humphrey. My sentence is easy to understand - "pianistimo" appears to have understood it (although "adfa" has not yet responded to say whether or not she has a prioblem with it). I'll try to put it evem more simply. "Pianistimo" wrote

dear "ahinton"

No I do not have a problem with your comment, nor indeed with your spirited leap to my defence, or what, on the other hand, one may term as the negation of "pianistimo's" insistance upon that which cannot be contemplated to be within the realms of possibility, were it not akin to something of a joke 

love

"adfa"