Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philippians 2:2

Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

1 Peter 3:8

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

1 Corinthians 1:10

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

**Belief in the supernatural could only die out if the forces of disunity prevail.

That’s why mainline Protestantism is nearly dead and Catholicism is struggling to survive**.

washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/04/28/if-it-doesnt-stem-its-decline-mainline-protestantism-has-just-23-easters-left/?utm_term=.460109291412
 
rossum said:
At some point in the past all chimp ancestors were in one species and lived on one bank of the river. Then, for some reason a breeding population crossed the river and landed safely on the other bank. It could have been as small as two individuals, or even a pregnant mother. Perhaps they were swept away in a flood, managed to climb onto a floating log and reached the opposite bank?

There were then two different breeding populations on either bank of the river. Each population accumulated their own mutations, but both started with the same chimp-ancestor DNA (to within founder effect). Neither side had to develop wholly new systems; both had the same original systems to start with.
Click to expand...
According to our friend Brakski, it would need a population of at least 140, and not one pregnant chimp crossing the river to start a new sustainable species. Could you say what is on the other side of the river, that would cause a new species to separate from its common ancestor?.

Given your theory, if a boat load of Europeans sailed over to America a few centuries ago, they would start a new species. It’s fair to say they have evolved a new accent and some strange new words.
Humans are the same. There is no part of the human body that is not also present in both species of chimpanzee. The proportions are different: we have shorter arms, longer lags and bigger brains, but all the pieces we have are present in chimps. That is part of the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
We see similar effects from geographical isolation in many species. Islands are particularly prone to this. For instance, Dodos were a species of pigeon. A breeding population arrived and evolved in isolation from other pigeons. They became flightless, because there was little need to escape predators, and became larger. Of course once man and the predators he introduced arrived…
Click to expand...
We can see these things just by looking at them, but where is the science to say how it happened? Lots of words, but there seems to be about as much science in those words as there is in Genesis. just my two cents.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I would prefer you start agreeing with traditional theology, both Catholic and Protestant, which says that God designed the universe and everything in it. He didn’t just throw the dice with the big Bang and hope for the best like any other gambler.
Click to expand...
So in answer to my question: would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church? you say you prefer I start agreeing with “traditional theology”. I take it you’re telling me to stop listening to the Church and instead listen to “traditional theology”.

Thanks for your kind invitation but I’ll stick with the Church on this one.

Apropos of nothing, when you are part of something, you go with it come what may -
Seper Fidelis (Always Loyal :rolleyes::D)
 
Tarquin said:
Geiger counters do not “perceive” (“become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand”) in the sense that humans perceive light, color, odors, heat, etc. They merely “detect.”
Click to expand...
Look back at the question I was asked. Your point is irrelevant to that question, and hence also irrelevant to my answer. The original question included the words “produced by science” so in order to answer the question as asked, I was restricted to the products of science. As you point out, perception is outwith science, and so the question, by its wording, excluded perception. Your criticism here misses the point. If anything, it is a criticism of the question, not of my answer.
People who have absolute devotion to atheistic and materialist doctrines…
Click to expand...
How is this relevant to me? Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours. You are only one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Look back at the question I was asked. Your point is irrelevant to that question, and hence also irrelevant to my answer. The original question included the words “produced by science” so in order to answer the question as asked, I was restricted to the products of science. As you point out, perception is outwith science, and so the question, by its wording, excluded perception. Your criticism here misses the point. If anything, it is a criticism of the question, not of my answer.

How is this relevant to me? Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours. You are only one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think quality is better than quantity? Occam’s Razor is ignored at our peril. Occam’s Razor is ignored at our peril. One God of love is worth more than all the gods in the Buddhist scriptures.

The acid test is which god you thank for the precious gifts of life and love…
 
Eric_Hyom said:
According to our friend Brakski, it would need a population of at least 140, and not one pregnant chimp crossing the river to start a new sustainable species.
Click to expand...
I have not seen the relevant comparison of chimp and bonobo genomes to be able to determine numbers. That work is well above my pay grade.
Could you say what is on the other side of the river, that would cause a new species to separate from its common ancestor?
Click to expand...
It is the river that separates the two populations. The Congo is a very large river and difficult to cross. Random mutations will happen randomly on one or other bank of the river. There will be some impact from founder effect in the initial separation of the smaller population; it will only carry a subset of the full genetic range of the larger population.
Given your theory, if a boat load of Europeans sailed over to America a few centuries ago, they would start a new species. It’s fair to say they have evolved a new accent and some strange new words.
Click to expand...
They were not an isolated population, there were already human populations in the Americas and trans-Atlantic travel did not stop. Besides, we know that Americans are not descended from Europeans: If Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans? 🙂

Your point about the language is a good one; the evolution of languages has some similarities to biological evolution. The same has happened with the versions of Spanish and Portuguese spoken in Europe and the Americas.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Of course it does. You asked:“Please give an example of a superior form of perception produced by science.” (emphasis added)Since science presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception then that presupposition was built into your question. You are the one who made the presupposition, not me.

If you want a non-human example of a superior sense, then a Bloodhound’s sense of smell is superior to a human’s sense of smell. There are many other examples.
Click to expand...
The issue is whether there is a superior form of perception **produced by science **because you imply that human insight, knowledge and perception are products of biological evolution which should therefore be scientifically explicable!
 
Buddhism will ultimately fail just as Protestantism is failing because there are too many contrary sects from which to choose.
 
tonyrey said:
The issue is whether there is a superior form of perception **produced by science **because you imply that human insight, knowledge and perception are products of biological evolution which should therefore be scientifically explicable!
Click to expand...
Evolutionary Biology claims that. And this Journal: “Evolution and Human Behavior is an interdisciplinary journal, presenting research reports and theory in which evolutionary perspectives are brought to bear on the study of human behavior.”

Ed
 
tonyrey said:
The issue is whether there is a superior form of perception **produced by science **
Click to expand...
There are many. I gave the example of a Geiger counter, which can perceive ionising radiation, which humans cannot and which is produced by science. That answers your question, as asked.
because you imply that human insight, knowledge and perception are products of biological evolution which should therefore be scientifically explicable!
Click to expand...
Please explain which parts of chimpanzee perception are not due to evolution. Then explain how a chimpanzee’s senses differ from a human’s senses.

rossum
 
rossum said:
There are many. I gave the example of a Geiger counter, which can perceive ionising radiation, which humans cannot and which is produced by science. That answers your question, as asked.

Please explain which parts of chimpanzee perception are not due to evolution. Then explain how a chimpanzee’s senses differ from a human’s senses.

rossum
Click to expand...
Animals do not have human cognition. If an animal kills a person, it is treated as an animal. If a human being kills a human being, there’s an infinite difference.

Ed
 
rossum said:
**
The issue is whether there is a superior form of perception **produced by science **
Click to expand...
There are many. I gave the example of a Geiger counter, which can perceive ionising radiation, which humans cannot and which is produced by science. That answers your question, as asked.
I have pointed out that a Geiger counter presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception. Moreover human perception is superior because it is often intentional whereas a Geiger counter is mechanistic. Or do you regard persons as no more than biological machines?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
The issue is whether there is a superior form of perception **produced by science **
The eye produces a digital output down the optic nerve. The exact digital coding is still being worked out but various details are known. For instance, some codes re!ate to line recognition, which in computers is done by a simple algorithm (kernel matrix).

Scientists are using this to help the blind see, and since sound uses similar encoding, to help the deaf.

Tell me, what has creationism ever done to help the blind or the deaf? I think nothing, your designer can’t fix the many faults in its poor design. Science can. If your supernatural can’t help the blind see where science can, your supernatural is irrelevant to the human condition.
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
There are many. I gave the example of a Geiger counter, which can perceive ionising radiation, which humans cannot and which is produced by science. That answers your question, as asked.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean “detect”. Perception is a quality reserved for conscious beings.
 
edwest2 said:
I’ve read the same things here over and over… and over and over… every time this subject is brought up.

Why is it brought up so often? The evidence is clear: to get full compliance in the evolution religious belief system. Until that is achieved, this will continue - forever. Why? Because denial of God and creating disunity are important things to do for some.

Ed
Click to expand...
That’s the way I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top