Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[StAnastasia]

What are your thoughts as to this mysterious matter being plasma?

I don’t know. I’ll ask Joel Primack (Santa Cruz), one of the proposers of the cold dark matter theory. I don’t know much about plasma at all; what should I ask him about it?

 

[wanstronian]

Then you do not understand love. Love is the sacrifice you choose to make for someone else.

The Four Loves is a good book to help understand the distinctions.

Well, thanks for setting me straight on what love is. You clearly know best, after all you’ve read a book…

 

[wanstronian]

Is it 98% or so of the universes’ mass and energy that is missing, unknown, unknowable. Dark energy, dark matter, call it what you want. Its Dark because science can shed no light on its nature or whereabouts.
Thats a big gap filled I’m sure by lots of superstitiousesque theories about multiple universes for which there is 0 evidence. I would’nt fall too quickly into the trap of thinking science has the answers and that the answers are atheist; you may find someday the answers turn out to be theist.

I do not pretend that science has all the answers - this is a common theist ‘accusation’ of the atheist. It’s generally theists that seem afraid of admitting they don’t know the answers - hence the propensity to supply an unproven, unprovable deity as an answer.

You are making big assumptions about what I believe, and effectively attacking a straw man.

I may one day find that theism is correct - but it will be because of a staggering coincidence, rather than any rational reason that I just happen to have missed.

 

[wanstronian]

There is quite the difference between God and Thor and Zeus.

But there is, of course, one overwhelming attribute that puts them all in the same pot from an objective point of view. There is no evidence for their existence. Once this fact is accepted, any further speculation about their relative properties is academic and worthless.

 

[wanstronian]

We are aware of our emotions. And we can choose to control them. Talk to any police officer who works on the street or any veteran who’s been in combat.

Peace,
Ed

Controlling their effect is not the same as actually experiencing them.

 

[wanstronian]

“Falling in Love” as a “matter of hormones and other factors” is not love, it is lust. Lust has a part in God’s plan to initially attract us to each other, and lust is not a choice. However, we can choose to love even if there is no lust, or attraction.

I agree. But love is not an emotion. Lust is an emotion, which we can’t totally control, which is why the idea of avoiding temptation is so important.

I agree that the choice to love is not the same as love. But you can choose to love someone, independent of lust. I don’t think anyone said anywhere that one should choose to love someone and call it job done. To put it a bit differently, we must continue to choose to love someone, in good times and bad, in good health or bad, till death do us part. That “continuing to choose to love” is not based on lust which diminishes after our spouse becomes bald or fat or depressed, etc. Choosing to love (or maybe it is better put “choosing to always love”) does not diminish because our hormones diminish, or “honey” isn’t quite so good looking as before. Choosing to always love is based on the will, which we have total control over.

Love grows through shared experiences, shared adversity (in many cases), and a decision by both parties to “continue to choose to love, no matter what.”

This is more for Dr. StA since Wanstronian is not theistic - God calls us to be perfect as the Father is perfect, to love as God loves. God does not “fall in love because he couldn’t help himself.” Neither does God fall out of love. God loves us by the choice of his will. God continues to love us by the choice of his will. We love God not because we are emotionally tied up in it, because we couldn’t help ourselves. We should, and can love God and his children (even our enemies) the same way he loves us - through the force of our wills, by choice.

Note: I’m still working on doing this, and I’m not very good at it.

Maybe we’re all just arguing different definitions of love!

 

[rossum]

Let’s refer to this as “chance of the gaps”.

Cosmology is not evolution. Chance is not involved in the investigation into Dark Matter. It was found by standard scientific observations, and we will learn more about it by standard scientific observations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Rossum, with all due respect, you write here as though there is only one – or one official – theology of the eschatological state. There are in fact plural theories about a possible afterlife.

I bow to your superior knowledge of Christianity. My point was that to a Buddhist any form of eternal life is suffering. The longer the life the more tears cried. With an eternal life the ocean of tears is infinite.

It is a good example of where the assumptions behind the posts many Christian write here do not apply to Buddhists.

rossum

 

[rossum]

hahaha … rossum. Talk about twisting ones post. Somebody *else *was saying Christianity had a God-of-the-gaps; I am saying it does not.

Thank you for the correction, looking back I can see that I was too hasty reading your post. My apologies.

God created eveything, everything lives in God. But I feel that ‘science’ does have a god of the gaps, if somebody has to have one. Particularly when scientists go off on those spectacular flights of fancy about multiple universes…

Multiple Universes are at the moment hypotheses, not theories. They can only become theories when we have developed a way to test them. One problem with the study of conditions before the Big Bang is that we have a lot of hypotheses and not a lot of data to go on. We need more data to demolish the incorrect hypotheses. Last one left standing wins.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

But there is, of course, one overwhelming attribute that puts them all in the same pot from an objective point of view. There is no evidence for their existence. Once this fact is accepted, any further speculation about their relative properties is academic and worthless.

We have plenty of evidence of God.

 

[wanstronian]

We have plenty of evidence of God.

You do? What?

 

[StAnastasia]

I bow to your superior knowledge of Christianity. My point was that to a Buddhist any form of eternal life is suffering. The longer the life the more tears cried. With an eternal life the ocean of tears is infinite. rossum

Rossum, you are right to recognize that there are many different sets of presuppositions the people who post here – at least those who self-identify as “Christian” – bring to the discussion.

Some eschatological visions do seem to fall into the trap of projecting onto an eternity a sanitized version of human temporal life on earth. It’s hard to conceive how this would not lead to the “ocean of tears” you describe; an eternity of human feasting at the “heavenly banquet” means an eternity of animal suffering, at least if beef and turkey are on the menu!

But those literalized visions are not the only possibilities. The “beatific vision” – an eschatology that emphasizes the immediate vision of the divine to the exclusion of all else – seems to deemphasize or eliminate altogether the idea of an afterlife that is like this one here, with eating, drinking, socializing, etc. The challenge of a “beatific vision” model is what its relation to the present universe would be: why have this universe at all if it is utterly irrelevant to the “next life” but continues to unroll for a hundred billion years after our deaths? And why create perhaps half of all humans to enter into this eternity without ever having lived conscious biological lives?

It would be tidier if we could go back to a literalized reading of myths and stories about the afterlife, but when we become educated in science we cannot do this. As Christians in 2009 our best hope is to read our tradition in light of what we know about the evolving universe we currently inhabit, and see how that maps onto “eternity.”

StAnastasia

 

[Thing]

Thank you for the correction, looking back I can see that I was too hasty reading your post. My apologies.

Multiple Universes are at the moment hypotheses, not theories. They can only become theories when we have developed a way to test them. One problem with the study of conditions before the Big Bang is that we have a lot of hypotheses and not a lot of data to go on. We need more data to demolish the incorrect hypotheses. Last one left standing wins.

rossum

Don’t worry about it. Did I say they were theories, I don’t recall now. Being dragged away from the point I originally responded to. An accusation that God was superstition. No doubt because he was scientifically unproven. Someone elses idea, that was, not yours.
Science by using this persons own measuring stick has lots of superstitious beliefs concerning the missing 96% of the universe.
As in Christianity we were told not all the answers either, but were assured that one day all our questions would be answered. So some time we will have all the data, all the knowledge and we will see reality in toto.
Oh… I see my idea is the very same as sciences’ idea… cool

 

[Thing]

I do not pretend that science has all the answers - this is a common theist ‘accusation’ of the atheist. It’s generally theists that seem afraid of admitting they don’t know the answers - hence the propensity to supply an unproven, unprovable deity as an answer.

You are making big assumptions about what I believe, and effectively attacking a straw man.

I may one day find that theism is correct - but it will be because of a staggering coincidence, rather than any rational reason that I just happen to have missed.

I did not say science had all the answers, I said, answers.

Theists, I assume you mean here, Christians, don’t generally claim to have all the answers, especially not in the ‘science’ field. The unprovable/unproven Deity as an answer must be equally as valid an answer to a truly objective atheist as any other hypotheses. One is an atheist by belief. One may also not believe in multiple universes and then later find oneself proven woefully wrong. There *are *multiple universes, dog-gone-it.
I do not see any reason why one should exclude as an hypotheses either a Force which created all things in the universe as we see them or a Force which created all things in the universe as we see them. They are both the same, equally valid ideas - which may equally turn out to be true.

 

[ricmat]

Rossum, you are right to recognize that there are many different sets of presuppositions the people who post here – at least those who self-identify as “Christian” – bring to the discussion.

Some eschatological visions do seem to fall into the trap of projecting onto an eternity a sanitized version of human temporal life on earth. It’s hard to conceive how this would not lead to the “ocean of tears” you describe; an eternity of human feasting at the “heavenly banquet” means an eternity of animal suffering, at least if beef and turkey are on the menu!

I’ve never heard the above vision of Heaven put forth by Catholics, or even other Christians. Muslims perhaps.

But those literalized visions are not the only possibilities. The “beatific vision” – an eschatology that emphasizes the immediate vision of the divine to the exclusion of all else – seems to deemphasize or eliminate altogether the idea of an afterlife that is like this one here, with eating, drinking, socializing, etc.

I thought the beatific vision was a Christian belief. And it does absolutely exclude th idea of an afterlife that is like this one here. Are you still talking about Muslim heaven?

The challenge of a “beatific vision” model is what its relation to the present universe would be: why have this universe at all if it is utterly irrelevant to the “next life” but continues to unroll for a hundred billion years after our deaths?

Perhaps the end is closer than you think. When Christ returns, the scientific “model” breaks down.

And why create perhaps half of all humans to enter into this eternity without ever having lived conscious biological lives?

God is superabundantly generous. And biological lives are nothing compared to what is in store for us in the afterlife. I think I read that someplace as well

It would be tidier if we could go back to a literalized reading of myths and stories about the afterlife, but when we become educated in science we cannot do this. As Christians in 2009 our best hope is to read our tradition in light of what we know about the evolving universe we currently inhabit, and see how that maps onto “eternity.”

StAnastasia

Being educated in science has nothing to do with discerning what the the eternal afterlife is like. Science has nothing to do with how the current “evolving” universe maps onto eternity. The universe cannot evolve itself onto or into eternity. All of creation will end someday. I think I read that someplace as well (probably a Catholic book of some sort)

 

[StAnastasia]

I thought the beatific vision was a Christian belief. And it does absolutely exclude th idea of an afterlife that is like this one here. Are you still talking about Muslim heaven?

God is superabundantly generous. And biological lives are nothing compared to what is in store for us in the afterlife. I think I read that someplace as well

Being educated in science has nothing to do with discerning what the the eternal afterlife is like. Science has nothing to do with how the current “evolving” universe maps onto eternity. The universe cannot evolve itself onto or into eternity. All of creation will end someday. I think I read that someplace as well (probably a Catholic book of some sort)

ricmat, I agree with most of what you have said. However:

(1) I hear quite frequently – from Catholics as well as Protestants – articulations of the “afterlife” that sound a lot like the projection onto eternity of what people most like to do temporally. And they are not using this like a model – they mean it literally. Theological education is in order.

(2) Of course God is generous. But the Church has traditionally drawn a connection between the way we live our temporal lives and the eschatological consequences for this. And in the case of perhaps half of humanity – I’ve read estimates that upwards of 50% of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion – this connection will be irrelevant.

(3) It appears the universe will run down in an entropic heat death some tens of billions of years from now. That would be a circumstance not irrelevant to a theological discussion that has often involved speculation on the end of time.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

ricmat, I agree with most of what you have said. However:

(1) I hear quite frequently – from Catholics as well as Protestants – articulations of the “afterlife” that sound a lot like the projection onto eternity of what people most like to do temporally. And they are not using this like a model – they mean it literally. Theological education is in order.

Agreed.

(2) Of course God is generous. But the Church has traditionally drawn a connection between the way we live our temporal lives and the eschatological consequences for this. And in the case of perhaps half of humanity – I’ve read estimates that upwards of 50% of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion – this connection will be irrelevant.

I’ve read that souls whose bodied die prematurely (perhaps that isn’t the right word) - abortion, infants, etc. will be brought to their full potential for life in the afterlife. The parable of the vineyard owner who gives full day’s wage to the guy who got hired 5 minutes before closing time, for example.

(3) It appears the universe will run down in an entropic heat death some tens of billions of years from now.

Yes, assuming it lasts that long.

That would be a circumstance not irrelevant to a theological discussion that has often involved speculation on the end of time.

StAnastasia

Yes, it would be irrelevant to end time theological discussions. Time will end when Christ returns. Christ is not limited by “When the universe dies the heat death in billions of years.” Nobody but the Father knows when the end is. You really think the scientists have it pegged with the 10’s of billions of years number? StA - have they measured the heavens with a span (or the current version thereof?)

 

[StAnastasia]

I’ve read that souls whose bodied die prematurely (perhaps that isn’t the right word) - abortion, infants, etc. will be brought to their full potential for life in the afterlife. The parable of the vineyard owner who gives full day’s wage to the guy who got hired 5 minutes before closing time, for example.

Yes, assuming it lasts that long. Yes, it would be irrelevant to end time theological discussions. Time will end when Christ returns. Christ is not limited by “When the universe dies the heat death in billions of years.” Nobody but the Father knows when the end is. You really think the scientists have it pegged with the 10’s of billions of years number? StA - have they measured the heavens with a span (or the current version thereof?)

Ricmat. (1) Certainly all is possible with God. Still, it makes one wonder about the design for life when reproduction leads to such a high rate of spontaneous abortion. Did it need to be arranged that way? Could God have done it differently, so that each conception was perfect and led to a normal live birth? If so, why didn’t God do it that way? If not, why not? (You don’t need to answer any of those; they are my ongoing musings.)

(2) You’d have to ask a cosmologist. Joel Primack says that not only is the dark matter insufficient to cause a re-coalescence to a a “Big Crunch,” but that dark energy seems to be accelerating the rate of universal expansion. He said at a recent conference that the future inhabitants of the earth will observe less and and less of the universe, as galaxies begin to drift beyond the range of visibility.

(3) Cosmology and eschatology are related in a strange way. Every theology presupposes a cosmology, but also presupposes tha God is Lord of that cosmos. Whether God would stop cosmic expansion to meet a terrestrial timetable I don’t know.

(4) The immediate “event horizon” for each one of us seems to be our own personal death. Perhaps eschatology kicks in at that point, so that those who have died have already entered eternity, regardless of what is going on in the indefinitely expanding universe.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat. (1) Certainly all is possible with God. Still, it makes one wonder about the design for life when reproduction leads to such a high rate of spontaneous abortion. Did it need to be arranged that way? Could God have done it differently, so that each conception was perfect and led to a normal live birth? If so, why didn’t God do it that way? If not, why not? (You don’t need to answer any of those; they are my ongoing musings.)

The answer is in the book of Job starting with chapter 38, and other places as well.

(2) You’d have to ask a cosmologist. Joel Primack says that not only is the dark matter insufficient to cause a re-coalescence to a a “Big Crunch,” but that dark energy seems to be accelerating the rate of universal expansion. He said at a recent conference that the future inhabitants of the earth will observe less and and less of the universe, as galaxies begin to drift beyond the range of visibility.

(3) Cosmology and eschatology are related in a strange way. Every theology presupposes a cosmology, but also presupposes tha God is Lord of that cosmos. Whether God would stop cosmic expansion to meet a terrestrial timetable I don’t know.

“Terrestrial timetable?” I think the better question to think about is God’s timetable. Which has nothing to do with our theories of cosmic expansion. If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?

(4) The immediate “event horizon” for each one of us seems to be our own personal death. Perhaps eschatology kicks in at that point, so that those who have died have already entered eternity, regardless of what is going on in the indefinitely expanding universe.

The universe isn’t necessarily indefinitely expanding. You state this as though you know it to be Truth.

And in terms of your statement about our own personal event horizon - I didn’t think that was a “seems to be” thing from the theological perspective. I thought that it was “settled theology for Catholics.”

In general, you seem to measure Catholic teaching , which comes from God, on how well it matches up with the Truth of Science, which comes from man. Especially when it comes to this end times stuff, that seems to me that you have things back-assward.

It is quite ironic that you frequently appeal to “settled science”, but seem to think that almost anything the Catholic church teaches is fair game.

 

[lemondiesel]

Do you deny that the origin of all species, including human ones, could have arisen by common descent with either directed, as opposed to “chance” mutation? “Directed” mutation could mean either:

a) a direct manipulation of the genome by God or some other entity with the power to do so (“guided” evolution); or
b) the initial conditions (immediately after the Big Bang for instance) being such that what would otherwise be considered “highly unlikely” being, in fact, highly probable given the initial conditions, whether these initial conditions were willed by God or not. (This position is sometimes called “Front-loaded” evolution.)

Personally, I don’t hold to evolution by “random chance” mutation since I hold the expression as meaningless; “random chance” simply means an expression of our ignorance. If I bet $100 at a blackjack table and draw a blackjack, sure I might say I was “lucky” and that “chance” favored me, but all this really means is that I was ignorant of the arrangement of the cards in the deck being dealt to me.

Now there’s nothing logically impossible about a) or b). If you have an argument, I’d love to hear it. But, if either a) or b) are possible, then all the supposed “difficulties” with evolution completely vanish, such as the Cambrian explosion, or the appearance of fully-formed limbs in the fossil record, etc. You’re only arguing about the philosophical implications of the theory, not the theory itself. Now you may wish to argue that evolution doesn’t imply atheism; and, indeed, it doesn’t. But you don’t need all the fancy, but ultimately silly, “arguments” against evolution to show that.

i believe it was chance. a possibility could be micro organisms living on Earths intense heat but over time as Earth developed, these micro organisms evolved to the bigger better enviroment (darwinism)

but i have a question if anyone would like to respond, the bible talks about the creation of earth in the first chapter, so that was what around 4.8~ billion years ago. now if our universe has been guessed to be at 14-15~ billion years old, what was before? Was there others? With around 10 x10^22 to 10 x10^24 stars in the Universe, there has to be a chance that something else was before our time right? maybe even during