What would you do if it were proven...?

[greylorn]

I’m confused. Are you asserting a claim or not? If so, please give your best evidence.

What can I say different?

I make it a point to read any post to which I’m replying at least three times. Some are full of implications, but mine can be taken at face value.

Give you evidence for what, exactly? And why? Evidence is useful in the context of a discussion about its merits or its applicability to a particular theoretical issue. Your request is way too general.

 

[greylorn]

You have gotten this back to front. I used the term ‘Darwinism’. In post #243H.Q. specifically wrote “By Darwinism you don’t mean evolution right? Obviously it’s not a hypothesis, so I’m guessing you’re not referring to evolution.”, thereby disassociating Darwinism from evolutionary theory, which you now say is an established fact. If that’s the case, then you’d better write to UCLA and tell them, because their web site says “In broad terms, contemporary evolutionary theory builds on the synthesis of Darwin’s ideas of natural variation and selection and Mendel’s model of genetic inheritance…” UCLA’s web page which I linked to in post #247 is headed “Evolutionary Theory”. You are another one who needs to do more homework on this issue. Particularly so before you go around suggesting that one person apologise to another!

Like I said, you’d better write to UCLA and convert them to your way of thinking.

The study of evolutionary theory is a fact. As per the UCLA web site, it is a theory. There is still heaps and heaps that science can’t explain about inheritance. Like I asked of H.Q., how does the info get into the DNA? Explain the fabrinicci numbers found in the natural world. You say there are better theories, well, start enlightening the world. In the meantime, the Catholic Church has theories that no-one can debunk.

I lionked to an article about the Vatican and science, which explained the position of the Church to science, great scientists and to the use of reason. I guess you couldn’t be bothered reading it, eh? As for abiogenesis, you gotta be kidding me?! The theory that can life can spring from nothing, and so today we have the human eye, fabronacci numbers and a whole range of other inexplicable things and you spout this media nonsense!! Abiogenesis can’t even find a plausible starting point for what normal people call ‘the miracle of life’. By the way, did you know that some smart dude even proposed that abiogenesis was responsible for oil. It has been discredited. It involves the classic chicken and egg problem.

You mistake my positions for those of an atheist. IMO the only legitimate explanation for the intricacy of biological life forms, the marvelous application of Fibonacci numbers to large-scale structural elements, and abiogenesis, is Very Intelligent Engineering.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, which will make further communications between us a total waste of my time.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your deep understanding of mathematical applications to biological forms. It’s hard to find someone who does that kind of in-depth study.

Incidentally, among your half vast internet research work, you might want to Google the term, fabrinicci numbers. The only reference you’ll find to this non-existent term is your own misuse of it, and perhaps by now, my reply.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Great explanation! Personally, I like to link people to this website: notjustatheory.com/

And just because it’s labeled “theory” doesn’t mean it meets the criteria of the scientific definition of “theory”. It has been riddled with holes and exposed as a flawed scientific observation.

Holes such as lack of genetic diversity among modern humans, discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage, too many deleterious mutations, no transitional brain sizes between Homo and Australopithecines, Neanderthals proven not our ancestors, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” shown to be fraud, multiregional evolutionary theory shown false, human Y Chromosome extreme difference from nearest living “relative”, how sexual reproduction rose evolutionarily has not been addressed to any significant degree with a plausible science theory, list goes on we get the picture?

 

[honestquestions]

However let me be clear that no “new evidence” is required.

For what? This is what I’m talking about, and you reply as saying take it as face value…
Well maybe you should put a complete thought together to convey meaning.

 

[John21652]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn’t believe in evolution because it was “just a theory”, they’d probably be a bit puzzled.

In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Amazing! You want with all your heart and soul to accept something that’s not quite proven, yet you wont accept the existence of God despite all the available evidence.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That’s not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There’s a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it’ll fall. It doesn’t say why. Then there’s the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can’t be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it’s called a theory of gravity, doesn’t mean that it’s just a guess. It’s been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we’ve tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it’s real doesn’t mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There’s the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don’t take my word for it. Research it. But that’s not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. It is both a theory and a fact.

You could have saved yourself and us a whole lot of trouble if you’d simply referred to good ol’ aWikipedi, which tells us about Theories -

Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or “falsify”) it

Evolutionary theory is still being challenged and still has so many gaps in it it still leaks like a seive.

Right, I never brought it up. You just randomly said it in your first post replying to me.

Doesn’t matter, you agreed. Don’t be scared to own that fact. You said so in post #250.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”

Do you really think this passage refers to a “child” when it is describing someone who is stubborn, rebellious, profligate and a drunkard? If it did, I think they’d be wanting to stone the useless parents.

I know, tell me about it

You scoff at the notion of there being a creatoe, God, yet you promote a theory that says life sprang forth spontaneously from nothing!

You just disagreed with the theory of evolution. You do realize even the Catholic Church had to concede to still be taken seriously, so they did, and then said but God created it to work that way. So man never magically appeared out of the blue exactly as we are today…

In post #250 you wrote “People initially thought that God went poof and there were humans, which attempted to explain the complexity of our bodies…” and I answered in post #273 by saying *“People still think God went ‘poof’ and there were humans. Science can’t prove otherwise.” *. Here you have added in the phrase “…as we are today…” in an attempt at showing that I have disagreed with the theory of evolution. That is you being disengenuous to put it mildly. Like I said, science can’t disprove the existence of God. Also in post #273 I said "I wager it never will. Your defense is to pin your hopes on a ‘theory’ of abiogenesis!

It did so in 1859.

And still hasn’t succeeded. Go look up The Theory of Self Organisation.

I think you should head over to Granny’s thread and get yourself up to speed about where the thinking Catholics are at.

 

[John21652]

You mistake my positions for those of an atheist. IMO the only legitimate explanation for the intricacy of biological life forms, the marvelous application of Fibonacci numbers to large-scale structural elements, and abiogenesis, is Very Intelligent Engineering.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, which will make further communications between us a total waste of my time.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your deep understanding of mathematical applications to biological forms. It’s hard to find someone who does that kind of in-depth study.

Incidentally, among your half vast internet research work, you might want to Google the term, fabrinicci numbers. The only reference you’ll find to this non-existent term is your own misuse of it, and perhaps by now, my reply.

Actually, I did take your position as being that of an Atheist. If you aren’t then I am truly sorry. No one has ever suggested that I have a reading comprehension problem before, but just to make sure something horrid hasn’t developed, I’ll go back and re-read! Of course, your writing style is perfect, I take it?!

And as for Fabrinicci numbers, I take it you are having a shot at my typing skills? They seem to be out by a factor of about 1.6 or so. No?

 

[Shredderbeam]

And just because it’s labeled “theory” doesn’t mean it meets the criteria of the scientific definition of “theory”. It has been riddled with holes and exposed as a flawed scientific observation.

Holes such as lack of genetic diversity among modern humans, discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage, too many deleterious mutations, no transitional brain sizes between Homo and Australopithecines, Neanderthals proven not our ancestors, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” shown to be fraud, multiregional evolutionary theory shown false, human Y Chromosome extreme difference from nearest living “relative”, how sexual reproduction rose evolutionarily has not been addressed to any significant degree with a plausible science theory, list goes on we get the picture?

The discussion of evolution is unfortunately banned here, but you should take it up with the scientists. I’m sure they’re better able to argue the evidence than I.

 

[honestquestions]

yet you promote a theory that says life sprang forth spontaneously from nothing!

What theory are you referring to?

 

[John_of_Woking]

Well in response to the OP, I would check myself into a lunatic asylum. No God? No meaning to life. As Newman said. There are but two paths in life: catholicism or nihilism . Thankfully I am not living in a deterministic nightmare. I seriously do not know how atheists even get out of bed in the morning.

 

[greylorn]

Actually, I did take your position as being that of an Atheist. If you aren’t then I am truly sorry. No one has ever suggested that I have a reading comprehension problem before, but just to make sure something horrid hasn’t developed, I’ll go back and re-read! Of course, your writing style is perfect, I take it?!

John,
I appreciate your honesty. As for your reading problem, there is a first time for everything. Consider yourself fortunate to have run into someone who cares enough to inform, and help.

Some years back I danced a few rounds with a ladyfriend who did not tell me that I had a booger in my mustache. That’s the last she ever saw of me and my riches. A friend will always risk the friendship to call you out; the others are not to be trusted.

You can begin practicing your reading skills at the elementary level, by simply reading the upper right corner of every post, with attention to the “Religion” heading. But in my case, thoughtful reading independently of your beliefs would have done the job.

And as for Fabrinicci numbers, I take it you are having a shot at my typing skills? They seem to be out by a factor of about 1.6 or so. No?

No need to roll your beady little eyes at me. One mistake is a typo. The CAF spelling-checker underlined it for you, with a nice squiggly red line. Use of “Fabrinicci” twice in the same post tells me that:

1. 
   *]you don’t know a Fibonacci number from a fencepost,
   
   *]you assume incorrectly that you know more than a spelling verification program,
   
   *]you are one of way too many posters who pretend to knowledge never obtained.
   
   There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant. After all, the greatest genius on the planet is ignorant of more things than he knows. But pretentiousness is unbecoming and easily avoided.

 

[greylorn]

Thas really about it. Catholic forum and all.I understand, I don’t argue dogma and never really do. I am a big fan of critical thinking. I don’t know what you feel is your strongest argument, so give me the topic to start a thread with, or start a thread and PM me when you are ready.

I typically have started threads to get ideas for material that I’m working on. Now I’m at my penultimate chapter, which is about the relationships between the Creator and current physics theory. This is not the forum for that kind of topic.

And like I said, I don’t have much luck with the treads I initiate. So, unless you decide to go first, I’ll wait until my theories are published. They will provide plenty of talking points.

 

[greylorn]

For what? This is what I’m talking about, and you reply as saying take it as face value…
Well maybe you should put a complete thought together to convey meaning.

Do you mean, ‘put a complete thought together using generic opinions and an eighth-grade vocabulary that you can understand without a dictionary because it simply repeats something you already believe?’

 

[Edward_H]

greylorn,

I like what Chesterton said of evolutionary theory: “Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well…the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race horse a Post-Impressionist.”

"The very fact that a bird can get as far as building a nest, and cannot get any farther, proves that be has not a mind as man has a mind; it proves it more completely than if he built nothing at all…Suppose in an incredibly short space of time there were seven styles of architecture for one style of nest. Suppose the bird carefully selected forked twigs and pointed leaves to express the piercing piety of Gothic, but turned to broad foliage and black mud when he sought in a darker mood to call up the heavy columns of Bel and Ashtaroth; making his nest indeed one of the hanging gardens of Babylon. "

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I typically have started threads to get ideas for material that I’m working on. Now I’m at my penultimate chapter, which is about the relationships between the Creator and current physics theory. This is not the forum for that kind of topic.

And like I said, I don’t have much luck with the treads I initiate. So, unless you decide to go first, I’ll wait until my theories are published. They will provide plenty of talking points.

If one refuses to sit down and make a move, one cannot be checkmated . -Copleston

 

[John21652]

John,
I appreciate your honesty. As for your reading problem, there is a first time for everything. Consider yourself fortunate to have run into someone who cares enough to inform, and help.

First time for everything? You refer, of course, to my ‘reading problem’. I thought ‘reading problems’ were more or less a permanent problem, at least without expert coaching. Of course, it can manifest when below average writing has to be dealt with. Of course, that wouldn’t apply to you. I am indeed fortunate to have run into you.

Some years back I danced a few rounds with a ladyfriend who did not tell me that I had a booger in my mustache. That’s the last she ever saw of me and my riches. A friend will always risk the friendship to call you out; the others are not to be trusted.

True enough. I only hope your self awareness has improved somewhat since that dance and your riches haven’t diminished.

You can begin practicing your reading skills at the elementary level, by simply reading the upper right corner of every post, with attention to the “Religion” heading. But in my case, thoughtful reading independently of your beliefs would have done the job.

Well, I’ll be…Thank you for pointing that out to me. Now I see the problem. You see, I was always taught to read from left to right. I’ll work on the problem, of course.

No need to roll your beady little eyes at me.

Oh, they were kindly supplied by CAF. I don’t think CAF would be at all pleased to have you call them ‘beady’ and ‘little’.

One mistake is a typo. The CAF spelling-checker underlined it for you, with a nice squiggly red line. Use of “Fabrinicci” twice in the same post tells me that:

I see you have also been taught to read from left to right. If you had followed your own teachings, you’d also have glanced to the top right and been able to work out that an American spellcheck is of no use to me whatsoever.

1. 
   *]
   

   you don’t know a Fibonacci number from a fencepost,

   *]Strange, I don’t think I wrote about fence posts, so we can rule them out. And if I can’t tell the difference between a fence post and a Fibonaccii number, than I have truly excelled all expectations by managing to write of it and not a fence post.
   *]
   

   you assume incorrectly that you know more than a spelling verification program,

   Oh, but I do know! Your assumption fails. See top right corner.
   *]
   

   you are one of way too many posters who pretend to knowledge never obtained.

   Oh my, such whopping assumptions you make! For a man supposedly involved in science, that’s not only unbecoming, it’s dangerous for the rest of us.
   

   There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant. After all, the greatest genius on the planet is ignorant of more things than he knows.

   True, to a point. It also depends greatly on how you define ‘ignorant’. Some people have a whole lot of “different knowledge” and I usually find the ignorant are to be found amongst those who show intolerance for the "knowledge’ that is different. It shows up their own ignorance.
   

   But pretentiousness is unbecoming and easily avoided.

   It should be. I’ll guide you gently, as a true friend should. I don’t want you inadvertently siting on a fence post, like a turtle.
   
   Cheers.

 

[AntiTheist]

This thread is loaded with crud and probably not worth responding to, but I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question.

If it were ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a god likely existed, I would begin to believe in that god.

However, I would not immediately begin to worship that god. To me, respect, adoration, and worship have to be earned – they are not granted freely to powerful beings. So I would want to learn more about the nature of this being and the values of this being. And if I found his values to be lacking – which I almost certainly would, if we’re talking about the Judeo-Christian god – I would refuse to worship him.

 

[AntiTheist]

I seriously do not know how atheists even get out of bed in the morning.

Well, you might try asking one or two of us.

I get out of bed for a lot of reasons: because I enjoy the company of my friends and family, because I enjoy my work, because I enjoy the beauty of another morning…

…but usually I get out of bed because my alarm will not stop ringing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This thread is loaded with crud and probably not worth responding to, but I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question.

If it were ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a god likely existed, I would begin to believe in that god…And if I found his values to be lacking – … I would refuse to worship him.

Really? You expect us to believe that you are only willing to worship a god you feel morally superior too? How is that any different than only agreeing to worship yourself? Wouldn’t it be a good deal more forthright to just come out of the closet and declare yourself god?

 

[greylorn]

greylorn,

I like what Chesterton said of evolutionary theory: “Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well…the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race horse a Post-Impressionist.”

"The very fact that a bird can get as far as building a nest, and cannot get any farther, proves that be has not a mind as man has a mind; it proves it more completely than if he built nothing at all…Suppose in an incredibly short space of time there were seven styles of architecture for one style of nest. Suppose the bird carefully selected forked twigs and pointed leaves to express the piercing piety of Gothic, but turned to broad foliage and black mud when he sought in a darker mood to call up the heavy columns of Bel and Ashtaroth; making his nest indeed one of the hanging gardens of Babylon. "

GKC was a bit flowery for my limited literary taste, but I get the meaning of these passages and am in general agreement with them. I generally regard consciousness as a property limited (in the context of biological life forms on planet earth) to human beings, but would not be surprised to learn, after we learn to distinguish to distinguish soul from brain at the level of neuroscience, that some of us got free rides in dolphins before being stuck into bodies.

The passage you quoted brings up an interesting question, which is, how do tiny critters with brains the size of a standard booger, which one would think ought to be busy enough with flying among tree branches, mating, tending young, and eating, develop the programming necessary to build a nest?

Years ago I learned to program the behavior of telescopes in outer space. Perhaps if I learn enough, my post-demise assignment might involve refinement of the nest-building algorithm in the ruby throated hummingbird. (I admire those critters especially.)

 

[greylorn]

This thread is loaded with crud and probably not worth responding to, but I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question.

If it were ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a god likely existed, I would begin to believe in that god.

However, I would not immediately begin to worship that god. To me, respect, adoration, and worship have to be earned – they are not granted freely to powerful beings. So I would want to learn more about the nature of this being and the values of this being. And if I found his values to be lacking – which I almost certainly would, if we’re talking about the Judeo-Christian god – I would refuse to worship him.

I appreciate your approach, and hope that you stick with it. The real God is out there.

IMO they will neither demand nor desire your worship. When you learn enough physics to appreciate what they have accomplished, and come to an understanding of their part in your existence, and if you still hold true to the feelings you’ve expressed here, don’t be surprised to find yourself seeking a powerful way to serve them.