The Sounds of Science

[sunskyfan]

Re: The Sounds of Science

Your critical mistake in understanding is that life is not a 747. Order of design are completely different from organic emergence. Your entropy analogy (the tornado) is also flawed. Entropy is a complex concept. It can be interpreted as increased randomness but it can also be interpreted as increased complexity depending on whether you are considering physical processes or information theory. The code of life exists at the critical boundary between the nature of the physical and the nature of information and we are just scratching the surface. I am not sure where you are more confused: in the over estimation of your understanding of nature or you simplistic view of the concept of god. Sorry if the tone seems harsh but you set it.

[jiimbergin]

Re: The Sounds of Science

In other words, you are claiming the sole possession of the "truth" which ultimately is "unknowable" by man. Am I correct in intepreting you?

Either Jesus was the biggest fraud in the history of the world or He is exactly who He says He is. Each must decide for themselves. You can only accept this by opening your heart to the Holy Spirit. Sadly most will reject him. But as a sign I just bought this past weekend (and it is hung over my wine rack) says,

Life, the time God gives us to determine where we will spend eternity. Me and mine have determined where we will spend eternity.

[Techdread]

Re: The Sounds of Science

And I think someone needs an avatar that will make me want to read the post seriously.

What's wrong with my avatar? I thought it fits my login name perfectly

Keep smokin', buddy...

I have stopped now, however life is way to short not to experience some of what god created for us

I was reading Bronowski on the subway at the age of 14. Your obvious prejudice that all "religious" people are uneducated hicks falls on its face more often than you would care to think.

Rubbish the first Universities were set up by the church, Muslim scholars preserved much of classical knowledge for us when Europe was in the dark ages. A lot of scientist see the maker in everything.

I was deeply religious until I took a philosophy course and came across that book, I still believe in a heaven/afterlife (Intelligent life gets what it desires eventually). But understand how you live your life in respect to other's is what really counts not what group you are affiliated to.

And while you're at it, we don't you try reading some Francis Schaeffer and St. Augustine. Oh, and how about a little New Testament while you're at that doobie.

I was born a christen, educated a christen why limit myself when there are other more ancient interesting faiths.

[Techdread]

Re: The Sounds of Science

I understand, though your faith, faith in other gods would not bring "true" peace, but it would still bring peace and security to the person. Wouldn't it still be of value to the person even if, in your mind, it is from a less valuable source?

Exactly that's broke my christen belief system. Monotheism is a evolved faith system created in the mind of man. We believed in spirits, then we saw lots of gods and now some people have faith in the one god.

One man's myth is another's religion!

[Sharky]

Re: The Sounds of Science

You know, it still boils down to faith no matter what side you take. I have put may faith in a Creator, you put your faith in science and random events. Both of us point fingers and say "Prove it!" I cannot prove "God" and you cannot prove "Random". But I hold this thruth to be self-evident: We live in a cause-and-effect universe. Therefore, what was the first cause?

Evolution and the idea of a Creator are not incompatible.

Evolution isn't random. Mutations are carefully selected for by the environment in which they happen. Imagine dice that have one face that's sticky, the same numbered face for each die. You roll the dice on a table, and then a wave crashes over them and washes all of them away except for the ones that stuck to the table because they had the sticky face down. Repeat the process, and soon the table will be covered with dice that are all showing the same number: uniform, not random.

Mutations can also lead to more complex behavior, as was demonstrated in the research I linked to before.

Here's another way to look at it. Consider the following evidence:

1. All life has a living parent. This point has been well established by science.
2. Some living creatures are very different from others. Obvious by just looking around.
3. Simple animals and plants existed long before more complex ones. Very clear from the fossil record.

Taken together, evolution is really the only rational explanation that fits this evidence. This approach doesn't say anything about how evolution happens, just that it does happen.

However, evolution does not address where the first life came from; that's a separate topic entirely.

Also, if there is a Creator, wouldn't it be possible for Him to have "created" by creating (or guiding) evolution?

You are, of course, free to reject these conclusions. You could also reject the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun. However, in both cases, you would have no scientific basis for doing so, nor does your belief have any impact on reality.

Now there's no need to rehash the last two centuries of debate. Simply answer for yourself - Do you believe that there is a Creator or not? If you believe there is no Creator, then deal with this internal inconsistency in your ontology: If there is no creator, than all of reality is ulitmately without purpose and absurd. Therefore, you and all your beliefs are without purpose and absurd. You go down that path....and I'll go down mine.

Why should my belief have any impact on whether there is a Creator or not? Even if I felt that all of reality was without purpose and absurd without a Creator (which I don't), those feelings wouldn't change the facts.

BTW, if your beliefs about evolution stem from Bible literalism, talk about an inconsistent ontology!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Sounds of Science

Therefore, what was the first cause?

... and who caused the first cause, who created the creator, who programmed the master programmer?

Yes, there is purpose, there is order, there is structure far beyond what can be explained by random combinations and limited science.

I agree that such higher order exists. But we should not assume that that which exists must have been created by the intentional efforts of some a priori, more powerful, Being.

Perhaps that which is, in all its gorgeous subtlety and immense detail, is the natural consequence of the cycles of matter and energy to so arrange themselves in increasingly higher layers of structure.

When I see a watch, I presume that there was a watchmaker. When I visit a small gift shop in an out of the way place, which has been owned and operated since its conception by a single proprietor decades ago, I may see the hand of that proprietor in every detail of that shop, such as what is for sale, the signs, the shelves, the curtains, the lighting, the layout, the hours of business.

But when I observe New York City in all its immense detail:

• the Rolex on the stock brokers wrist,
• the subway system and taxis,
• the skyscrapers, parks and statues,
• the plumbing, electric and water utility infrastructure,
• the streets, bridges and ferries,
• the police and fire departments and all their equipment,
• the Broadway shows, electronic stores and coin dealers,
• the libraries, hospitals, schools and universities,
• the Borroughs, businesses and stock exchanges,

I do not see the hand of a single creator.

No one, at any time, has ever had knowledge of even one-thousandth of one-percent of all the detail, structure and activity, the ceaseless change and nearly infinite detail, of all that exists in a major city, or happens there each minute, each second.

[jiimbergin]

Re: The Sounds of Science

... and who caused the first cause, who created the creator, who programmed the master programmer?

Yes, there is purpose, there is order, there is structure far beyond what can be explained by random combinations and limited science.

I agree that such higher order exists. But we should not assume that that which exists must have been created by the intentional efforts of some a priori, more powerful, Being.

Perhaps that which is, in all its gorgeous subtlety and immense detail, is the natural consequence of the cycles of matter and energy to so arrange themselves in increasingly higher layers of structure.

When I see a watch, I presume that there was a watchmaker. When I visit a small gift shop in an out of the way place, which has been owned and operated since its conception by a single proprietor decades ago, I may see the hand of that proprietor in every detail of that shop, such as what is for sale, the signs, the shelves, the curtains, the lighting, the layout, the hours of business.

But when I observe New York City in all its immense detail:

• the Rolex on the stock brokers wrist,
• the subway system and taxis,
• the skyscrapers, parks and statues,
• the plumbing, electric and water utility infrastructure,
• the streets, bridges and ferries,
• the police and fire departments and all their equipment,
• the Broadway shows, electronic stores and coin dealers,
• the libraries, hospitals, schools and universities,
• the Borroughs, businesses and stock exchanges,

I do not see the hand of a single creator.

No one, at any time, has ever had knowledge of even one-thousandth of one-percent of all the detail, structure and activity, the ceaseless change and nearly infinite detail, of all that exists in a major city, or happens there each minute, each second.

with very important exception ..... GOD

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Sounds of Science

Order of design are completely different from organic emergence.

Well said.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: The Sounds of Science

For you Mr Cow - Enjoy this you will. (And for others above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aufu...eature=related (thankfully sent to me by my eldest son during a discourse on this very subject.)
The search by Mr Watts during his life for meaning opens a whole box of popcorn.
But he missed it completely, even though he walked straight through it.
A deep thinker sometimes needs to accept that some things remain hidden
In four parts but please explore the others attached

[Raz]

Re: The Sounds of Science

How did a Jewish Rabbi take on all the characteristics of a Hindu / Persian / Egyption apostle?

It's all a complete fabrication (aka Helenization)

http://www.howjesusbecamechristian.com/

http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This garbage is as old as the Gnosticism of the second century.


Anyone without an anti-christian agenda who will examine the earliest manuscripts of the Apostolic Canons, the writings of Tertullian, Eusibius, the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Papius, Polycarp and others) and the witness of the Church through the earliest synods before the First Ecumenical Council will clearly see that Saul of Tarsus did not "invent" a Hellenistic Jesus.


This type of "scholarship" is not worthy of a reply, much less serious consideration.
If one is determined to not believe, then one can always find plenty of "erudite" company and so called "scholarship" to "explain" how the "simple Jesus of the first century became the Anti-semitic god of the Hellenic world".

[Raz]

Re: The Sounds of Science

"Rooooooooll another one, just like the otherone".

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Sounds of Science

For you Mr Cow - Enjoy this you will. (And for others above)

Enjoy it I already had, a year or two ago. Good stuff. Thanks for suggesting it.

[Techdread]

Re: The Sounds of Science

And the Universe is MUCH stranger. I think the Multiverse is perfectly plausible. In addition, there is the matter of space appearing to be quantized in Planck "voxels" which exist in only a few states. The observable Universe is say 10 to the 80 meters in diameter; if it is in fact 10 to the 120 meters, statistically this pattern (you, me, the Earth) has a high probability of repeating. Meaning we have had this argument many times in the past and will again many times in the future. If there are multiple universes or if the Universe is much larger than that, this pattern and every permutation of it has occurred, is occurring, and will occur over and over again in the future like some kind of Cyclic Time hell in which because there is a finite number of states, the same damn thing just happens over and over again...

I have had a hunch for a while that the rules of the Universe are in flux. This increases the chance of life spontaneously arising.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-universe.html

Also do you watch TED lectures.
There are many earth like planets. in fact small rocky planets are in the majority.


We may Identify Alien life in the very near future. I'm Guessing with in 10 years.


I think Intelligent life is the universe's way of understanding itself. The Universe also seems to reward those who investigate it.

[jiimbergin]

Re: The Sounds of Science

I
I think Intelligent life is the universe's way of understanding itself. The Universe also seems to reward those who investigate it.

God gave us curious mind. He obvious wants us to learn a lot about His universe. I have even had SETI running on my computer. http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

jim

[bagginz]

Re: The Sounds of Science

The search by Mr Watts during his life for meaning opens a whole box of popcorn.

Superb! Love Alan Watts. Thanks for posting.

But he missed it completely, even though he walked straight through it.

I dunno. His whole thought process throughout the four videos leads precisely up to the point of surrendering one's individual identity, at which point he says "This is the moment of which it is said that man's extremity is God's opportunity."

Being quite familiar with his writings, I gather he was generally reluctant to use the term God for the intelligence and power that orders the universe because of the weight of existing judeo-christian conceptions that accompanied it, preferring instead the more neutral Tao or his own term "The which than which there is no whicher".

Point being Alan Watts was no atheist.

Evolution and the idea of a Creator are not incompatible.

Thanks for saving me the effort of pointing that out.

I do find it strange that so many people think that they are mutually exclusive.

It appears to be a tradition dating back to the furrore created by Darwin's first publication of On the Origin Of Species and the Royal Society and Oxford public debates. Somehow, over time people have got the idea that they're polar opposites.

Cheers,
bagginz