Intelligent Design

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I would go as far as say, this is pure snobbery, and his mention of Islam could be construed in bad ways as well.
No, these very comments speak more on what he doesnt know, than what he does

 

[wanamingo]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/20/artificial_dna_evolves_by_itself/

 

[wanamingo]

That ^^ is freaking cool and fascinating!

It's still not the same as creating something from nothing though.

True. But what JDJ is asking is why cant we break the laws of physics?

And we don't even know if the big G can do that. There is nothing that points to this being unnatural.

 

[johnsonma]

I would go as far as say, this is pure snobbery, and his mention of Islam could be construed in bad ways as well.
No, these very comments speak more on what he doesnt know, than what he does

Snobbery? He said that Islamic countries were one of the main drivers of the growth of knowledge during the dark ages in Europe. The intellectual capital was in Baghdad, and that is "construed in bad ways"? Then the religion changed to be anti intellectual due to the writings of one man, and he said it was one of the greatest loses mankind has endured. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean its' snobbery.

 

[johnsonma]

No, I never said that, and again, assumptions are made.
I said, the crux of the matter is the beginning, the why.
If a Christian asks why, why couldnt he also be a Christian scientist?
And if so, why assume hes somehow limited?

Thats what Ive got against this mindset, its not open nor free in this matter, having that attitude.

Again, I in no way said faith and wisdom go hand in hand, reread what I said, there are 2, knowledge, or faith/wisdom.
Now saying this, I mean your faith can carry you to understanding, and we all know what wisdom is, and it also will bring you to understanding.
In saying faith, its something that drives us to higher things, including scientific knowledge, again, this is assumed to mean something its not.
The counter to all this is the ungodly scientist, whos maxed out, and then doesnt believe God takes care of the rest.
So, what makes any man, Godly or ungodly stop? And why assume God, or a mans faith makes him stop, when its quite the contrary?
No, he got it all wrong

Did you miss his whole reasoning behind religion limiting the pursuit of knowledge? He used the research publications of brilliant people who when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, deferred to God or a supreme power. Only to have those obstacles obliterated by someone else who was not under the same restrictions of religion for that particular problem. There was no assumption here JDJ, it is a very logical conclusion. There is no reason that there cannot be a successful christian scientist, they just need to have the mindset that everything within this universe is within reach of our understanding and leave God out of it. Faith is a cloak for ignorance to make life easier and more meaningful, provide and example of it driving us to higher scientific knowledge.

By the way, this is in a response previous post of yours....How do you know that the Universe was created for man's use? What happens when there is another intelligent species out there in the cosmos? Will religion then adapt, yet again, to compensate for this new discovery?

 

[johnsonma]

Actually is wasn't so much Islamic countries as the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire that flourished for more than a 1000 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Sorry for the derail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

What are you talking about? What are the contributions to the pursuit of knowledge that the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire made during that time?

 

[wanamingo]

We are most likely living in a computer simulation

If we are talking number and probability there is a very good chance we are living in an incredibly complex computer simulation. Imagine what happens when we have a computer that is so fast it can simulate every particle in the universe. You know the first thing we would do is fire it up and simulate our own origins under our own conditions to see what happens.

gets kind of inceptiony though when you start to think about us living in a simulation, and eventually creating a computer simulating our simulation in a simulation. Whoa.

Its like a philosophy Turducken.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Did you miss his whole reasoning behind religion limiting the pursuit of knowledge? He used the research publications of brilliant people who when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, deferred to God or a supreme power. Only to have those obstacles obliterated by someone else who was not under the same restrictions of religion for that particular problem. There was no assumption here JDJ, it is a very logical conclusion. There is no reason that there cannot be a successful christian scientist, they just need to have the mindset that everything within this universe is within reach of our understanding and leave God out of it. Faith is a cloak for ignorance to make life easier and more meaningful, provide and example of it driving us to higher scientific knowledge.

By the way, this is in a response previous post of yours....How do you know that the Universe was created for man's use? What happens when there is another intelligent species out there in the cosmos? Will religion then adapt, yet again, to compensate for this new discovery?

This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat

 

[wanamingo]

This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat

Im not sure where you are going with this anymore.

When an "Ungodly" scientist as you put it comes to a wrong conclusion he can change it. He can modify the answer, science is always changing, there is no god or orthodoxy to piss off. No so much with religion. Religion is static its not really evolving. A scientist that is a practitioner of religion is more inclined to say God did it. Like how we are talking about the origin of the universe, you are inclined to say its God, im not sold. I want the real answer. The guy also has like 3 doctorates.

Now some quotes from Carl Sagan. Mr. Tyson is coincidentally making a new version of the cosmos.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.

They (i. e., the Pythagoreans) did not advocate the free confrontation of conflicting points of view. Instead, like all orthodox religions, they practised a rigidity that prevented them from correcting their errors

 

[jsc]

Im a firm believer of over a long enough timeline anything is possible.

Ah, you are Aristotlean in outlook.

Me too.

 

[johnsonma]

@john

Im talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, centered around the Greek culture for the most part. They maintained the knowlede, culture, technology, knowledge, etc. of the Roman Empire while western Europe fell into the Dark Ages. Right up until the fall of Constantinople in the Ottoman wars.

It flourished centuries before Islam was even established as a religion until it finally fell to Islam. Where do you think the Islamic Golden Age came from? Basically Islamic conquerors pulled a borg and assimilated the culture, knowledge, and technology of the Byzantium Empire resulting in the "Golden Age".

How do you know that everything the Islamic golden age accomplished was stolen from the Eastern Roman Empire? Is it just the fact that you fear and hate Islam so accepting that they have contributed anything to the greater good is hogwash? I don't understand how you can think this when I have never even heard or read anything that indicated this. Like Dr. Tyson said, more than half the stars in the sky have Arabic names, did they steal the stars from Constantinople and rename them? Give me a break OMG you are wayyyyyyyyyy off on this one.

 

[johnsonma]

This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat

You are completely missing the point JDJ, and taking this as a personal attack on your faith which it is not. I will try to reason with you the best I can. You have two scientists, one is a devout follower of religion and the other is not. They are trying to figure out why there are super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy, and they are becoming frustrated with their progress. Finally the religious scientist gives up and falls back on the possibility that it is beyond his comprehension so God must be behind it. The other scientist, with no such faith to fall back on continues to work on it and may or may not figure it out. Faith may inspire people to be better to each other, it may inspire a greater sense of community, it maybe inspire people to change their lives for the better but, it does not inspire the growth of scientific understanding.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Im not sure where you are going with this anymore.

When an "Ungodly" scientist as you put it comes to a wrong conclusion he can change it. He can modify the answer, science is always changing, there is no god or orthodoxy to piss off. No so much with religion. Religion is static its not really evolving. A scientist that is a practitioner of religion is more inclined to say God did it. Like how we are talking about the origin of the universe, you are inclined to say its God, im not sold. I want the real answer. The guy also has like 3 doctorates.

Now some quotes from Carl Sagan. Mr. Tyson is coincidentally making a new version of the cosmos.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.

They (i. e., the Pythagoreans) did not advocate the free confrontation of conflicting points of view. Instead, like all orthodox religions, they practised a rigidity that prevented them from correcting their errors

Im staying within the context of the link.
Dr Tysons reasonings are, people give up and leave the rest to God, instead of going forwards, when they reach their pinnacle, the rest is left to God, which is fine in its current scenario, but since hindsight is 20-20, he uses that as a failure, as of course science has progressed.
He implies, chuckles and what have you, its their beliefs holding them back, keeping them from inspiration etc, and says nothing of the scientists that are ungodly.
Time and again, many here as well as the good Dr claims these restrictions of faith, thus the bad, hold back good science from Godly scientists, uses Godly scientists as an example of this, yet time and again, we are shown how these Godly scientists went against certain beliefs, at threat of death, excommunication etc what have you, and have raised the bar.
To me, it was a shot at God, His children, the Muslims overall, and again, says nothing of those scientists, who again, fail according to Dr Tysons hypothesis, by not advancing forever and ever, as I guess all the former greats were, by God and their faiths.
I can understand some hold back, some hold back as well, using logic only, but he doesnt speak to these people, only points his finger at one group, the faithful.
Again, this isnt logic, its hypocracy thru ignorance.

 

[wanamingo]

Oh look there is actually a whole Wikipedia page on Islamic contributions to science during the medieval era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

How many held back from creating the bomb?
Whats next?
Isnt there some kind of moral decisions scientists use, ungodly, that hold them back?
Where is this message?
Using only conflicts of faith, which can be whittled down, there are many outside of this, yes using faith only is what Im saying as his failure to grasp the whole ideal.
Because you see, many have no such qualms as to God, BUT you do not step on their toes, if somehow someone decides logically some things shouldnt be attempted.
This is hypocracy, and yes, it happens, and more and more these days

 

[johnsonma]

How many held back from creating the bomb?
Whats next?
Isnt there some kind of moral decisions scientists use, ungodly, that hold them back?
Where is this message?
Using only conflicts of faith, which can be whittled down, there are many outside of this, yes using faith only is what Im saying as his failure to grasp the whole ideal.
Because you see, many have no such qualms as to God, BUT you do not step on their toes, if somehow someone decides logically some things shouldnt be attempted.
This is hypocracy, and yes, it happens, and more and more these days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg

Its long and I haven't watched all of it but I think about 20 or so minutes in they discuss the atomic bomb and other moral decisions made by scientists. When you have faith in a supernatural being with unrivaled power and scope, it makes learning about the unknown more difficult because there will always be the suspicion that this being is the cause of the effect. This is counterproductive, do you not see this?

 

[johnsonma]

Oh look, from the very page you linked to.

"During this time, Indian, Asyriac, Iranian and especially Greek knowledge was translated into Arabic."

How you can degrade the accomplishments made during this era is beyond me. Of course they learned from those before them but look at the the theory of evolution that they came up with, and all the notable scientists from that era. This is an incredible achievement for a people and yet you want to diminish it for no real reason, I sense something else going on, maybe deep seated hatred for Islam.

By the way I was referring to the Arabic Language when I mentioned Arabic, FYI. It was the language they used then, FYI.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No, because in all things, there is good.
Let me ask you a question, is it good to die?
Is it good to suffer?
An immature outlook may limit some, but this isnt a full and mature faith.
God says, if no man believes in Me, praises Me, the very rocks of the ground will do so.

Whats this imply?

I stated my openess, my freedom I have in my faith, my challenging of my faith, which is crucial in its growth, yet everyone skipped right over that.
If being Godly limits me, then Im not doing enough.
If the good doctor would simply come to that conclusion as well, then he wouldnt have said what he did

 

[johnsonma]

No, because in all things, there is good.
Let me ask you a question, is it good to die?
Is it good to suffer?
An immature outlook may limit some, but this isnt a full and mature faith.
God says, if no man believes in Me, praises Me, the very rocks of the ground will do so.

Whats this imply?

I stated my openess, my freedom I have in my faith, my challenging of my faith, which is crucial in its growth, yet everyone skipped right over that.
If being Godly limits me, then Im not doing enough.
If the good doctor would simply come to that conclusion as well, then he wouldnt have said what he did

Let me ask you this JDJ.

1. How did the universe begin?
2. Why do black holes form?
3. Do you believe there are other intelligent life forms in the universe?
4. Do you think that the limiting of gravitational force to allow for the formation of life is the work of a supreme being. What about the fact that if there was slightly more matter than dark matter in the big bang and there would be no universe at all if there wasn't, is that because of a supreme being?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

1.Let there be light

2.An imploding star is one such possibility

3.Possibly, but I believe we may never know this, but who knows?

4.In my belief, God balanced the heavens

 

[wanamingo]

What the hell are you reading because it certainly isn't anything I wrote. Am I not articulating enough? I degraded nothing, NOTHING!

I pointed out a fact that a page mingo linked to proved correct. What the hell do you want?

I cant agree with that. The transmission went both ways. This was a point in Islamic and arabic countries that were developing the sciences while medieval Europe was um... busy with other things.... There's nothing wrong with a non-christian country adding to scientific understanding.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science#Byzantine_and_Islamic_science

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Do we learn from strife?
Is strife then Gods fault?
Is bad only bad?
From what Ive read, what I know, what I believe, bad doesnt exist in purity, as said many times in the bible.
So, going from there, any mature Godly person wouldnt let that hold them back, but, it has, but again, its also held back many ungodly people as well.

Looking at a one sided POV is hypocrisy, laziness of its own merit, and shows the possibilities of other prejudiced ideals.

Now, since the very essence of this speech is to assume such things about faith, yet ignores much of what Ive put here, my point stands

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy

This helped open my eyes to the possible existence of other civilizations.
Take note of the date it was written, again, in a much more strict (as far as faith goes) time.
Yes, he dared, and became successful in the meantime.

Now, if you look at the earth not being the center of the universe, and its implications, and if you look at Columbus, you know, the evil one who mbrought terror to this continent?
The flat earthers were finished.
Why then, is it assumed that the flat earthers were the Godly, yet Columbus et al werent?
This attitude needs to mature as well, shows lazyness, hypocrasy etc, and I am surprised the good doctor fell for such tripe

 

[johnsonma]

1.Let there be light

2.An imploding star is one such possibility

3.Possibly, but I believe we may never know this, but who knows?

4.In my belief, God balanced the heavens

You believe that god created the universe, if its true then we no longer need to look at it and our view of the universe becomes a point of ignorance.

God balances the heavens, this statement reflects the exact point the doctor was trying to make. Our universe works in ways beyond our understanding at this point in time so God must have done it. Did you know that are some radical theories that think maybe gravity is so weak compared to the other forces of the universe because it is distributed across parallel universes? This is my kind of thinking, not limited by what God is responsible for but by your imagination and your drive to learn more.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Why all these assumptions?
I fully dont understand your POV, as God has given us the very freedom to not believe in Him, why then wouldnt He also give us the rights and desires to fulfill such learning?

Yes, I know of parallel thinking, it too is a possibility.
God has said, who knows the workings of His thoughts?
So, that alone leaves room for anything, and what God wants is for us to believe in Hm, and love Him, as any father would.
Its others misconceptions, others beliefs as well, that hold them back from God and knowledge and wisdom as well.
Believers can find fault with science, and non believers do, but using failings to describe something isnt logic, and where the doctor failed here.
To me, God is our father, he wants us to learn and grow, but mostly, he wants us to know Him, love Him, and how this becomes a tangled mess of beliefs vs non beliefs, using such failings of growth of spirit and faith to prove things is beyond me.
The doctor failed to mention this, as I said earlier, he is ignorant in this matter, and shouldnt be considered as any kind of respectable commentator on such matters, and thus disqualifies him.
I still like him, love what he brings, but he should stick to those things he truly knows about