theres an old philosophy that Douglas Addams" sort of quoted.
If ever discover what the universe is for , it will disappear and be immediately be replaced by something far more bizzarely inexplicable.
and what happened when we unwrapped the big bang,
we got string theory and quantum physics that told us that not only weren't we the only universe
but we came from a place that has 11 dimensions and no time.]

I think this universe is stranger than we can imagine.


But, do i believe in God. NO. I don't

Marcus

PS but if reality can be described as God, then you need not look no further.

So yes dystopic i do think this reality is beyond my understanding and truly full of wonders

I ask you a question to you. do you believe that God is holding back information.
Is it is the nature of intelligence to answer all questions and ultimately know all that God knows

I am always amazed at how both the theist and the atheist like to discuss religion and science as in competition to give the best explanation for our universe. People who hold that science should inform theology or that theology should inform science often make the same mistaken assumption. It is a peculiar claim to say that the universe is just composed of energy, strings, (or whatever the physics of the day talks about) and that therefore there is no soul etc. etc.. By the same reasoning, the persons who hold such a position must also claim that there is 'really' no colour to the universe (and they often do).

Why is this so peculiar? Because it assumes that physics is the sole authority on settling matters of truth and existence. Language is used in a lot of different ways and we need not interpret every claim in our everyday lives (inclduing our religious practices) as somehow put forward to make the same sort of claims that are made in physics journals. If I say that "John wishes to drink a glass of water" or "pork prices have been rising again", we can assess the appropriateness of my claim without looking to whatever the popular theory in physics happens to be today. Why is it that someone could correctly understand what I say if they heard hundreds of years ago? Because the correct use and understanding of the language is independent of the use of the language developed by physicists. That is, our ordinary use of language (including much of theological language) is wholly independent of the correct use of the language of physics (which largely includes how physics as a science is practiced).

But are the practices and language constituting what we call the science of physics independent of our everyday use of language (which is independent of the language of physics)? Absolutely not. We developed a science of physics because it was useful to do so and we could see how picking out regularities in moving objects could help us in our day to day lives. When there are major paradigm shifts in a science (like from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics) it does not occur because someone has discovered new experiment results typically. Rather what happens is that a new more useful way of conceptualizing the subject matter is arrived at. Look back at how Newton argued in favour of his theory of space and time against the followers of Descartes. Many of the arguments are themselves based on theology and appeals to everyday intuitions.

The person who tries to advocate that physics gets the final word on settling truth and existence first makes a rather imperialistic and dogmatic claim that only that which can correctly and acurately articulated in the language of physics is correct and true etc.. Physics is given a certain authority for settling some matters, but it certainly does not have authority over most (nor should it be given such authority).
SEcondly, the claim rests on a complete misunderstanding of the development of sciences and languages generally. Physics in many respects answers to the culture that practices it and institutes it as a science. At this point to claim that physics is special because it 'really' gets at 'the world' is to completely miss the point. For that is precisely what is being debated. It does not have complete authority.

The theist makes the same mistake when trying to show how certain doctrines correspond to going theories of the day (or get involved in creation-evolution debates). Theological texts are not meant to be scientific texts. This does not mean that they are not true, just that the langauge is different and characterizes a different aspect of our lives which a science such as physics is not well suited to do.

I ask both the theist and the atheist (or agnostic) to step back for a second and think about what they are so blindly assuming when they treat the "natural world" as only consisting of that which is described by physics. All sciences have a hugely important place in our society, but nonscientific languages need not answer to them and in fact is the domain where we debate our scientific concepts.

Lovely,
Red Priest

Hmm, doing more research on the information stuff, especially as it pertains to the debate about the origin of species.

It seems creationists are not necessarily saying information gain is impossible - just that it tends towards loss rather than gain.

Natural selection does not necessarily save the evolutionist in this case: Natural selection only selects on whether mutations increase the odds of survival, not on how much information is present in the genes. If a mutation that increases the odds of survival happens to also decrease the amount of information in the genes, then natural selection would choose less information, not more.

The creationists then argue that while the odds of survival in a particular environment may be increasing, the amount of information is, on average, decreasing. This may have adverse effects on the mutants if the environment changes and the information to survive in the new environment is lost due to the mutation.

If the amount of information is overall decreasing as they claim, it would adversely affect the hypothesis that molecules slowly changed into humans over long periods of time.

missed the point slightly. it's not that molecules do evole into humans; it's that they happened to evolve into humans. evolution doesn't have a goal in mind.

i'm not clear on why you see evolution and information loss/gain as tied together. if i had the sources you've been reading, i'd be intersted in reading them myself, so we can work from the same knowledge base.



yes, the theory of evolution does not guarentee that things will keep on living. it doesn't guarantee that all life won't all die off in an asteroid strike. it doesn't guarantee that anything in particular will live if the global temperature rises suddenly.

i remember your line of thinking about information and evolution more or less, so forgive me if i'm repeating myself: your line of thinking about evolution seems to suffer from the reification fallacy.

evolution isn't a conscious force, it's (described by its adherants) as a natural law. it doesn't have goals anymore than genreal relativity does. someones science writers use literary techniques such as personification to describe a system, but the doesn't mean the system mimics human behavior (and it probably doesn't mean that we mimic the system's behavior).

all that said, i tend to agree with you:



you're simulteneously describing over-specialization, and it happens. most life forms cannot predict the way their enviornments might behave differently in the future, and none we've studied take that speculation into account when selecting mating parnters.

i'd be really interested to know how these theorists/researchers you were reading qualified 'information loss.' a lot of DNA is junk, leftover information from evolutionary anscestors.

as far as my understanding goes, for the sake of our discussion here there are 3 types of gene. these are certainly not technical terms.

there are inactive genes, as i just described. they just take up space; they also might become active again in subsequent evolution.

there are simple active genes, which are doing something. in other words, they provide instructions for replicating chemicals the body will use.

then there are meta-active genes. these genes might do some things directly, but their primary function is to mitigate, coordinate and control the rest of the genes. i imagine there's probably some parity in complex computer systems.

the point is, if by 'information loss,' they include deactivation or complete loss of inactive genes, they're talking about a great deal of genetic changes that produce no noticeable change in the life form.

this might make evolution seem even less likely. but just because the laws are strange, is that reason to believe they're innacurate? general relativity and quantum field theory are both very far from being common-sense ways of interpreting the universe. but so far these theories' power to predict the outcome of experiments has been undeniable.

unfortunately, the human time scale isn't going to allow us to create a lab experiment that will take us from molecules to cells, mitochondira, multi-cellular life, segmented bodies, predatory behavior, social behavior, or intelligence.

we might be able to recreate the earliest instances of life in labratory experiments, and i think we might already be doing that. it's saturday morning, so i'm not about to go hunting for an article i kinda remmeber. maybe monday.

Cobra, you seem genuinely interested in the scientific ideas. i certainly don't discredit you for being skeptical; in fact i commend you for it. criticism is the healthiest thing for the individuals, (IMHO), in science (a social fact), and in civic life (an historical rarity). the truth is, scientists definately can't answer even all of their own questions - and they tend to be picky about questions.

i'm currently reading Consilience: The Unity of Knolwedge. wikipedia actually has an outline for it,. though sparse. the idea might intrigue you. i'm not quite sure how i feel about the full extent of his argument quite yet, myself.



i'd credit science as the set of tools that empower people to rid themselves of superstition. that doesn't make scientists "better" people in any sense, but they do contribute to history in a qualitatively unique way.

Sounds good, but I'd like to see this "junk." Have any references?

I wasn't so much reading as watching - the information I obtained came from Answers in Genesis' videos - in this case, the "origin of the species" series of videos.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/



How so?



Or during different phases of the organism's life, or under certain environmental conditions.

In any case, they're definitely talking about active or control genes, as their examples include stuff like bacterial resistance. They're not just talking about genes what have no effect.

They do point out, however, that not knowing what something does does not necessarily qualify it as "junk." There is a lot we don't know about DNA. Finding out the sequence of the bases was simply the first step - finding out what everything does is totally different, and it will be a long time before we know for sure what the purpose (or lack thereof) of everything is.

To put it into a linguistic metaphor: We know what the alphabet is, and we've obtained a copy of a book. We also know where the words are separated (ie, the start and stop codons). What's left is to find the meanings of the words (the proteins created), and to put them together to form larger language structures and figure out the meaning (how the proteins interact with everything else).



Yes, it would be strange for a downward trend in complexity to lead to something more complex. But more than strange - contradictory. That's like saying if you subtract 1 from a number enough times you will get a number far larger than the number you started with.



It is rather unfortunate, isn't it?

Yet if science comes from faith, the faith comes from the core of science.... that being the the application of seemingly logical conclusions based on the information at hand. At the time, the only information humanity had was that they didn;t understand anything. So the Personification of something that was outside their power to control must have seemed normal. I for example am useless at fixing cars, so when my car has a problem, it is called a "she" usually something like "grumpy cow"... If something goes wrong i'm powerless, and so the car gains a personality. My PC however, is just a machine, that if something brakes, I fix it.

Aside from that, there was religion for at least 10,000 years in some form or other before the big 3 came into being.. we know they stole stories from all over the M.E. and such, and rejigged them. We know that before Zoroastrianism, faiths were mainly Polythesic.. so arguably, these beliefs are at least 8000 years older.. does this not make them more legitimate based on age? If it is not about the age, but about the revealed truth of those beliefs, then is not Athesim simply the newst of the those revealed truths?

The only choice with faith is to try a do what the "good" book says.. but that leads to the Ned Flanders problem "I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"

It's easier having no faith, because I decide who I am, I choose the path of my life, and if I do wrong, I know i've done wrong by myself, and not try to say I was guided by a higher power. I don't get forgivness, simply by embracing some voodoo man in the sky, I ask for it from the people i've hurt. They may grant it to me, or they may not. That's even assuming I want the forgivness in the first place. If I apparently do not have my moral choices guided by faith and a holy source, then does that not make me more Holy than "true" believers? lol

While being critical of faith in this post, i'm not one to limit peoples belief in it, as long as they do not try to limit me. An Ex of mine was christian, I still think she is one of the nicest girls i've met. In fact I met her by stating my dislike for Christians... she pointed out she was one, and I tried to take my foot out of my mouth as a result. Anyway, when she said that she prayed for me and my family every night before she went to bed, that meant a lot to me, because I knew it meant something to her. I thought i'd find it distasteful, but being with her showed me her sincerity. After 2 years, she became more open to new ideas, while I modified some of my undesirable behaviours to be more in line with her beliefs. I found then that my dislike of faith was an emotional one, and that if I was to continue with my view, I needed to to have a more academic, studied one too.

The trick I learnt in the end, is that good humoured joking and debating between both views is good, it teaches us something about the other, and creates I think an understanding and tolerance. Yet i'm human, and I tarnish the majority with the same Brush, but while I don't like Christians, or the French, or the English, on an individual basis I am friends with a number of all 3, who i respect and trust with my life. Though in the case of the English, I have found the I've only liked a minority of the ones I have met....



What gets me though, are the current batch of "true" Christians that exist in the US at the moment. They really are just as bad as the crazy Islamics we have running around, and if you believe the left, Zionists too! Here are some quotes from Americas current main holders of power, they don't inspire confidence.. i

Quotes from American Taliban:

Ann Coulter

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

George Bush Sr.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."


Henry Morris (Founder, Institute for Creation Research, died 2006)
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

Randall Terry (Talking of Homsexuals)
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."

[I]Robert Simonds (Citizens for Excellence in Education)
"Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable."[/I]

okey seriously. whats with the crap of america beeing a nation under god. why the hell would god watch over just one nation.
im not saying all americans are this way. but ur freaking president is an ass and pshyco.
I am an atheist. I belive in science and things that can be proved. I relize everything in science cannot be proved. But its easier to grasp something that u actually can feel or touch or learn about. God on the other hand, well its a question of faith. To belive in something with ignorrance and not questioning it is just stupid.
My girlfriend tells me not everything can be explained with science. Different types of miracles, for example. And i relize that. But what we can explaine and cannot is only limited by our knowledge. What we know today may not be enough to explaine a miracle but what we learn tomorrow might. Saying well its gods work just because there is no other explination is an easy way out of it.
I think we humans seek easy answers to everything thats why religion exist. Not everyone on this planet wants to know that our lifes are basicly a random thing that happend on this planet.. That there is no real point to it other than to survive and reproduce. Religion gives people something to hope for, something that is easier to understand cause it takes less of an effort to understand.

I appoligize for the english. Im swedish. So bare with me   // Thanx

when you say 'natural science,' i can't tell if you mean the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) or naturalistic science. just so i'm clear, i wasn't referring specifically to the natural sciences; i was including social science at the very least.

and i agree with you as well, science isn't the only method to rid oneself of superstition. 'the liberal arts', which sometimes include social sciences but are especially humanities, are called 'liberal' because they are thought to liberate one's mind.

as far as contribution to history, i do think it's unique because it's cumulative in ways other disciplines are not.



i'll work on it. i'd also politely suggest balancing your sources with more secular ones. to be honest, i've never even heard of 'information' as a major point of discussion in evolutionary theory. it could be that the creationists have created one elaborate straw man, or it could be that the evolutionists have convenienctly side-stepped a major flaw.

i'm searching evolution.berkeley.edu for articles on 'information loss' and coming up short. part of the problem is that every page on that site starts with "your one-stop for information on evolution."

this article is on bottlenecks: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/bottlenecks_01

it might pertain to what you're talking about. i'm also looking for something that has more to do with long-term evolution.



*supresses a shudder*

let me just preface my following statements with this: i'm an American; I love the United States; yes, i actually would die for my country if it were for my countrymen and not the aristocrats. but i can't stand amerikkkans. in a year or two i will start grad school to leech a PhD from this country, and then i'm moving to Spain. legal gay marriage and the world's most lenient pot laws and hot mediterranean men? i'm there.

anyone ever heard of the sociological concept of brain drain?

a few years ago i was talking with an English woman about how i wanted to move out of the U.S. she said England was nice, and i mentioned i was thinking about Australia. she said something like, "don't go there, it was started by convicts!" to which i replied, "yeah, and the U.S. was started by religious fanatics." "Good point."

Persoanlly, i'd not move to Spain if you want lenient Pot Laws. Holland is always good, but if you want heat and liberal attitudes, i'd say Portugal is the better Choice. I've lived in Spain and loved it. My advice however is to Stay away from any place that the British go on holiday too.
Being Welsh, i'm technically a Brit, so if I find my "own" kind bad, you'd see us as worse.lol

The way the US seems to be lately, it really does frighten me. It seems that moderate Christians and Atheists are being forced to remain quiet and the such. I wonder, do those states that are predominantly Democrat/liberal/atheist (they seem to go together), perform better economically, do more science research etc?

Edit.. I left out Homosexuals in that D/L/A. Not sure about the states, but here in the UK they talk of the spending power of the "pink pound", do you have a similar term for Dollars?

I agree with evolution for the most part. All I do is question "science" belief that it so much diffrent then what came before. For when it comes to words like:


This has been said about may other religions even jews/christians/muslims have said something like this before. The bible if full of pointing out other people silly superstitions... The real problem lies in that what worked before doesn t always work later... like not eating pork which is good if you can t clean it properly even today that is important... but many "Scientist" don t look at the reasons people did these "silly" things just like other peoples before them.

To me "science" doesn t want to own up to its own evolution. Like Creationism it just sprang from the Aether.

I dont believe in god either and I live in Greece where religion is a kind of tradition. So everybody has to believe because the family the friends believe.
I think the same happens more or less eveywhere.
Since I was kid I always wondering, hoping and afraid the idea of god.
God will help me? God will punish me? But for me always there was something wrong I could not accept this idea. So becoming a teenager started asking myself and others.
I discovered most if not all of family members, relatives and friends, they do not actually believe but they think or they do because they are used to.
So think about it do you really believe or just believe because its easier?

An other concept it might be a little sci-fiction to some people here but have u ever considered the "God" to be an other intelligent being one or more, from an other world like ours that had his part over the million years in human history.
there are many signs in history strange signs some of theme very famous difficult to explain
like Stonehedge, the Great Pyramid, drawings in caves, paintings, stories... so many that could provide evidence one day who is god or who humans saw him as a god..

Well at one time Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrates were the conservetives over here so maybe they just kept the old colors.

The Democrates can trace their party history back without hitch to Jefferson's Anti-Federalist party (the folk who wanted the states to be more like countries of their own). While the Republicans can be called the bastard children of Adam's Federalists (who becamethe Whiq party which the Republicans rebeled from and devoured.)

OOPS the Whig party.