You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Hawkings isnt talking religion though bud, he is speaking of spirituality that supercedes man made religion.
A basic awe and reverance for the complexities of creation.
Pretty much why I said "God" is a loaded word.
Plus the hawkings quote is pretty arbitary. Discussing beginning of universe = religious conversation. Thats all that it implies.
Just a brilliant quote by einstein though.
One of the basic fundamentals of quantum mechanics is that at the nano-microscopic level a prime observer is required.
This is consistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation. The obverse is the many worlds theory. Neither theory has been proven to be correct. Hawkins is a promoter of the many worlds theory.
I'm not religious btw - just interested in the facts.
You can "bandy" these quotes as much as you like although great pieces of litrature but they do not add anything to the discussion imo, they are simply outdated.
I always thought I had no spiritual or religious beliefs, but since starting to play poker I have become firmly convinced that someone up there doesn't like me. Mind you, so do a lot of people down here so I shouldn't be surprised.
Human knowledge is only part way down the road to understanding everything. The knowledge and beliefs we hold today will be outdated in the future and may well be looked upon with some derision. Best to keep an open mind on everything.
I wont lecture you bud. All the literature is out there too read.
But am not a creationalist or an evolutionist. But fwiw evoloution is no more comprehensive fact than creationalism is.
I actually belive there is room for both and neither (:p)
It's a computer generated program that starts from the very basic building blocks required. It's currently on about the 150th generation and is totally self determined with no human interaction. It's estimated that by the 100 billionth generation it will have developed to the equivalence of a human cell. Now take that progression to the multi-trillionth generation and it is thought it may well develop intelligent thought and even consciousness.
Question - by that time will it be creation or evolution?
Dont know if you realise how rude that is? Your making a pretty big assumption because somebody has a different pov than you - especially as my POV was inclusive.
Key word in my post was "comprehensive". Any person who knows the topic is aware that evoloution is far from a fool proof/fully resolved theory.
However I should have likely used the word "potentially" somewhere in the latter one. There are people out there who would (and will) argue just as passionately from the other side of the fence bud.
We can debate learnt and assumed knowledge til kingdom come, what may count as evidence and what may count as hocus pocus.
My personal views ae adaptave and inclusive, rather than rigid and exclusive. I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to be rude to someone who held a different view though.
I agree that creationalism is a bit of a joke/farce. But equally I believe evoloution has become a one size fits all philosophy and has been widely accepted, where people dont always fully realise that it is a THEORY rather than immutable infallible fact. Once accepted as fact it kind of inhibits people from thinking too deeply I feel. (Perhaps just as creationism once did...... ... ....)
But either way dont know exactly what we are arguing about, other than you thinking anyone who doesnt buy the book is immediately mentally challenged??
Myeh, def aliens though. Of innumerable types that we likely wouldnt even have the ability to recognise as being alive.
7. Evolution is Only A Theory
All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:
If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.
Gravity is only a 'theory' but I don't see you floating.
Seems to be some confusion, am not saying I dont believe in evoloution, nor am I trying to discredit it.
Was talking of the way it has been delivered and blindly accepted as fact as a whole, as though it is immutable, inclusive and without holes or flaws - which it isnt and was never put forth as.
In a way your kind of making my point for me. Some people are blindly religious and wont hear anything to challenge their doctrine - Many people have similar feelings towards the theory of evolution being challenged.
Let me put it this way and I'll be done with it:
Origin of species was published 150 years ago. As a species we have had countless belief systems surrounding our origin since the dawn of time based on religion/belief. Is Darwins theory of evolution going to be the final theory that we as a species explore/accept? Very very doubtful. It is our best guess with the information that we have at hand, Origin was not published as a complete or inclusive theory. Darwin himself openly stated it was potentially theoretical and that imagination was needed. Like most people, I like to think for myself. I dont hear the word evoloution and automatically associate it with fact or science as has become the norm. Just as I dont when I hear the word creationism. But it (evolution) obviously holds a lot more water than creationism, I never said otherwise.
EDIT: Sorry Jonjo the above was a reply to your original post.
But what about blind faith in evolution?
Lets make that rhetorical
I dont believe that being religious makes a person lean towards creationalism any more than being an athiest means you have to be an evolutionist. Seem to be more matters concerning intellect and spirituality. I am happy to blend the two theories.