In googling around, I came across this book, "From Science to God, the Mystery of Consciousness and the Meaning of Light", by Peter Russell.

Peter Russell has a website, www.peterrussell.com. I don't know how to do links, but if you click "site index" on the website Home Page, there's a list of Peter Russell articles. So far I've read, "A New Superparadigm" and "The Evolution of Consiousness". I thought both were interesting and bring up all kinds of possibilities regarding the relationship between science and god.

Jose, I commented on the Larson/Witham survey in my post before this one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2007 11:51PM by suncloud.

I think I should reiterate the following important distinction:

The God Delusion, as well as all my ensuing arguments on the incompatibility of "god" and science, is all about a "theistic God", which as I've defined previously, is one that regularly intervenes in the world through miracles, prayer, etc.. This is the god of the major religions, including the Abrahamic faiths. There are many other types of gods out there, which are not so distinctly incompatible with science and reason. So all the other possibilities you mention which don't include theistic gods are a lot more reasonable, according to the God Delusion, and also in my opinion.

This is a good summary of what I found the book to be:

"At last, Richard Dawkins, one of the best nonfiction writers alive today, has assembled his thoughts on religion into a characteristically elegant book. The God Delusion puts the lie to the lazy and soothing platitudes that people embrace to escape the responsibility of thinking seriously about religious belief. If you think that science is just another religion, that religion is about our higher values, or that scientists are just as dogmatic as believers, then read this book, and see if you can counter Dawkins’ arguments—they are passionately stated, and poetically expressed, but are rooted in reason and evidence."

Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor, Harvard University, author of The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, and The Blank Slate

As for the Einstein quote, I've already mentioned before that Einstein did not beleive in a theistic god, but rather in a "god" similar to that of Spinoza, which is essentially a deep respect of the mystery and beauty of Nature. His quotes should be interpreted in that context, so when he says that he wants to "know the mind of God", he is essentially saying that he would like to know the deep secrets of Nature at the most fundamental level.

Cheers,
J

Just a thought... does convincing another of ones feelings/understanding give greater personal understanding or make it more correct ?
I'm not aiming this at anyone, I just think its worth considering when discussing metaphysical concepts.

The universal power created evolution. We as humans are the pinnacle of said evolution and are intended to be co-creators with the universal power.

End of story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2008 07:13AM by learningtofly.

I wish to give several observations in defense of the fact that the creation around us reveals both design and intelligence. First, I would have the readers consider the "simple" cell. Even the most simple cell is comoparable to a metropolitan city in all of its workings, transportation of molecules, replication, power production, etc. By way of analogy, consider what would happen if all the traffic lights in New York city ceased to function. No doubt the streets would be in utter chaos with one big traffic jam. Such too would be the case in the cell if the intellgent design of it ceased to operate. There would be no efficient transportation both inside and out of the cell, nor could all of the different components of the cell work in cohesion. Secondly, I would have you observe that this is only one cell. The human body is a complex collection of trillions of cells, all of them being their own unique factories or cities if you like. To say that this evolved by random chance through natural evolution certainly baffles me.
To successfully examine any idea, doctrine, thesis, etc., it is necessary to examine the foundation upon which it is built. The underlying foundation of the theory of evolution is the idea of "order out of chaos." That is to say, that order can be generated out of chaos without any input of something orderly. This idea is fundamentally flawed. Nature testifies that everything reproduces after its kind. Fig trees yield figs, strawberries yield strawberries, hate begets hate, etc. Following the obervable phenomenon in nature, one must naturally conclude that chaos does not produce order, but rather chaos produces further chaos.
A person might contend that the production of a snowflake from water is evidence of order out of chaos, but this proposition is fundamentally flawed as well. The unfounded assumption in this is that water is "disorderly" whereas the snowflake is "orderly." Again, this assumption is unfounded because the water molecule itself displays complex order itself and amazing properties. The order of the water molecule simply takes on an observable change in appearance but not in essence.
Lastly, I wish to give a few brief examples of evolutions shortcomings. First, the only observablle, demonstrable, repeatable evidence of evolution is micro-evolution. There is now evidence for stellar evolution, cosmic evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution, etc. Secondly, a major supporting doctrine for the millions of years of evolution is the "geologic column." If each layer of the geologic column represents tens of thousands of years, how does it explain fossilized trees running upside down through over ten feet of these layers. This could not be possible if each layer was formed thousands of years apart.
Next, big bang theory teaches that all matter was concentrated in a small space, and that this matter began to spin faster and faster until it broke apart into all the matter we see (question: where did the original matter come from?). There is a problem with this. There is a law in science called: "The Law of Angular Momentum." Very simply, this law states that when matter is spinning, and this matter breaks apart, each individual component will rotate in the same direction as the original object. [i.e. if a person were slung off a merry-go-round, they would be hurled spinning around in the same direction as the merry-go-round]. The problem for big bang theory is that some of the planets and moons in our solar system are spinning backwards in relation to other planets. How does this happen in light of natural evolution? How does a massive planet's rotation get reversed? Lastly, how does evolution explain the evolution of male and female from a one-celled organism replicating by simple-cell division? Male and female is another evidence of intelligence design, in which mankind and all creation shows forth the splendour of an intelligent creator. Much more could be said, but such will suffice. Happy New Year

Correction:

I meant to write: "There is no evidence for stellar evolution, cosmic evolution, organic evolution, etc."

Jose, you got me reading all about Spinoza. Interesting fella! I definitely agree with you on your thoughts about a "theistic god", and with you and Richard Dawkins that other possibilities for god may be more reasonable in light of what we know from science.

Maybe each religion and philosophy has elements of truth to it, even theism. I think it's fine whenever a person's beliefs help them to be more compassionate and to do good things, but not so fine when their beliefs lead to hurtful thinking or behavior.

Interesting stuff from cosbynian. Maybe there are as many "religions" and/or philosophies in the world as there are people.

I like yoga philosophy. Yoga: the bond. It's a learning system with the purpose of bringing one closer in touch with god consciousness through self-control, starting with the most gross (the body, through postures) to the most subtle (the mind and spirit through meditation). Along the way, the yogi must learn the self discipline to act ethically in their relationship towards others, and must follow a specific code of ethics. It's a philosophy rather than a religion. I'm not very far along the way, but I like it. It takes a lot of work, and right now I'm kind of lazy. Hope to move on soon.

Happy New Year everyone!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2008 06:18PM by suncloud.

Here is some more information regarding Einstein and his religious views. He explicitly rejects the notion that he believes in a personal god of the Judeo-Christian (Abrahamic) type. His reasons and reflections are quite interesting.

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[50] In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[51]

Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[52][53]

By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."[54] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[55] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)

From [en.wikipedia.org]

Cheers,
J

Hey suncloud, Spinoza is quite an interesting character, he espoused the idea of monism, which in essence regards the body and mind as part of a whole, rather than as separate and different entities. It is similar to the non-dualism which Bryan commented on in a different thread, but opposed to dualism which is espoused by the major religions, and which seems to be almost innate in human beings, which view the world through their own eyes, and therefore think there is "something in there" or "in themselves", separate from their bodies. This dualism is partly the basis for the idea of a "soul" or "spirit" as separate from our bodies. These ideas also have a biological origin, and Dawkins expands on this in his book, which I would recommend as it is very informative.

Good luck on the yoga, that's the kind of thing I need to do to improve my flexibility a bit!

Cheers,
J





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2008 09:52PM by Jose.

Hey lightform,

Just a thought... does convincing another of ones feelings/understanding give greater personal understanding or make it more correct ?

The short answer is yes/no. I think discussing things, anything under the sun, can only be a good thing and lead to a greater understanding from both parties. I believe discussion always entails a raising of awareness in some facet of argument. I don't see much point in the academic exercise of trying to convince someone of anything, rather it is the exercise of sharing knowledge and learning which should prove fruitful. so of course, convincing anyone of anything does not in itself imply the correctness of the argument.

As a further example of raising awareness, one which is stressed in The God Delusion, and which with I agree quite wholeheartedly, is the labeling of children by religious people and society at large:

Dawkins wants people to cringe every time somebody speaks of a “Muslim child” or a “Catholic child”, wondering how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins observes that no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child"

I agree with the view that it should be entirely objectionable to label a child in this way, even though it pervades much of modern society. In the same way that society changed its discourse in relation to sexism and racism, we also need to become aware of expressions and patterns of thought such as the one above which are quite deeply ingrained in society.

Cheers,
J

Suncloud,
There were a few interesting movies I watched this week on a christian channel. I don't normally watch anything on that, but something caught my attention when I was flipping through the stations.

They presented a few peoples experience while being clinically dead or near death. They got to view hell and paradise for a brief period. Its interesting how fundementalist christians are getting quite a bit more sophisticated about presenting ideas, I guess like everyone. It made me think about the horrible possibilities of being torchured for eternity. The way it was presented it seemed somewhat plausible, still there was something bizarre about it that seemed really childish, like it was a cartoon, a fable. The results from this was that I have been thinking about it, almost consumed about it, and its made me feel VERY, VERY ungrounded. Not especially safe about just being me. The threat factor makes me think that its not real. Why does anyone need to have a threat to believe something?

Another movie was about UFO'S. Apparently fundementalist christians feel that ufos are demonic activity. Making the claim that a lot of people who witness UFOS are obscessed with the occult, paranormal or eastern religions, or someone close to them are interested in it, say a spouse, brother, sister or friend. The explanation was that the devil and the angels are trying to set up an alternative explanation for the rapture which is about to happen. Thus, people will be fooled into thinking that aliens took these people away. Evolution was tied in as aliens are supposed to have said they are preparing humans for the next stage of evolution. Again, this movie made me feel very, very ungrounded and unsafe. Which is a strange sensation given that is supposed to sell fundementalist christianity. Maybe its not so strange given the 'fear factor'.

The last movie that I watched was about a 'peep' stone that made sounds which could not be recorded. That was one of the more bizarre films. It was a group of researchers trying to understand how this small stone could reproduce these sounds. It was quite weird and scary. Maybe these should be called "christian Fear factor"!!!!

Hi Mislu,

I think what you saw is an unfortunate example of how religions can sometimes be used in a hurtful way. It's probably not always intentional; sometimes people just believe a certain way. But on the other hand, TV religion can be a pretty profitable business. And somehow, the "Fear Factor" works on a lot of people. Sorry it made you feel ungrounded, but good for you for thinking it's not real.

The whole concept of hell and the devil seems totally ridiculous to me. I don't know if reincarnation exists, but it makes a lot more sense than heaven and hell. Reincarnation is more compassionate, and more productive too if a person is able to improve themselves each time around. Who knows though?

Interestingly, there was great controversy over reincarnation in early Christianity. Christian mystics believed in restoring the soul to union with god, restoration being the destination of a path of reincarnation. The concept was not officially rejected by the Christian church until the Roman Emperor Justinian convened the Fifth General Council in 553, a council that the pope refused to attend. This is not just conspiracy theory stuff. My son learned this in college when he was studying for his masters degree in world religion. (For more info, google "Constantinople, Christianity, reincarnation".)

No offense intended to any fundamentalist Christians out there, but I really feel certain there's no hell, no devils riding around in UFOs, and if there are any stones making noises that can't be recorded, I don't believe they have any spiritual significance.

I think it's good to avoid having fear of the unknown. Fear of the unknown can be exploited by people who wish to control others, for whatever reason.

On a more positive note, there's plenty of wonder and beauty in life. Fear is darkness. Why look for answers in the dark, where you can't see them anyway? I say throw those fears into the cosmos, smile, and take a nice deep breath!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2008 09:34AM by suncloud.

cosbynian

i appreciate the points that you elucidated

i too have always thought that the "microevolution" theory was itself
1) EXTREMELY obvious... just look at the results in a petri dish overnight and there you go.... but some people will twist and strain the evidence in micro evolution and extend that to macro evolution... that is when it gets a LOT more blurry.. granted there are "vestigial" mysteries etc. ... there has never been a CLEAR cut path where you see A to B to C to D to end result in macro evolution... only tinges.. spurts, and happenstance.. compelling but VERY FAR from complete

in micro evolution you actually can see the "changes" e.g. "evolution" from how a certain bacteria's DNA goes from stage A to stage B (it has changed. thus evolution)

I like your analogy of the metropolitan city and the unbelievable intricacy and choreography of trillions of cells doing their work every day, all day 365 days of the year and no I also do not think it is just mere "coincidence" happening every single moment of our lives.. certainly something is underlying it

that is when religion tries to step in to explain the core beneath science and where all these wars are generated

so... so far.. i just know that "something is afoot"
but whatever is afoot is stunningly spectacular being able to constantly couple the micro workings such as our organelles to the macro workings like our body organs to the cosmic workings... our planet, cosmos etc.

life is singularly intricately and breathtakingly ordered
is it a wonder why so many scientists become increasingly spiritual
the more they delve into the mystery?

as far as what u said about water and snowflakes
and how it isn't just snowflakes that have exquisite order

well... yes, water has order too but probably not as beautiful
the Oxygen in the water will always be sp3 hybridized with the two hydrogens that it is attached to forming a "bent" arrangement ( not talking about the tetrahedral orbital shape just the geometric shape of the molecules that it is attached to)

it is consistent in that and without this shape and without the hydrogen bonding properties ( thus TWO things are in order here... geometry and hydrogen bonding ( and probably a lot more but these are the only two that comes to mind)

a snowflake would look a lot different

it is order WITHIN order as you pointed out

and not order out of chaos

i too have always found the evolutionary soup theory as sorely lacking
even if they did make urea in the lab

big deal?

it just means that organic compounds can be made in the lab
it never meant that we evolved from the soup

micro evolution i can believe in

macro evolution ... why do scientists insist that it is the way
when there are so many glaring gaping holes?

i don't get it

is having "clues" ( such as vestigial organs, DNA similarities etc) the same as getting the ENTIRE PICURE correct?

no

until they can show a path where ALL the steps are proven
...

they too are going off faith
nothing wrong with that
except to say they must call a spade a spade

its two groups ( or more)
with two FAITHS

not one group that has faith in the invisible
and the other group that simply has no faith in the invisible ( and unknown)

they BOTH do

So good La V!

I agree that like you say, whatever is afoot is stunningly spectacular, and life is intricately and breathtakingly ordered.

I think it certainly deserves a little faith in something wonderful, even something unknown - god or not, science or not.

La V, something that is also interesting to consider is the evidence of Radio halos from Dr. Robert Gentry. The radioactive decay of Polonium is a very short event. According to evolution theory, the molten granite took millions of years for it to cool down, harden and solidify. However, these halos are observable and permanently preserved within the granite. This could not be possible if the granite took millions of years to form. A simple analogy they give is this. Picture Alka-Seltzer dropped in a glass of water. For a minute or so you will see the bubbling effect going off in the water however very shortly it will cease. If you where somehow able to instantaneously freeze that glass of water, you would see the bubbles perfectly preserved within the water. This, in essence, is what the polonium halos reveal within the granite. The halos evidence the fact that the granite solidified very quickly rather than the evolutionary hypothesis. Check it out on [www.halos.com]

i will check it out cosbynian
i thank you sincerely

Suncloud,
Yes, Its a good call that christian t.v. is sensationalized for the sell. I suppose its the graphic descriptions and depictions that attract attention and keep people interested. But whom? I watched three shows, and that was enough. It doesn't provide much guidence as far as I am concerned. It might actually distract. I also understand that where there is fear, there is no love. I don't know where I heard that, but it sounds vaguely biblical.

I think its a superstition. There are personal demons, devil and hells and torments that people experience for 'eternity'. I think that can be called neurosis, which continually reappear in a persons life as long as its not resolved, which can feel like an eternity. The burning sensation comes from the guilt people have in their conscious about acts in the past which cannot be changed. Thats a possibility, I don't know christian scriptures well enough. But its strange how some things are 'literal' and somethings are symbolic, metaphores etc...its just that different organizations or individuals change which ones are which, to suit their needs.

I don't know much about reincarnation, but I know alot of people believe its true. Thats not without its own set of superstitions, for instance I have heard in some countries the disabled are treated with stigma. Its felt that people are being punished for wrong actions in past lives. So, those people not only have to deal with the difficulty of being disabled, and not helped, but then there is the stigma which makes life even more difficult. So I have heard. Then there is the caste system, which westerners see as being extremely superstitious and abusive. But somehow people who believe in it don't seem to see it that way.

I tried to modify my last posting, but had problems. So, I am going to paste in the changes...so its largely a duplicate.

Suncloud,
Yes, Its a good call that christian t.v. is sensationalized for the sell. I suppose its the graphic descriptions and depictions that attract attention and keep people interested. But whom? I watched three shows, and that was enough. It doesn't provide much guidence as far as I am concerned. It might actually distract. I also understand that where there is fear, there is no love. I don't know where I heard that, but it sounds vaguely biblical.

About distraction, the shows actually got me curious about occult practices, and demonic activity etc...Its stated purpose is to warn you about such things, but reading between the lines, it seemed to say, "These things are really, really mysterious, exciting and interesting". Doing a little searching, I found this webpage.
[www.satansheaven.com]

The description of kinds of divination is interesting, and weird. Some of them sound like scientific inquiry during its infancy period, before they became true sciences without the superstition. Or perhaps they were always true sciences, but others within the monotheistic faiths gave them a negative name.

[www.satansheaven.com]

"times for magic were certainly changing during Renaissance. Magic saw a resurgence in hermeticism and Neo-Platonic varieties of ceremonial magic. The Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, on the other hand, saw the rise of science. Chemistry was substituting alchemy, astronomy was slowly dethroning the Ptolemaic theory of the universe assumed by astrology."
[www.funeralwisdom.com]

"there was seven arts of magic prohibited by canon law during the period of Renaissance: necromancy, geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, chiromancy, spatulamancy."



I think its a superstition. There are personal demons, devil and hells and torments that people experience for 'eternity'. I think that can be called neurosis, which continually reappear in a persons life as long as its not resolved, which can feel like an eternity. The burning sensation comes from the guilt people have in their conscious about acts in the past which cannot be changed. Thats a possibility, I don't know christian scriptures well enough. But its strange how some things are 'literal' and somethings are symbolic, metaphores etc...its just that different organizations or individuals change which ones are which, to suit their needs.

There is one example of a pact with the devil. A careful reading makes it clear that this person(s)really covered alot of ground to maximize their benefit from such pact. It almost reads more like a joke, because it elaborates many clauses over again which would never be a problem given earlier clauses. It also seems more like its directed towards other people, not a supernatural power. Anoter possibility is somehow activating their own personal power?
[www.satansheaven.com]



I don't know much about reincarnation, but I know alot of people believe its true. Thats not without its own set of superstitions, for instance I have heard in some countries the disabled are treated with stigma. Its felt that people are being punished for wrong actions in past lives. So, those people not only have to deal with the difficulty of being disabled, and not helped, but then there is the stigma which makes life even more difficult. So I have heard. Then there is the caste system, which westerners see as being extremely superstitious and abusive. But somehow people who believe in it don't seem to see it that way.

Hey cosbynian,

In my opinion you seem to be deeply confused about a wide variety of scientific issues, I shall attempt to address some of them in the following. Before I do that, I would just like to address the fallacious argument used by some people when they provide "evidence" for intelligent design/creationism. Essentially, they argue that "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence", and this is a logical fallacy. It is simply not true. For example: if every single species does not have a complete fossilized record showing evolution through intermediary steps, that does not mean that this gap in our evidence is indicating an intelligent design/creationism scenario. It simply means that we don't have a 100% reconstruction of events, in that we don't have 100% frame-by-frame fossil capture of evolution in motion. That is all. The analogy would be that in a criminal case, you don't need a frame-by-frame video capture of the perpetrator committing the crime to convict someone, but rather a sufficient amount of evidence to lay the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, in the vast majority of cases there is no frame-by-frame video of this kind. The same goes for the evidence supporting all physical theories. That is why one can never "prove" a theory, just falsify it. I hope you understand this point as it is quite important. And Darwinian evolution is eminently falsifiable, all you have to do is find rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian, and you're done. So far, it has stood up to scrutiny very well indeed.
Secondly, you seem confused about the driving force of evolution.

Quote

Even the most simple cell is comoparable to a metropolitan city in all of its workings, transportation of molecules, replication, power production, etc. By way of analogy, consider what would happen if all the traffic lights in New York city ceased to function. No doubt the streets would be in utter chaos with one big traffic jam. Such too would be the case in the cell if the intellgent design of it ceased to operate. There would be no efficient transportation both inside and out of the cell, nor could all of the different components of the cell work in cohesion. Secondly, I would have you observe that this is only one cell. The human body is a complex collection of trillions of cells, all of them being their own unique factories or cities if you like. To say that this evolved by random chance through natural evolution certainly baffles me.

(My bold)

No one is claiming things evolved through random chance. Indeed, if they did you would be right in saying that it would be exceedingly unlikely for something as complicated as a cell to emerge. However, in Darwinian evolution the driving force is not chance but rather natural selection, and I encourage to to read the following article which explains it in depth [en.wikipedia.org] In summary: Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

There is also,

genetic drift In population genetics, genetic drift (or more precisely allelic drift) is the evolutionary process of change in the allele frequencies (or gene frequencies) of a population from one generation to the next due to the phenomena of probability in which purely chance events determine which alleles (variants of a gene) within a reproductive population will be carried forward while others disappear.

and gene flow In population genetics, gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another.
Migration into or out of a population may be responsible for a marked change in allele frequencies (the proportion of members carrying a particular variant of a gene). Immigration may also result in the addition of new genetic variants to the established gene pool of a particular species or population.
There are a number of factors that affect the rate of gene flow between different populations. One of the most significant factors is mobility, as greater mobility of an individual tends to give it greater migratory potential. Animals tend to be more mobile than plants, although pollen and seeds may be carried great distances by animals or wind.
Maintained gene flow between two populations can also lead to a combination of the two gene pools, reducing the genetic variation between the two groups. It is for this reason that gene flow strongly acts against speciation, by recombining the gene pools of the groups, and thus, repairing the developing differences in genetic variation that would have led to full speciation and creation of daughter species.

As for the origin of life and therefore the first cells/DNA and so on, that is a scientific question that has not yet been resolved fully, although there are many avenues of inquiry. For an interesting overview of the progress made see [en.wikipedia.org] and references therein. Also, there was recently this paper [www.physorg.com] which proposes a novel approach to the origin of life in mica sheets, which I find paticularly interesting and more plausible than other suggestions.

The point of all this, though, is to show that even if there is no completely convincing explanation for the origin of life, there are many roads of scientific inquiry which, without a reasonable doubt, will yield a resolution at some stage. Just like when humans fist looked at the cosmos and thought we would never understand the origin of the sun/stars, and so on, well, after a few centuries of scientific inquiry, now we understand them fairly well. Once we take a centuries or even millennia perspective of scientific progress in the understanding of Nature, we can clearly see that the theistic belief system and their sacred texts are completely wrong in almost all respects, and one should conclude that they deserve little to no credibility.

Quote

The underlying foundation of the theory of evolution is the idea of "order out of chaos." That is to say, that order can be generated out of chaos without any input of something orderly. This idea is fundamentally flawed.

No, actually you have this completely wrong. Darwinian evolution (as well as the cellular automata concept) are the only known natural mechanisms that create complexity from relative simplicity. The hard step is to generate complexity from simplicity, an ordered simple system would not lead to life, you need complexity for that.

Quote

Lastly, I wish to give a few brief examples of evolutions shortcomings. First, the only observablle, demonstrable, repeatable evidence of evolution is micro-evolution.

Again, absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence. and your second statement is just wrong, as you can see these examples of macro-evolution [en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

There is now evidence for stellar evolution, cosmic evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution, etc.

The "evolution" of stars and the cosmos has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, you are mixing up the terms here. The "evolution of a star" just refers to it's typical lifetime change, as it is formed, burns it's fuel, and finally dies. See for example [en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Secondly, a major supporting doctrine for the millions of years of evolution is the "geologic column." If each layer of the geologic column represents tens of thousands of years, how does it explain fossilized trees running upside down through over ten feet of these layers. This could not be possible if each layer was formed thousands of years apart.

Wrong again, the geologic column is supported by evidence from physics that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, see for example [www.talkorigins.org] and here [en.wikipedia.org] . These pieces of evidence are all independent of each other, and would easily serve to refute Darwinian evolution. Yet they don't, they support the theory very well.

Quote

Next, big bang theory teaches that all matter was concentrated in a small space, and that this matter began to spin faster and faster until it broke apart into all the matter we see (question: where did the original matter come from?).

The theory of the Big Bang is nothing like you have just described, see [en.wikipedia.org] .

Quote

There is a problem with this. There is a law in science called: "The Law of Angular Momentum." Very simply, this law states that when matter is spinning, and this matter breaks apart, each individual component will rotate in the same direction as the original object. [i.e. if a person were slung off a merry-go-round, they would be hurled spinning around in the same direction as the merry-go-round]. The problem for big bang theory is that some of the planets and moons in our solar system are spinning backwards in relation to other planets. How does this happen in light of natural evolution? How does a massive planet's rotation get reversed?

Here you seem to be confusing the origin of the solar system with the Big Bang? As well as somehow connecting this to evolution, which it has nothing to do with whatsoever. The origin of the solar system and the orbits of the planets is another scientific problem that is not yet fully resolved, like countless others, but you can read about more plausible scenarios here [en.wikipedia.org] There is no reason to invoke a theistic god to deal with any scientific problems, that should be a lesson that we can learn from the centuries of scientific enterprise.

Quote

? Lastly, how does evolution explain the evolution of male and female from a one-celled organism replicating by simple-cell division? Male and female is another evidence of intelligence design, in which mankind and all creation shows forth the splendour of an intelligent creator

Here is some information on your question [www.talkorigins.org]

If you spend a few days reading around in [en.wikipedia.org] and here [www.talkorigins.org] (as well as [evolution.berkeley.edu] ) you will find many more interesting and illuminating aspects of modern evolutionary biology, and how it has enlightened us and changed the way we view the world forever.

Cheers,
J

In regards to some of the "scienctific" explanations, I will research these. However, I do strongly believe that beginning at the foundations (such as the origin of life and a purely natural phenomenon from non-life to life) are vastly more important instead of working backwards from adaptations, variations, etc. It seems from the above quote that "natural selection" is simply the deification of nature, that it alone, apart from the creator, possesses the driving force to lead to greater complexity, more advanced life, etc. I believe that "nature," in the sense of the easier route, without external input from something orderly, is best explained by the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, which states that everything tends towards disorder.

Simply watch the law in action in your house, with your car, with everything you own. If you don't make special effort to mitigate this "law," things will break down, fall apart, and destruct. In regards to the deification of nature, this is certainly what the bible describes, though I know there are many opposed to the bible (which is partly understandable because of the abuse of it). The apostle Paul writes:
Rom 1:21-23

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
KJV

The darkening of man's mind is the rapid increase of unsound thinking. Yet, we find that man would think he is evolving and becoming more wise when in fact he is becoming more of a fool. It is here, that man does not want to retain the idea of a creator in His thinking, that they change the glory of the creator into an image and start worshipping the creation rather than the creator.
To me, "natural selection" is a just a souped up, scientific sounding deification of nature, which has long been worshipped under many different forms: Gaia, Mother Earth, etc.

For me, the greatest man who ever lived, Yahshua the Messiah (i.e. Jesus Christ), believed in a Creator and He gave us an unparalleled life to emulate and to follow. According to the clear teachings of the scriptrues, He worked in collaboration with His Father in the creation of the world. Several scripture references are:

John 1:1-14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Notice "all things were made by Him..." Here, Messiah is defined as the "Word" or the Greek "Logos" of God which is from whence we derive our English word logic. He is defined as the wisdom, logic and rationality of the Creator. He was the true bible walking and living among men, all the grand and lofty principles of the Creator lived out in a life unsullied from sin and selfishness.

Another:
Eph 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Here we clearly find that all things were created by Jesus Christ, in conjunction with His Father.

And lastly, Genesis:
Gen 1:26-27
And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Notice that God, Hebrew word Elohim (which is a plural word) says let "US" make man in our image, clearly showing that there was more than one part involved.

There are some fascinating new insights that I have received which I will not speak at length here, however there is much in scripture to show that before His incarnation, Messiah represents the "Feminine" principle with the Father representing the "Masculine" principle and that these worked together in tandem to created the world.

1st proof:
In Genesis above, man is made in "Our" image in reference to God or Elohim. Then that image is said to be Male and Female. If man is created in the image of God, what does that tell you above them: they both represent the "masculine" and "feminine" principles [I ask people to think more in principle rather than literal gender here]. Masculine represents giving, feminine receiving, Masculine justice, feminine mercy.

2nd proof:
Prov 9:1
Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
KJV

Here, "wisdom" is spoken of in the feminine, and is so all throughout the proverbs. Messiah is clearly called the "logos," "Word," or "wisdom" of God throughout the scriptures:

1 Cor 1:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
KJV

1 Cor 1:30

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
KJV

In these two passages, Christ is called the "wisdom of God" which again is spoken of as feminine in Proverbs 9:1 and Proverbs 8

Third Proof:
Messiah's own words:

Matt 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
KJV

Here, Messiah likens Himself to a hen, which is female. Again, think more abstractly in principle rather than sexual parts.

Christ came to reveal the mercy, compassion and love of His Father that was totally misunderstood in the Old Testament. He says:
John 17:25-26
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Here, a major facet of Messiah's mission was to reveal the wonderful character and nature of our heavenly Father that has been totally discredited and maligned throughout the ages. He says: O righteous Father the world HAS NOT KNOWN YOU! But I have, says He, and his life is the best way to understand and "see" that life of the Father.

This is tremendously important, and the reason why I bring up the subject of Messiah representing the "feminine" aspect of the ETERNAL is because our world is a reflection and an outworking of the original controversy that began with Lucifer. The same tactics that he used to deceive the angels is that which he uses on man: divide and conquer. He separated Eve from Adam, separating the feminine and masculine and then uses the two against each other.

Much more could be said but I will end off writing here, because I will start another thread on this subject of Messiah's revelation of the Character of Yahweh, which is the creator's name in Hebrew which means the ETERNAL ONE.

I'm sure this will get bashed as "unscientific," "fantasy," and the like, but as for me, the life of Messiah is that most worthy of emulation, the most sublime and selfless life the world has seen. He was man's Creator, who was ever one with the Father. He came here to reveal the Father and His love to us, but we hid as it were our faces from Him, despised Him, rejected Him and crucified Him. This is the condemnation of man, to show US what mess WE ARE IN. All will in due time see that the Creator has been squeaky clean throughout time and that the tremendous difficulty has been to reach mankind in a soft, gentle way like an animal that is bruised, beaten, hurt, scared, lonely, etc.
Viva la Verdad

John 3:19-21
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
KJV

For Mislu:

Quote

I also understand that where there is fear, there is no love. I don't know where I heard that, but it sounds vaguely biblical.

Your intuition and remembrance is correct, the reference is 1 John which is a small book by the apostle John shortly before the book of Revelation:

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
KJV

It appears that Mislu has more understanding of the bible than do the evangelicals on the show that you mentioned. I do not speak this derogatively, as if to imply you know very little of the Bible. But any person that has studied the scriptures at least in a small degree finds that "fear" defined in the sense of being afraid and fearfulness, scared, etc., is consistently spoken of in the New Testament as anti-love and contrary to sound thinking. Messiah says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, meaning that we are not simply to take one verse to build our case (Matt 18:16). So consider a few additional references:

2 Tim 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
KJV

Here, we see that "fear" is spoken of as being the opposite and antithetical to love and that it is clearly presented as an "unsound mind" if a lack of fear represents a sound mind.
Another passage from I John is:

1 John 4:8

He who loves not knows not God; for God is love.

Lastly, I wish to state that just because I, or anybody else can quote the Bible, this in no wise is evidence that a person KNOWS the bible. True knowledge is factual information that is put into practice and lived. If a tribesman in Africa lives by sound principles, treats his neighbor fairly and equitably, is generous and kind yet has never heard of the Bible or "Jesus," etc. This individual KNOWS the bible whereas a person with a degree in theology who shows partiality and respect of persons, is unsympathetic to the poor and downtrodden, highminded and prideful, puts his own interest first, does not KNOW the Bible or Christ [ps just as the verse says, "He who loves KNOWS God and he who does not love KNOWS NOT God."]

Simply put, if you want to see who knows the Bible, look at their actions. Or as the beloved John puts it:

1 John 3:18-19
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth
KJV

Lastly, I sympathize with all of those who have been jaded against the Bible because of all the abuse surrounding it. However, I wish to state that I have studied the bible diligently for over ten years and have found nothing else in the world as intellectually stimulating and interesting as the scriptures are. [Note: I had four years of Nutrition classes at the University of Tennessee with a 3.99 GPA and got virtually nothing out of this whereas the Bible has richly rewarded me with many precious gems of knowledge and understanding]

So, remember, the Bible is a tool, and all tools can be used for good or for evil. I can use a sickle to reap a bountiful harvest of grain or I can use a sickle or machete to hack someone to pieces as is now being done in Kenya. The problem is not the sickle, but rather the evil use of it. The same principle holds true for the scriptues.

Mislu,

I think it's great that you're doing all this exploration. You are a wisdom seeker.

I agree that superstition has a lot to do with a lot of religions. And what's metaphorical for one person might be literal for another.

There are so many possibilities for what people choose to believe.

To me, the caste system is a Hindu societal superstition and, rather than being a spiritual tenet, it has more to do with an unfortunate human tendency of the elite to attempt to preserve the status quo.

Most scholars agree that a formal caste system was established during the Aryan migration into India. According to "History of the Caste System" (http//home.snu.edu): "The orginal caste system, Varna, of India came about when the Aryan-speaking nomadic groups migrated from the north to India about 1500 B.C..... Between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D., the...Law of Manu, was written. The Aryan priest-lawmakers created it,... putting their own priestly class at the head of this caste system with the title of earthly gods, or Brahmans (priests and teachers)."

Some Hindus believe in the caste system and some do not. According to Wikipedia, "There have been challenges to the caste system from the time of Buddha. Many Bhakti saints rejected the caste discriminations and accepted all castes, including untouchables, into their fold."

Since 1950, the caste system has been outlawed by the India Constitution, though it persists in the more rural areas.

The point I'm coming to is that one belief identified with a particular established religion (in this case, the caste system identified with Hinduism) doesn't necessarily have any relationship with other beliefs of that religion. Hinduism itself is extremely diverse, including many sects and differing beliefs.

There's not much of a relationship between a belief in the caste system and a belief in reincarnation. The belief that a person inherits their social status from their parents at the time of their birth (caste system) could even be interpreted as contrary to a belief in reincarnation, where one is born into the life that would provide the best fit for spiritual progress.

The belief that a congenital disability is karmic retribution or punishment from god for past sins, manifested through reincarnation, is to me, similar to a so-called "Christian" belief that god punishes sins by inflicting misery on people. A "Christian" example would be Jerry Falwell's statement that the attacks on 911 came about because the US had strayed from "its relationship with Christ on which it was founded", specifically naming gays, lesbians, the ACLU, pagans, abortionist, and feminists.

Some Hindus might believe this way, but so might some Christians, or Muslims, or even Buddhists, or whoever. It has more to do with a personal belief system than with any specific religion.

Also, the concept of reincarnation or heaven and hell or happy hunting grounds or any other belief about what happens after we die can be incidental to a personal perception of spirituality. IMO, that kind of belief is all conjecture, after all. Of all of them, I like reincarnation the best, but I don't feel I have the experience (or at least the memory of the experience) to say for sure.

If there's any kind of cause/effect relationship involved with spirituality, I tend to think it's more active first as a result of what we do, and then also as a result of our thoughts of love vs. thoughts of hate, rather than what religious rites we follow or who or what we worship or the incidental beliefs that come along with each religious creed. And I believe that the effect will come in a form of an opportunity to learn something, rather than a form of punishment.

I like the philosophy of yoga most of all. There are some specific beliefs associated with some of yoga, but above all, yoga is a system for self-improvement leading eventually all the way to liberation through perfect control of the modifications of the mind. People usually think of yoga as being "hatha yoga" - the asanas or postures. But the postures are only an optional part of the overall practice of yogic self-discipline.

In ancient times, the practice of Yoga was handed down through oral teachings. In case you're ever interested, one of the earliest written treatises on yoga is Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which contains the fundamental yogic beliefs.

The detail involved in the Yoga Sutras is fascinating.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2008 10:24PM by suncloud.

Mislu,

Sorry, I got kind of carried away on all of that, and I forgot to say that I think your thoughts on magic/superstition/religion are right on. It seems that the people who most like to "warn" us about the dangers of occult practices and demonic activities are the very same ones who seem most obsessed by such things.

Maybe the fear of a literal demon creates the a fear demon within themselves.

Kinda sad, but hopefully it's never permanent.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2008 10:59PM by suncloud.

Cosbynian,

I'm a little behind in reading all the above, but I just read your latest post addressed to Mislu, and I wanted to tell you that I thought it was very inspiring!

Even "love"ly!

From talkorigins.com

Quote

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

The proposition states that there were oceans of molecules from whence self-replicating organisms could arise from.
Question: Where did these oceans of molecules come from and what is the basis for stating such is the case?

Notice also the reference to the immense range of starting materials.

True, these are definitely mysteries, but as for me, an intelligent Creator forming matter and the elements the like makes more sense then matter coming from non-matter or matter always being here in some primitive form. Or the primordial soup theory.

I will research talkorigins more concerning big bang theory to see their explanation and rational for the origin of this immense pot of "soup."

Survey: As a "raw" soup, do you think the primordial soup would taste good?

cosbynian:

<<Survey: As a "raw" soup, do you think the primordial soup would taste good? >>

hmmmmmmmm.......

that's "food" for thought

suncloud and Cosbynian,
Thank you both for your commentaries. Very thoughtful explanation and responses. I don't know much about Hindu thought, and general christian thought. I was raised LDS so I am a little familiar with the bible as I read it quite often as a child. Trying to read that book as it reads without bias has proven quite difficult, but I started reading it again recently. Its alot easier to understand now that I have a copy of the Revised standard version. It may not be the best version, but its easier to understand than the KJV.

I don't know if I am ready for fellowship or commitment to any religious organization. I am still trying to figure out 'whats up'. I am suprised that perhaps almost everything I was raised to believe about that book may be wrong. I'm also reading traditional stories of the Inupiaq people, as that is my ancestry. Thats even more interesting, as prior to my recent reading, I had read only a number of stories.(perhaps about 30) Years ago I had read a book by someone from my mother village, but I don't remember most of that. So, I feel that I am almost completely ignorant about them, and unable to form an opinion about them.

Suprisingly, I also have an interest in learning about occultism. That is perhaps the strangest of all. I noticed nobody really commented about that much. perhaps that is best, those are the most bizarre things I have ever read about. That is perhaps also the most supersitious of all. I'm sure that other religions probably have some version of these things. Yes, its not worth thinking about.

Suncloud, thank you for your explanation about the caste system. I don't understand that very much, and probably should never say much about them. Divine retribution...what a topic. I don't quite see how 9/11 is retribution for Americas collective actions. Some people see any number of diseases, earthquakes, storms, drought, economic hardship etc as divine retribution. I don't know whats the thought behind it. I know that difficult circumstances can make one feel like a supernatural force is after you. I heard of someone who had family members die in 9/11, then moved to new orleans in time for katrina, then california in time for the fires. That would be quite spooky, errie and frightful.

Quote

Question: Where did these oceans of molecules come from and what is the basis for stating such is the case?

The short answer, the stars [en.wikipedia.org]

Some recent news,

Astronomers at the Carnegie Institution have found the first indications of highly complex organic molecules in the disk of red dust surrounding a distant star. The eight-million-year-old star, known as HR 4796A, is inferred to be in the late stages of planet formation, suggesting that the basic building blocks of life may be common in planetary systems.

Read more of this interesting article here [www.sciencedaily.com]

As you can see, and science will keep uncovering, these complex organic compounds are not exclusive to the earth, and life most likely isn't either.

Of course "intelligent designers" and "Abrahamic religious believers" will try to somehow bend over backwards in order to accommodate this fact, but the clear doctrine for christianity throughout the ages was that the earth and humans were the center of creation and life.

That will be shown in due course not to be the case. Through science and reason. Once more, another part of the religious doctrine will be shown to be false, another in the long list starting from Copernicus.

Cheers,
J

Jose, most references to the Bible you seem to always reference what churches and people have thought about the bible rather than quoting the bible itself. I could very easily find books or articles online of advocates of evolution that propose totally different ideas and probably some really wacky ideas of evolution.

My point is, there are not any scriptures that are even close to plainly stating the earth is the center of the universe or the like. The revelation of truth has been an ongoing process. You allow the evolution of evolutionary thought, will you allow the fact that understanding about our Creator and existence has been an unfolding process? Many scientist, just as is the case today, sought to use the Bible in an attempt to validate their theories. Still today, there are many scientists who seek to blend evolution and the bible and somehow show how they agree and validate one another.

Since many scientists and people use the Bible to validate evolution, does that mean the bible teaches evolution? Absolutely not, and I believe you will agree with that. In like manner, just because men used the bible to try to support their scientific theories, doesn't mean the Bible teaches what they advocate.

The oldest book of the Bible, which is the book of Job, which is over 4,000 years old, speaks of the earth being hung in space by nothing, expressing a high degree of knowledge of the cosmos for those times.

Job 26:7

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
KJV

They knew that the earth was floating in space 4,000 years ago. The book of Isaiah also speaks of the earth as being a "circle." There are also numerous references in the book of job to the stars such as pleiades and Orion and many other interesting scientific subjects.

In regards to other life forms, the Bible very plainly teaches that there is other life, with the most notable being angels. Again, just because the Catholic church or some other church has taught something, does not mean the bible teaches it. There is no reference in the slightest in the bible that man is the only life form in existence or that the earth is the only place where there is life. In fact, to believe in a creator that has existed from everlasting to everlasting, it is not rational to assume that the Creator sat and twiddled His thumbs for ceaseless ages before the creation of man.

Cosbynian,
You said the following:"the Bible very plainly teaches that there is other life, with the most notable being angels". Aren't those beings spiritual, not physical? they also do not reproduce.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matt. 22:30

That is unlike any lifeform science has described. Are there any other references to life on other worlds? Life that can be examined by scientists physically? (should they encounter it somehow)


Also
"There is no reference in the slightest in the bible that man is the only life form in existence or that the earth is the only place where there is life. In fact, to believe in a creator that has existed from everlasting to everlasting, it is not rational to assume that the Creator sat and twiddled His thumbs for ceaseless ages before the creation of man."

That statement does display a large degree of human centrism. "...man is the only life form in existence..." I'll let you clarify, did you mean the only creature with god like qualities?

The statement does seem to make sense from a human perspective. But who is to say that a creator didn't just enjoy his/her/its own existence for billions and billions of years. Its a human assumption to think that activity is what brings fullfillment. Although, I must admit that some people certainly enjoy 'doing nothing' but usually thats not good.