The promise of ‘eternal life’: Simplifying the unknown

While people seek comfort in religion for assurance that they simply wouldn’t blink out when they finally croak, religion for its part has dismally failed to deliver on its end of the deal and provide a convincing concept of eternal existence that the modern human mind could at least explore in the way that it does best.

eternal_lifeInstead of a coherent framework to simplify the unknown, we get an appeal to the mysteriousness of the unknown. Not satisfying to say the least. This appeal quite simply no longer cuts it in a modern society (which last I heard, Filipinos aspire to becoming).

So lets simplify the unknown, shall we?

Sounds oxymoronic, doesn’t it? But consider that most misunderstood “unknown” called infinity. A commentator recently admonished me:

benign, even the greatest REAL minds in all the history of mankind never pretend to speak, in authoritarian manner, in infinite terms. to define infinity is to limit it, which is absurd and contradictory.

He was of course referring to a brilliantly simple mathematical principle that underpins my challenge to the monopoly that organised religion enjoys over governance applied to how people regard what happens after they die. The concept is so simple that I can state it in one phrase (a complete sentence is not even needed):

The certainty of even the most unlikely given infinity

With the above phrase, you could actually go up to the Pope and a-la Crocodile Dundee, tell him flat out: “Dude, that’s not a god, this is a god”.

How certain is, say, a one-in-a-million guy like me, given infinity? Quite simply, very certain; in fact infinitely certain. I am not a unique individual across space (if space is infinite), and/or I am not a unique individual across time (if time is infinite). Because everything with a non-zero probability of happening will happen given infinity. That means there will be an infinite number of instances of moi all over space for all eternity.

How’s that for a humbling concept to regard?

Consider that even the god of the Roman Catholic Church Himself consistently fails to curtail the renowned misplaced kayabangan (arrogance) and self-importance of the typical Filipino. If we then regard a robust ability to evoke humility in a thinking people as a measure of godliness, then hands-down, my god wins.

We all want a simple god — not one that plunged (and continues to plunge) humanity into innumerable wars, and immeasurable atrocities, all the while accumulating untold volumes of painfully convoluted written reasoning to prop up a pained semblance of His coherence in our minds. In mediocre thinking is propagated our continued beholdenness to the absurd. And it is in all ironies the absurd that the most militant mediocrity is nourished.

So consider an old epiphany expressed by the venerable Jim Paredes where the term “militant mediocrity” arises:

This “militant mediocrity” is easily threatened by superior ideas and often rejects them outright. Because it is highly invested in being average, it mocks anything that wants to raise the bar. Don’t we often dismiss as pilosopo, a snob, or an elitist, anyone who questions or challenges us with new concepts and ideas and new ways of thinking?

Fortunately for those who see the elegant simplicity in the concepts of the infinite, there is no need to renounce your Catholic sensibilities. It’s quite simple:

Hell is empty, because God’s mercy is “infinite”.

If we are to believe in God’s infinite mercy, we can conclude that behind every sin, is an infinite range of possible avenues for clemency. So fear not for your souls.

print

81 Comments on “The promise of ‘eternal life’: Simplifying the unknown”

  1. This is not what the Bible (The Word of God) says. Please do yourself a favor and read the Bible (The Word of God) as this will illuminate your ignorance.

    Even if you have mocked God in so many blog posts, I am required by the teachings of Christ to still love you. I have not given up on you Benign0 that is why I continue to pray for the salvation of your soul.

    It is my mission in life to save as much people as possible from Eternal Damnation. Why can’t you see that God loves you so much that he does not want you to burn in hell forever.

    God bless.

    See you at Starbucks 🙂

    1. Lucky you weren’t born in one of those countries where your parents, school and society would have brought you up in the ‘wrong’ religion, or you’d now be just as devoted to that one and would definitely be joining us all in hell.

      No, I’m sure if you’d been born in a Muslim or Hindu community you would have independently found your way to the true LORD, because you have an open mind like that.

    2. Pastor Ernie,

      Who are you to claim to know God’s will and mind? You and thousands of your kind who operate on a sub-mammalian level of thinking are responsible for the inculcation of the wrong doctrines inside people’s head. That is arrogance under the guise of humility. stroking your back as if you’re doing a special errand for God. What do you mean you are ‘required’ to love people in compliance to Christ’s instruction? If you do this out of fear of a divine punishment, then you’re doing it all for the wrong reason.

      1. Absolutely correct, you just don’t do good deeds to people just because someone told you or order you to do it in hoping that someday you will be rewarded. Many Christians have that kind of thinking.

    3. is hanging out at Starbucks really important to Filipino’s? It is an establishment from the west and being a westerner, that is the last place on the planet that I would walk into for a cup of coffee. Just $7 for a cup of coffeee? GFYS, seriously.

  2. That’s the problem with many Christian groups, they’re actually preaching a lot of wrong doctrine. They’ll even claim that they’re the one true church. There are lots of these groups, teaching stuff like the Prosperity Gospel and The Secret. It’s better to research and stick to sound orthodox doctrine. Like in Hank Hanegraaf’s Equip.org.

    1. Tell that to the Cult of Manalo…err…Inglesia ni Kristo and you’ll be bombarded with statements how we can’t understand God’s Word because we are not his “chosen people.”

  3. If you ask me about the “infinite”….I simply say: “I don’t know…” Man cannot understand his life…so he invented God…I believe in a God of good order. But not a God, who is in his throne, watching anybody who misbehave…then, throw him into “Hell”, if he does not follow his teachings…

    Infinity is beyond our intellectual realm…our understanding is finite. So, it is absurd to talk about “eternal life”. I believe, we are all “energy”…
    as the Law of conservation of energy…”Energy cannot be created nor destroyed”…this is my view as a Technical Man on Eternal Life…

  4. Religions are belief systems. We make decisions or judgements based on these belief systems. So, part if not most of the failures and success in our lives are from these religions. If things are not going the way we want our life’s directions, then its time to re-evaluate these belief system, or just simply go shopping for the new religion. God will love us for helping ourselves.

    1. Why is religion the default position? You’re talking like it’s necessary to have one, and if you don’t like the current one, try a new one for size.

      Try going without and taking responsibility for your own life, it won’t make you into a worse person.

  5. Your understanding of eternal life is too narrow or maybe too wrong to even prove your opposing propositions. Man, read the BIBLE, the KJV or NIV not the roman catholic version.

  6. Know more about the second coming of God and the Judgment day if you really intend to know more about eternal life. Coz it does not happen right after a good man dies just like the way you understand it. hell is empty? hell is nowhere now until God will burn this world with all the wicked on it.

    God bless you man, I hope youll find truth in God.

    1. I’m a catholic but I’m not forcing atheists to believe in God just like what you’re doing you religiot. No wonder why religion makes wars.

  7. All this talk about god makes me want to get drunk and watch porn. Religion is such bullshit. …and I’m talking about any religion. In my 48 years on this planet I have learned to absolutely distrust religious people, like I distrust a person who does not drink alcohol. Religious people are the worst sinners. Sinning gives them a reason to go to church. In other news, Senator Revilla just returned from Israel where he looked for devine intervention.

  8. If religion failed to deliver a convincing proof of eternal existence, then what about science? scientists provide lots of absurd scientific theories that are hardly proven and anytime another existing theories can refute the previous and old theories. I bet it takes more FAITH to believe in the evolution, the eternal and amoral universe producing moral creatures, parallel universes, multiverse, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

    To expand the above related concepts in a simple related familiar example; given the structures and complexities of human body system and its organs e.g eye and brain, do you think we are just created by CHANCE? by what, universe and/or earth? it’s really something hard to tell and something we can hardly imagine.

    1. @jigs:

      To answer your question about CHANCE:

      “It was partly by chance, but it wasn’t random. Chemistry shows us that atoms and molecules are like puzzle pieces, fitting together a certain way. This means some molecules can have astonishing complexity, including the ability to replicate. It’s not like taking all the pieces of a clock, throwing them in a box, shaking it, and getting a working timepiece. The pieces themselves built up over time, attaining more complexity.”

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

      It seems that based on your comment you distrust science as well. I suppose you also think that vaccines contain mercury and cause autism?

      1. As a random person who is not solely devoted to either religion or science, I am entitled to ask and act as a third party by seeking the truth and weigh things, accordingly.

        You cite a good reference to answer some of the questions of religious people but your link gave not a convincing and irrefutable answers. He just cited the WAY TO EXPLAIN THINGS but still not certain if all of those were really the answers to explain the GREATEST AMBIGUITIES OF ALL TIME (you know what I mean), which resulted to modern human beings today still continue to experiment, fathom things and seek for truth. Thus, remains a puzzle, and by that both religion and science in those aspects portray the same in this concept; FAITH

        Faith, that what they studied, examined and concluded will lead them to the real truth for the things I discussed above.

        1. @jigs:

          So basically your argument boils down to: “Even if science presents facts, I choose to ignore them, because when it comes to things which science can’t explain, I’ll still rely on faith for interpretation.”

          The reasoning you offer is not sound.

        2. Those are not facts but theories. They see things merely like this and that and explain why they are happening and why they developed but really these are likely to be contested by other sort of cynical thinking. Examples of the things that baffled human beings until now are the origin of the universe and how it was form and how mankind came into being. Scientists presented the Big Bang and Evolution Theories but they still remain as theories while pious people argue that everything is made by God or other Supernatural Being to simplify their existence. Trouble is, in realistic approach, nobody can say directly that each is fact because there were no witnesses at the time when the universe started to emerge and shape (if it is not infinite), second, the process cannot be repeated again in the modern time because it was not designed and invented by human faculties.

          Moreover, scientist still perplex on how humans and animals came into existence and formed a life from this vast universe and planet, which do not possess emotions and intelligence (you think ALIENS created us?). Human body alone takes years to study before they could understand its functions and complexities. Even at modern times, engineers and scientist cannot develop a natural being other than through birth and nourishment by other natural being.

          So these things, really, remain hard to tell.

        3. @jigs: So ultimately you fall back on the “Were you there?” argument of Creationism, the one which states that an event is speculation just because no one was there to witness it.

          In the end it seems that you choose to revel in ignorance, be it in religion, philosophy or science. Hence, Get Real Philippines is definitely not for you. There’s a website out there that promotes “Messianic Kabbalah Light,” maybe you’ll enjoy it.

        4. You really misconstrued my statements. My point is that the mentioned theories remain to be open in contention and scientists did not promote those as “exclusive truths” but only used them as tools as ways to explain such described things. Thus, other scientists still have the chance to come up with another theories and diminish the basis of the other previous theories mentioned like big bang and evolution. That’s why I derided your previous post that those are not yet facts. Compare that to the Law of Gravity and laws of planetary motion among many other laws of sciences, which are already a closed cases that can be zero or minimally altered.

          Be that as they may, I’m not closing any possibilities of the eventuality that science may come up with a firm and definite stance and/or proof in scientific basis to explain the beginning of the universe and the creation of human beings in their unique realistic way as compared to the closed beliefs of religion that all natural objects are created by God alone. I just mentioned the cases which I find difficult for them to prove, and which you mentioned about the “arguments of the creationism”. That’s because of the great propensity of studies they have to exhaust, which they continually explore up to now especially the creation and beginning of mankind and its first ancestor. So far they put it as an unknown facts. Nonetheless, I leave it up to those experts.

          You must know that I’m just expressing my own opinions here and if you find something wrong with my arguments then I’m open to your corrections. So far, you haven’t presented to me a convincing grounds that I can be agreed upon.

        5. If I may interject, @ Jigs…a matter becomes ‘FACT’ or ‘LAW’ in the scientific realm when it is studied and a series of experiments lead to a ‘conclusion’.”what goes up must come down”,Led to the ‘Law of gravity”. ‘Socrates is a Man”,”All men are mortal”..”Socrates is a Mortal”….’Deductive reasoning’, as it is, is a way to determine ‘FACTS”, flawed as it may be…its the best modern man has come up with.
          In religious ‘THEORY’ as pointed out by soooo many ‘theologians’, the best they can come up with is…”PERHAPS” or even better/worse “MAYBE”…..so religion is a matter of ‘FAITH’ ,not scientific reasoning deduction. A Man either has it OR He doesn’t.
          There I said it.

    2. @jigs: As for your comment on FAITH for evolution over creationism:

      There are TONS of evidence to show that evolution is real, and it is happening NOW. The Universe is billions of years old, and natural selection is turning mosquitoes in London subways adaptable to hunting in the dark.

      COSMIC INFLATION (the first DIRECT EVIDENCE of the Big Bang):
      http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05

      CULEX PIPIENS MOSQUITO (evolution within the past 15 years):
      http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

    3. @Jigs:

      During the Dark Ages…the Roman Catholic Church was the absolute source of Truth…it taught people: the world is flat; the Sun revolves around the Earth…etc. Anybody contradicting the Church teaching was Burned on Stake…they were Tortured first in Religious Inquisition, before they were burned on stake…

      Science, Technology, advanced thoughts and Philosophy produced:
      the Steam Engine, Astronomy, Higher Mathematics, advanced thoughts and Philosophy, advances in Medicine, Computers, Electricity, Electronic, etc…

      What did religion produced? Wars, bigotry, Inquisitions, stagnant beliefs and Philosophy. Politicians and Tyrants used Religion to keep people ignorant, and them, in power. It produced also suicide bombers, the abuse of women…etc…Religious leaders got rich, while their believers remain poor…Observe the cult religions in our country..

      1. Perhaps true. I won’t argue about science contributions that have already proven very helpful to us nor tolerate those religious hypocrites.

        1. @ jigs

          Perhaps True?

          Those events are well recorded, and in some form or another, still happen to this day.

          Religion is a crutch that people use to walk in life. If there’s something “beyond” their understanding, why read up and think when you can sit back, enjoy a beer and proclaim “It’s God’s plan.”

          Btw, he wasn’t a good masterplanner lol

    4. I’m more convinced than ever that I couldn’t let my future kids be raised and educated in the Philippines, if this is the sort of ignorance that produces.

      1. You know the weird irony of it all? I was educated in a private conservative Catholic elementary/high school, and the curriculum endorsed Evolution in all it science subjects.

    5. @Jigs

      You have to really understand what you’re talking about. Evolution theory does not involve biogenesisor the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is just about mutation of alleles and appearance of branches of species previously non-existent. Whether life came through the intervention of a Divine Being or not is not the issue in Evolution. In fact, there are Christians or Catholics who support evolution and don’t see it as a threat to their religious beliefs. It doesn’t take Faith to believe in evolution since scientific evidence not only sustains it but strengthens or reinforces it.

      Also, the term “theory” in science means something different from how the word is being used in lay speech (which confuses fellas like yourself.) “Atomic theory,” “theory of gravity,” or “relativity theory” are all accepted and demonstrable. They are merely referred to as theories to distinguish them from what science refers to as “hypotheses.”

      1. Thank you for highlighting the ‘theory’ thing, Felipe. That’s always my (indoctrinated Filipina) girlfriend’s go-to defense: ‘it’s only called “theory” of evolution.’

        I’ve tried to make up for her closed-minded or deficient education by explaining it in patronising terms, and I’ve shown her TV shows on the subject (the remake of Cosmos currently airing on FOX in the US is very approachable – will that make it to the Philippines or would it be branded an affront to the LORD?) But still her idea about what evolution involves is just ‘monkey turned into human.’

        1. I believe that is also the uncompromising position of many creationists and evangelicals in the United States.

        2. @Dave

          Science has become more and more specialized. “Theory” is not only meant to distinguish it from a less mature status of a scientific claim called “hypothesis”, but also to distinguish it from “experiment”. Some physicists, for example. are keener on theoretical physics (like Einstein whom someone noted hasn’t stepped into an experimental lab before), while some physicists are keener on the experimental side (like Arthur Eddington, who, through his careful precise astronomical measurements, had demonstrated Einstein’s theory to be the correct one). Thus, there are those specializing in Theoretical Physics and others specializing in Experimental Physics. But, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Enrico Fermi for example is excellent at both.

      2. Felipe, perhaps you are the one who doesn’t know what he is talking about. I mentioned several times about the “theory of evolution” because evolutionists and science believe this where the life of human being and other creatures came from. From without a life to the creation of life. Here is their story;

        “In the beginning, about four billion years ago, the air is unfit to breathe. The young earth is without life. The sun beats down; storms lash the coasts; volcanoes pour hissing lava into the ocean’s waters. These natural jolts fuse simple molecules into more complex ones. Amino acids are formed, then interact with each other, and primitive protein is fashioned, perhaps as a worm-like molecule. Somehow the right molecules get together and the first living cell appears. This first living cell is the great ancestor of all plants and animals on earth, including man. From this first cell, all other forms of life evolved. This tiny first living cell is the father of us all!

        How did man come from this first cell? (Remember, there are more cells in the human body than there are people in the world.) Here’s the story: As time went on, this first cell developed into amoeba-like organisms and other primitive creatures that could survive in the ocean. After millions of years, these creatures evolved into fish. Some of these fish developed lungs so that they could survive outside of the water. Gradually they began to make their way onto land as the first amphibians. These amphibians then evolved into reptiles and the earth soon became populated with great dinosaurs. Some of these reptiles started to develop legs that could move around better, and these creatures became what we today would call mammals. Other reptiles developed wings and flew away to become birds.

        Where did man come from? One of these early mammals was known as a tree shrew. He was not much larger than a squirrel and in many ways looked like a squirrel. This creature lived in trees and gradually evolved into primitive monkeys and other apelike creatures. From these apelike creatures there evolved two major groups: 1) the great apes that we can see in zoos today, such as the gorilla, orangutan, gibbon and chimpanzee; 2) a creature who came down from the trees and who started walking upright (all monkeys and apes walk on all fours). He is now known as MAN!

        Our father (that first living cell) would have been very proud of us if he could have seen how far we have come these past millions of years!”

        However, creationist contested these all;

        “There are many problems with the theory of evolution. Here are just a few:

        1. It’s impossible for life to come from non-life. Evolutionists teach that the first living cell evolved from non-life. There is no evidence that this ever happened. Life does not just happen by chance. The reason we have life on this planet (animal life, plant life, human life) is because the Creator made it so. God created all plants and all living creatures.

        2. There is no evidence that amphibians evolved into reptiles. There is no evidence that reptiles evolved into mammals. There is no evidence that reptiles evolved into birds. The fossil record does not back up the claims of evolution. Evolutionists have a theory that has never been proven.

        3. There are variations found in the various “kinds” of animals which God created. For example, think of all the varieties of dogs. Think of all the varieties of cats. Think of all the varieties of humans. All humans came from the same parents (Adam and Eve) and yet we do not all look alike (different colored skin, different eyes, etc.). God has made the various kinds of animals with great genetic potential for variation. He did this for humans as well. However, one kind of animal does not change into another kind. Animals always reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11,21,25). Lizards do not change into birds. Reptiles do not evolve into lions. Dogs do not evolve into cats. Land mammals do not change into whales. Eels do not evolve into snakes. Apes do not evolve into humans.”

        Which is which? It’s up to the preference of individual which side he will favor of.

        I also reiterate that “theory” is not an absolute proof but just way of explaining things through gathered evidence but still remain subject to new findings which said theory can be rejected or modified. Again, you missed the point.

        1. Except the creationist argument there is invalid because of its obvious false premises. Take number 3 – God did not create the different breeds of cats and dogs, humans bred those traits over the last few thousands years (some much more recently than that). Who doesn’t know that?

          They also don’t seem to understand that the first humans came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and we all used to be black before adapting to the climate, no wonder they have trouble getting on to evolution which covers millions of years.

          Creationists are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn’t mean that opinion is equally valid or that it should have any kind of place in education, apart from religious education.

        2. @Jigs

          1. It’s impossible for life to come from non-life. Evolutionists teach that the first living cell evolved from non-life. There is no evidence that this ever happened. Life does not just happen by chance. The reason we have life on this planet (animal life, plant life, human life) is because the Creator made it so. God created all plants and all living creatures.

          Again, ‘Evolution theory’ does not cover biogenesis or the appearance of life from non-life. If you insist on this erroneous notion of what Evolution theory is, you end-up with a strawman fallacy. Some evolutionists are Christians.

          2. There is no evidence that amphibians evolved into reptiles. There is no evidence that reptiles evolved into mammals. There is no evidence that reptiles evolved into birds. The fossil record does not back up the claims of evolution. Evolutionists have a theory that has never been proven.

          3. There are variations found in the various “kinds” of animals which God created. For example, think of all the varieties of dogs. Think of all the varieties of cats. Think of all the varieties of humans. All humans came from the same parents (Adam and Eve) and yet we do not all look alike (different colored skin, different eyes, etc.). God has made the various kinds of animals with great genetic potential for variation. He did this for humans as well. However, one kind of animal does not change into another kind. Animals always reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11,21,25). Lizards do not change into birds. Reptiles do not evolve into lions. Dogs do not evolve into cats. Land mammals do not change into whales. Eels do not evolve into snakes. Apes do not evolve into humans.”

          Which is which? It’s up to the preference of individual which side he will favor of.

          It is not a matter of individual preference, but rather of evidence. If the above quote is what you know about Evolution theory, then you are just outright wrong! Evolution theory doesn’t claim that “amphibians evolve into reptiles” or that “Apes evolve into humans.” Some reptiles ARE amphibians. Not only do you have trouble with Evolution theory, but science in general, and particularly biology.

          You are reading from an unreliable source. Evolution theory would not support many ignorant claims you make above—Evolution agrees “reptiles do not evolve into lions.” In fact, that is against evolution theory.

          Stop quoting from Creationists site. They couldn’t even properly describe what evolution theory is actually about.

          I also reiterate that “theory” is not an absolute proof but just way of explaining things through gathered evidence but still remain subject to new findings which said theory can be rejected or modified. Again, you missed the point.

          Not only do you demonstrate profound ignorance about what Evolution theory truly claims, but also profound ignorance of the scientific method. “Proof” is mostly used in deductive formal disciplines such as mathematics and logic, while inductive sciences like evolutionary biology use inductive reasoning and go by ‘evidence’.

          Again, evidence in support of evolution theory has been mounting. It doesn’t become weaker but stronger in fact.

        3. Felipe, you are always typing by emotions, not by reasons. While I understand that you want to have a feel-good moment, you also did not add substance and other sources of discussions to refute my arguments, making your statements unreasonable.

          “‘Evolution theory’ does not cover biogenesis or the appearance of life from non-life.”

          Answers: It does presumably cover. “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”
          http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

          “Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.”
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

          “Evolution theory doesn’t claim that “amphibians evolve into reptiles” or that “Apes evolve into humans.” Some reptiles ARE amphibians. Not only do you have trouble with Evolution theory, but science in general, and particularly biology.”

          Asnwers:

          “Natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn DINOSAURS into BIRDS, APES into HUMANS and amphibious mammals into whales.”
          http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

          “Proof” is mostly used in deductive formal disciplines such as mathematics and logic, while inductive sciences like evolutionary biology use inductive reasoning and go by ‘evidence’.

          Thank you for correcting me. I guess this is the only one you are right.

          “Again, evidence in support of evolution theory has been mounting. It doesn’t become weaker but stronger in fact.”

          But it still remains a theory. Felipe, you are always typing by emotions, not by reasons. While I understand that you want to have a feel-good moment, you also did not add substance and other sources of discussions to refute my arguments, making your statements unreasonable.

          “‘Evolution theory’ does not cover biogenesis or the appearance of life from non-life.”

          Answers: It does presumably cover. “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”
          http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

          “Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.”
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

          “Evolution theory doesn’t claim that “amphibians evolve into reptiles” or that “Apes evolve into humans.” Some reptiles ARE amphibians. Not only do you have trouble with Evolution theory, but science in general, and particularly biology.”

          Asnwers:

          “Natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn DINOSAURS into BIRDS, APES into HUMANS and amphibious mammals into whales.”
          http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

          “Proof” is mostly used in deductive formal disciplines such as mathematics and logic, while inductive sciences like evolutionary biology use inductive reasoning and go by ‘evidence’.

          Thank you for correcting me. I guess this is the only one you are right.

          “Again, evidence in support of evolution theory has been mounting. It doesn’t become weaker but stronger in fact.”

          But it still remains a theory and still subject to a lot of scrutiny. “A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.”
          http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

        4. Based on what Jigs has mentioned here so far, he’s turning out to be a Creationist in denial.

        5. @Jigs

          First off, I suggest you immerse yourself into this very interesting subject called evolutionary biology. Read books, not just internet sites (especially sites that are religiously or ideologically charged).

          Felipe, you are always typing by emotions, not by reasons. While I understand that you want to have a feel-good moment, you also did not add substance and other sources of discussions to refute my arguments, making your statements unreasonable.

          Nope. It’s not about feeling good. It’s about OBJECTIVITY. You may be projecting your own inner feelings onto somebody else.

          “‘Evolution theory’ does not cover biogenesis or the appearance of life from non-life.”
          Answers: It does presumably cover. “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”
http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

          “Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

          Oh geeze. You have to be careful with your sources. While the word “evolution” has been used in so many contexts, in biology, it simply refers to only precisely this technical definition:
          “Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” [here]

          But it still remains a theory. Felipe, you are always typing by emotions, not by reasons. While I understand that you want to have a feel-good moment, you also did not add substance and other sources of discussions to refute my arguments, making your statements unreasonable.

          Again, your insistence on using the word “theory” to mean something other than its proper usage in a scientific context is hindering you from comprehending real science.

          You’ll not go very far until you first dissociate Evolution theory from biogenesis—life from non-life is not simply covered by Evolution theory. Individual scientists or non-scientist may recklessly incorporate his or her ideological or religious beliefs into the interpretation of Evolution theory which may have confused many, but that’s actually not part of it by any stretch.

          Evidence is plentiful, but just as understanding basic notions in algebra is pre-requisite in understanding calculus; you have to get your basic notions correct, before you can step through the technicalities of the evidence or “demonstration.” I can already tell with fair amount of confidence that you’re not familiar with this subject.

          ” ‘Evolution theory’ does not cover biogenesis or the appearance of life from non-life.”
          Answers: It does presumably cover. “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”
http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

          “Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

          Your sources are terrible. They only work for people who won’t think for themselves (kinda like yellow zombies.)

          There is a reason why Darwin titled his work “Origin of Species”, not “Origin of Life”.

          Your sources don’t know Darwin. He only intends to explain the diversity he observes in nature, not the first appearance of life on this planet.

          But it still remains a theory and still subject to a lot of scrutiny. “A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.”
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

          Like I said, new evidence agrees with evolution theory. In fact, they reinforce it—–That’s the status of the theory in science currently. The only thing being in contention right now are the finer points of the mechanisms of evolution, and not evolution theory as such. The accuracy of their searches has in fact improved.

        6. Felipe, don’t project yourself as if you know about everything while disregarding the sources I provided without even offering other sources like those in PDF format or some more reliable authentic science source. I could not even open your link and it says “not found.”

          The main topic here is the “theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin and the “evolutionary biology” you said is just one of the wide variety of scientific disciplines including paleontology, geology and genetics which substantiated the said theory proclaimed by Mr. Darwin.

          You did claim in your previous post this “Evolution theory doesn’t claim that “amphibians evolve into reptiles” or that “Apes evolve into humans.” Guess what? they are possible in the theory of evolution in its natural selection as I stated the source on my previous post.

          Sure, I’m not an expert of this matter but certainly I’m not either convinced with your arguments so far.

          “biogenesis—life from non-life”

          – maybe you mean Abiogenesis? – by definition; is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Life on earth presumably came from organic compound and this compound is attributed to the abiogenesis. You are focusing more on the evolution but failed to states where did first life come from which eventually progresses into evolutionary creatures that Mr. Darwin has got into as I posted on my comments above.

          “Your sources don’t know Darwin. He only intends to explain the diversity he observes in nature, not the first appearance of life on this planet.”

          – Again, provide some reliable reference to substantiate your claim.

          “Like I said, new evidence agrees with evolution theory. In fact, they reinforce it—–That’s the status of the theory in science currently. The only thing being in contention right now are the finer points of the mechanisms of evolution, and not evolution theory as such. The accuracy of their searches has in fact improved.”

          -I’m not arguing if it does improve but it is still open to contention and scrutiny because it remains a theory unless it is now a law.

        7. @Jigs

          Felipe, don’t project yourself as if you know about everything while disregarding the sources I provided without even offering other sources like those in PDF format or some more reliable authentic science source. I could not even open your link and it says “not found.”

          Let me try again. I hope this one works. Here you go:
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

          No one at my end claims to know everything, but I’ve been in these kinds of discussions before. I suggest you try to benefit from it.

          The main topic here is the “theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin and the “evolutionary biology” you said is just one of the wide variety of scientific disciplines including paleontology, geology and genetics which substantiated the said theory proclaimed by Mr. Darwin.

          You did claim in your previous post this “Evolution theory doesn’t claim that “amphibians evolve into reptiles” or that “Apes evolve into humans.” Guess what? they are possible in the theory of evolution in its natural selection as I stated the source on my previous post.

          Actually, in the biological context amphibians are not reptiles (I think it has something to do with the characteristics of their eggs), but humans are still “apes” (if not used in the lay sense of the word – http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html).

          Sure, I’m not an expert of this matter but certainly I’m not either convinced with your arguments so far.

          You don’t have to be an expert. You need only to genuinely root for objectivity, and forego any pre-conceived notions, which Creationists have been propagating due to their convictions and erroneous hermeneutics and theology.

          “biogenesis—life from non-life”

          – maybe you mean Abiogenesis? – by definition; is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Life on earth presumably came from organic compound and this compound is attributed to the abiogenesis.

          Good! Thank you. I was doing it from memory. This catch means that you’re at least getting into the spirit.

          You are focusing more on the evolution but failed to states where did first life come from which eventually progresses into evolutionary creatures that Mr. Darwin has got into as I posted on my comments above.

          Abiogenesis is an entirely different matter. It is more a philosophical rather than scientific debate. It has to be dealt with differently. “Evolution” can assume a wider meaning, but we are here talking about the use of the term in evolutionary biology (by definition, and in both theory and practice)—-which does not include abiogenesis.

          “Your sources don’t know Darwin. He only intends to explain the diversity he observes in nature, not the first appearance of life on this planet.”

          – Again, provide some reliable reference to substantiate your claim.

          I’ve already hinted that Darwin wrote “Origin of Species,” not “Origin of Life.” The onus is on YOU to point out that he meant to also explain the origin of life. You don’t “prove” the absence or non-existence of things.

          “Like I said, new evidence agrees with evolution theory. In fact, they reinforce it—–That’s the status of the theory in science currently. The only thing being in contention right now are the finer points of the mechanisms of evolution, and not evolution theory as such. The accuracy of their searches has in fact improved.”

          -I’m not arguing if it does improve but it is still open to contention and scrutiny because it remains a theory unless it is now a law.

          We refer to Einstein’s theory as the “Theory of Relativity” and not “Law of Relativity” even though it already has been shown to be correct. The same goes with Evolution Theory, which experts have felt so confident that it can now be taught in schools, and they have been at it in spite of die-hard resistance from ignorant creationist groups.

          I’m glad this seems to have piqued your interest, as it is a fascinating subject worth giving due diligence learning.

          Here are some simple ones (You have to follow through the explanation to the end without prejudice):
          – Kenneth Miller Lecture- Telomeric Fusion – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJMSHKjc56E

          – Irrefutable evidence for Evolution: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA

          Let me point out that these are more than just fossil evidence—-These are genetic evidence which did not exist during Darwin’s time, but the phylogenetic tree (evolutionary tree) formed based merely on these genetic evidence turned out to be exactly the same as that formed based merely on fossil forensic findings.

          Here are some references: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        8. Felipe,

          “Abiogenesis is an entirely different matter. It is more a philosophical rather than scientific debate. It has to be dealt with differently. “Evolution” can assume a wider meaning, but we are here talking about the use of the term in evolutionary biology (by definition, and in both theory and practice)—-which does not include abiogenesis.”

          – Assuming that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the “Evolutionary Biology” and “Evolution Theory” then perhaps you can pinpoint to me exactly the significant dots from the inception of life to the creation and formation of different species today, more importantly, from the first progenitor, and its components, to the Apes that eventually evolved into Humans. It would be relevant to know since we are also more interested about the origin of life.

          “I’ve already hinted that Darwin wrote “Origin of Species,” not “Origin of Life.” The onus is on YOU to point out that he meant to also explain the origin of life. You don’t “prove” the absence or non-existence of things.”

          – In Origin of Species Chapter 14 Darwin suggested the origin of life and he sounds a bit of being a creationist.

          “Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. “

        9. @Jigs

          – Assuming that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the “Evolutionary Biology” and “Evolution Theory” then perhaps you can pinpoint to me exactly the significant dots from the inception of life to the creation and formation of different species today, more importantly, from the first progenitor, and its components, to the Apes that eventually evolved into Humans. It would be relevant to know since we are also more interested about the origin of life.

          We’re talking about gazillions of species. This is what the evolutionary tree is for—-to have a “compressed” picture of the main groups in a way that reveals the points at which species start to branch out from each other.

          I’m a “theistic evolutionist” by philosophical persuasion. Without realizing it, people have no problem accepting a medical account, which explains in purely naturalistic terms, how us humans biologically develop from the moment of conception to birth, and yet believe that somewhere there a Divine Being has intervened. This is the same with theistic evolutionists. We can appreciate how matter can give rise to the amazing variety of life surrounding us using naturalistic mechanisms without our faith threatened as to our/its origin.

          – In Origin of Species Chapter 14 Darwin suggested the origin of life and he sounds a bit of being a creationist.

          “Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.“

          If Darwin to you seems to have subscribed to an already creationist-sounding account on the origin of life, then this becomes all the more evident that his intent is simply to explain the diversification of life or of species, and not challenge what during his era was the prevalent dogma on ‘life’s inception from non-life’ (i.e. its origin).

          I think he was on the right path when he attributed diversification to matter. “Spirit” may have created life but something in matter has diversified it into species.

        1. @Paul Farol

          A law is specifically formulaic, e.g. the “Law of Gravity” or , while a “theory” doesn’t have to be. It merely states an explanatory underlying natural principle.

        2. A law is a universal fact or observation about physical or material operations (law of thermodynamics, law of gravity). Because laws are allied to the material world, they are expressed in formulas. Laws must have empirical support (should be demonstrated, and proven right ALL the time).

          Theory, on the other hand, is validated through experimentations in different conditions. It can be replaced by a better theory and can be disproved in the future. That doesn’t happen with laws. Some disciplines, due to its immaterial nature, can’t have laws like psychology, literature, and etc.

        3. I just hope it sinks in this time and the same people don’t continue to use the “so why is it called the THEORY of evolution?” argument in the future.

        4. ‘So, has anyone observed “evolution”?’

          The short answer is YES.

          Jigs comments insist that no one has ever observed evolution first hand and therefore Jigs dismisses it.

          Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Because it can take a very long time for new species to evolve, recognising a one during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species.

          Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection — for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits — and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. That fits the textbook definition of a NEW SPECIES — a distinct community of reproductive-ly isolated populations — sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. (The organisms’ physical and behavioral traits are normally used as CLUES to their species membership.)

        5. Natural selection is easily observed in species that speed through generations rapidly, like bacteria. For larger animals, just take a look at the fossil record. We don’t live long enough to see it happen in our lifetime, like we can’t observe the geological shifting of the continents over millions of years or the formation of coal and oil, but those things aren’t disputed.

          Is evolution not even taught in Philippines science classes? It sounds like some people are learning this for the first time. That’s not an insult, just a genuine concern, you should know the details even if you choose to believe fairy stories instead.

    6. science is self-correcting. it does not insist on an idea after it has been proven wrong.

      did god create the computer you are using to post, or did god make man to make computers.

      think.

      1. as a concept to describe something indescribable or beyond one’s reach or understanding, yes. The thing about infinity is, just as you think you’ve reached it, you find out it’s actually larger (or smaller). infinity goes both ways. There’s no such thing as “zero” as the value of Zero is as subjective as the scale one is describing.

        Man thought the smallest unit of matter was the atom, until electrons, protons and neutrons. Then there were quarks, then after, the Hyggs-Boson (the god particle).

        Infinity exists, because there is no actual limit that one can perceive.

    1. I think the only certain thing about infinity is that it does exist — as a mathematical construct. Mathematics does not really consider the question of whether infinity physically exists or not as something absolutely relevant — only that the notion is useful for completing certain mathematical frameworks.

      Religion, on the other hand DOES assert with much authority that infinity exists. Trouble is it is silent on the implications of that existence, something that mathematics, interestingly, provides in detail that is both profound and logically coherent.

      1. So, the way I understand it, mathematics does not exist except in the human mind. Thing is, i am not a mathematician, so, perhaps to me, infinity does not exist. 🙂

        1. Well, I’ll say that mathematics (or math) deals abstract, logically coherent concepts that “maps” to physical world. After all, can one touch number 3? Can anyone keep number 10? One thing I’m sure: I can eat three apples and keep ten dollars. 🙂

          Allow me to explain how math maps to the physical world.

          Perhaps one example is the concept of zero. Greeks were unsure of zero, thinking “How can nothing be something?“. The arrival of hindu arabic numeral in Europe, a system that uses zero, and its widespread use due to is efficiency that roman numeral [ok, try adding MCMXC and MCMIV versus 1990 and 1904] leads to the acceptance of zero.

          Also, Europeans during middle ages resisted the concept of negative numbers, thinking why would there be numbers before zero. eventually, negative number found its application in banking, and on higher math (aka algebra) [link]

          There are other mathematical abstractions (e.g. imaginary numbers) that were once shun upon but eventually found practical application in the physical world.

        2. math exists even if one does not think about it. if you do not understand math, math will still be there, much like gravity will still be there regardless of people ignorant of it.

          Animals do not need to understand gravity, do they?

  9. Religion is a form of mind control. Like here in the Philippines, when we talk about religion, people’s mind becomes paralyze. The reasoning ability becomes impaired.

    1. kinda like the teenager whose hormones are overflowing and renders the teenage male to think with his ‘other’ brain.
      overwhelming.

  10. Infinity is a concept…in Mathematics…it is represented as a horizontal no. 8…Mathematicians communicate each other universally in higher Mathematics, like : Differential and Integral Calculus, Differential Equations , etc…Atoms, protons, photons, electrons, etc…are concepts. Yet, they produce results like: atomic energy, electricity, electronics, Atomic Bombs, etc…so, they are Realities, because the “concepts” produce real results…you cannot see them, but they are there…this is the beauty of their Mystery..Technical people are fascinated on these matters….

  11. IF anyone wants to Clarify the moronic nature of non-secular idiocy, just read chapter two of Dostoeyevsky’s:
    “The Brothers Karamazov”. Chapter 2 poignantly points out these idiocies and is aptly titled:”The Odor of Sanctity” or, depending on the translation your reading:
    “The Smell of decay”. For further indulgence on the same matter consider chapter 11 of the same book where a returning Christ appears in ‘Red Square’ in Moscow circa 1450A.D. and returns life to a 5 yr. old girl who has been struck down tragically. For all of his good work what is the resurgent one given? AH yes, A prison cell and who does the professed ‘CHURCH’ really work for? The answer to that question may prove a bit to weighty for the feint hearted among the Filipino’s, but, like all else in the infinite realm….
    can it really be disputed???? or consider ‘Kirilov’ in “THE POSSESSED” for some real eye-opening…
    I hope at least ONE person reads the above mentioned scrpits…is it certainly enlightening in their absurdities?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.