Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down
Options
Comments
-
'Soul Winner' (awful username btw), what you're seriously missing here is the fact that 'evolutionists' are not all atheist/agnostic and that they don't necessarily adhere to the 'big bang'
Bad user name? I think it quite quaint
Sleepy? Pot,kelte,black etc?? Anyway I never said I thought ALL evolutionists are atheists or agnostic did I? Where? I did ask in one of my replies to someone else about what evolutionist believed if they did not accept the big bang theory.In rejecting theisisms, one doesn't necessarily accept anything else. Lets face it, making up stuff is what we accuse you theists of!
Speaking for myself, I'm quite content to just accept that there are things I don't know and that science and philosophy haven't unravelled the mysteries of the universe (yet?).
In accepting that there is a God one doesn't necessarily reject anything else. when do we (theist as you call us) make up stuff? The earth is 4000 years old? That was Bishop Usher who did that. I do not subscribe to that at all.Speaking for myself, I'm quite content to just accept that there are things I don't know and that science and philosophy haven't unravelled the mysteries of the universe (yet?).
I'm with you on that one and look forward with great anticipation for the next great discovery.0 -
-
Many mutations have no effect; of the rest, almost all produce a defective protein that impairs cellular function. But a tiny amount produce a better protein that improves the cell's chances of propagating its genesSoul Winner wrote: »Are not all biologist in agreement that mutations in cellular activity are detrimental to the cell as apposed to improving it?
Possibly the worst justification for faith I have ever heard.If there is a God and there is a heaven to gain if we trust in him then there is everything to win wouldn’t you agree?
Until eleven years ago we didn't even know how bees stayed up in the air with their tiny wings. Just because something is unknown now, doesn't mean it will remain so.You imagine wrong. My “unbiased” self has somewhat of an idea as to what (as you call) neo-Darwinism is about. Why abandon the original Darwinian concepts that change the worlds thinking which are still expressed in science text books today when most if not all it’s major supporting experiments have been proven fraudulent? The Miller-Urey being the most notable, which put forth the scenario that the early earth’s atmosphere was void of oxygen and a spark of lightning happened to strike and create amino acids from where all life came forth when there are rocks as old as the Cambrian period that show signs of oxidation and yet this experiment is thought in schools today to our kids as being a fact.
Um, very easily. Wikipedia: "In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes." A landslide or mudslide could cover an animal in sediment, or it could fall into a tarpit or bog.How can you fossilise bodies of animals without a cataclysmic event? How did the unearth mammoths in Siberia with undigested tropical food found in their stomachs be fossilised without something very fast burying them and preserving them?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Yes please I would love to read your recommendations. What are they?
I've sent you a message0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Sorry for boring you Pastor. I haven't read the other threads.
Quick PDN, increase the size of your picture
0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Evolutionists do subscribe to the big bang theory do they not? If not what is their explanation for the origins of the universe? I think it has relevance in this discussion as the earth and all living things on it live in this universe despite it vast expanse. If God didn’t create it and evolution is true then what part if any did the universe play in how life started on earth?
As Fanny points out, it is perfectly possible both to accept that God created the world, and to accept evolution. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to accept that God created the Big Bang.
That is the position of the Catholic (and Orthodox, AFAIK) Church on the question, as well as the Anglican Communion, and accounts for the majority of Christians. The opposing point of view - that evolution and creation are incompatible - is a minority position, despite the vocality of its adherents.Soul Winner wrote: »
Doesn’t that suggest a controlling force directing it? A force that has a will of its own?That is an awful lot of "chance" ... evolution isn't actually a random system, it is directed by natural selection.
Only by the standard fallacy of agency. A ball rolls downhill, because it is 'directed' by gravity. Unless you subscribe to the Onion's Theory of Intelligent Falling, you can see that the word 'directed' there does not imply a director.Soul Winner wrote: »Are not all biologist in agreement that mutations in cellular activity are detrimental to the cell as apposed to improving it?
No, and we'll give you chapter and verse. Mutations are usually neutral, sometimes deleterious, and sometimes beneficial. You yourself, like every human, carry several mutated genes your parents did not have.
A particularly splendid example of a beneficial mutation is the nylon-digesting enzyme mutation found in a particular bacterium. However, you can google 'beneficial mutation' quite easily yourself.Soul Winner wrote: »Not sure this analogy is a good one for what I think you are trying to get across but that could be because what I’m thinking is way off the mark so you’ll have to forgive me.
The standard remark is that it's amazing how well puddles fit their hollows.Soul Winner wrote: »Thank you. Richard on the other hand wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ where he puts forth his argument that our beliefs in God are basically delusional which suggests those of us who holds such views to be fools because we really do believe that there is a God.
Similarly, there are billions of adherents of other religions who think you are deluded, and plenty of Christians who likewise think atheists and the adherents of other religions are deluded (frequently by Satan). I'm not sure why you're so exercised by Richard Dawkins.Soul Winner wrote: »Probably? And how come it only affects human beings who are supposedly the highest form of animal. Doesn’t make sense for the highest form of animal to evolve such traits when it never seems to affect any other species or genus.
First, we don't know it to be the case that other species don't have some form of religion or faith - you are simply assuming it.
Second, many of our other adaptations are unique to humans. So, of course, are the adaptations of other species.
Third, 'highest form of animal'? There is no such thing. We certainly like to think of ourselves that way, but it's completely meaningless.Soul Winner wrote: »But that doesn’t explain the intrusion of a personal God who revealed himself to Abraham, Jacob(re-named Israel and Moses etc.. and spoke to them directly and told them what to do. Now you might say that this is hard to believe but even today these men are among the most respected and revered in the world.
As are Mohammed, the Buddha, and a load of other religious leaders to whom your particular personal God unaccountably failed to reveal himself.Soul Winner wrote: »So how did primitive man line up such colossal structures like the pyramids in Egypt to constellations in the universe? How did primitive man build such intricate and huge structures? ? How did they build into them the Lunar, Solar and Sidereal calendars? Do you think genetic mutations had anything to do with it? And how is it that even today with all our technological advances we cannot nor replicate them? Some of these stones weigh in excess of 70 tonnes. It defies logic?
No, it is quite well understood how the Pyramids were raised. The idea that these 'marvels of the ancient world' are inexplicable and unrepeatable using modern techniques is pure fantasy more appropriate (and largely attributable) to the Victorian Spiritualist movement.Soul Winner wrote: »It sounds like you are suggesting that humans have created purpose. Does that mean that the sun has no purpose? The moon? The rivers? The clouds? Germinating insects? The list is endless. I was disillusioned with life before I found the truth that God does indeed exists. I would be lying to say otherwise. But I am not ignorant to the fact that great evil has been done I the name of religion and that goes for all religions. I would suggest that people don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and read more about the world’s religions to try understand them better.
It is also worth enquiring rather more deeply into what 'purpose' is.Soul Winner wrote: »Not sure I would go with that one. Did we not have these abilities long ago? Haven’t we always been social creatures?
H. sapiens? Yes, but that simply ignores the prior evolution of H. sapiens.Soul Winner wrote: »Isn’t it possible that this just might be true though? Why do we throw out these beliefs when there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the physical world is not all there is? Just because we cannot see it doesn’t mean its not there. Are the human eyes the judge and jury or all reality?
Ah, what atheists Kant deny.Soul Winner wrote: »Who placed it there?
People placed it there.Soul Winner wrote: »You imagine wrong. My “unbiased” self has somewhat of an idea as to what (as you call) neo-Darwinism is about. Why abandon the original Darwinian concepts that change the worlds thinking which are still expressed in science text books today when most if not all it’s major supporting experiments have been proven fraudulent?
First, because the experimental evidence hasn't been 'proven fraudulent'. You have trotted out a couple of standard bogeymen, and I dare say you believe the 'peppered moth' experiment to also be wrong, because that is what Creationists are taught. It is, unfortunately, a lie - or more charitably, a viewpoint that has not been updated to take account of the fact that the experiment has been redone, and is correct.Soul Winner wrote: »The Miller-Urey being the most notable, which put forth the scenario that the early earth’s atmosphere was void of oxygen and a spark of lightning happened to strike and create amino acids from where all life came forth when there are rocks as old as the Cambrian period that show signs of oxidation and yet this experiment is thought in schools today to our kids as being a fact.
The Miller-Urey experiment is a fact. It showed that amino acids could form under conditions like the Miller-Urey experiment. The question of whether those precise conditions obtained on the early Earth, or that amino acids formed in exactly that way, is, and was, left open.
By the way, the Cambrian era (600 MYa) long postdates the origin of life in the fossil record. The first noticeable buildup of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere occurred roughly 2.3 billion years ago, and the earliest fossils (stromatolites) are dated to 3.465 billion years ago.
Feel free to cover your doubts and questions regarding geological dating methods. We are well used to it. Indeed, as PDN points out, we already have a 370-page thread devoted to it.Soul Winner wrote: »I beg to differ. We are asked to accept that there was no major cataclysms that hit the earth which would interrupt the natural flow of the evolution process when all the evidence shows that the earth has been hit by several major cataclysms the most notable being the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Were you? You were badly taught, then, since several of the mass extinctions that punctuate the fossil record are normally attributed to cataclysmic events. Unfortunately, there are people still peddling the Victorian understanding of Uniformitarianism, but they will die in due course.Soul Winner wrote: »How can you fossilise bodies of animals without a cataclysmic event?
Easily. In fact, cataclysmic events rarely yield whole skeletons, whereas a nice quiet death in a stagnant pool does.Soul Winner wrote: »How did the unearth mammoths in Siberia with undigested tropical food found in their stomachs be fossilised without something very fast burying them and preserving them?
"...grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and fragments of willow and bilberry..." is not tropical fare, I'm afraid. The "quick-freeze while just standing there" idea, so beloved of Creationist authors, is equally trashy.Soul Winner wrote: »Directed by who though? Or what? You need a will and a purpose in directing something. Whose will is it? The answer no matter what it is, is so colossal that our brains cannot take it in and therefore no matter what explanation you are given faith will be required in order to accept it.
Speak for yourself. Your presumption that we poor mortals cannot comprehend the "vast truth" of the universe already contains the presumption that there is such a "vast truth". 4.6 billion years of Earth's history can be conveniently reduced to a diagram on a single page, which hardly suggests something completely incomprehensible.
with a strong feeling of deja vu,
Scofflaw0 -
Please convince me too.
There are more eloquent than I that can do that.
Read the following:
"The Trial of the witnesses" by Thomas Sherlock
http://books.google.ie/books?id=tqLe34PVujYC&dq=the+trial+of+the+witnesses+sherlock&pg=PP1&ots=ICZTOthZgT&sig=UjoQSUrn8_AomI-Q2zJIXUP0o6c&prev=http://www.google.ie/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enFR235FR235%26q%3DThe%2BTrial%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bwitnesses%2Bsherlock%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
"Who move the stone" by Frank Morrison
Or listen to the treatment Dr Gene Scott PhD Stanford University gives the subject. He convinced me. www.drgenscott.com0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »There are more eloquent than I that can do that.
Read the following:
"The Trial of the witnesses" by Thomas Sherlock
http://books.google.ie/books?id=tqLe34PVujYC&dq=the+trial+of+the+witnesses+sherlock&pg=PP1&ots=ICZTOthZgT&sig=UjoQSUrn8_AomI-Q2zJIXUP0o6c&prev=http://www.google.ie/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enFR235FR235%26q%3DThe%2BTrial%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bwitnesses%2Bsherlock%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
"Who move the stone" by Frank Morrison
Or listen to the treatment Dr Gene Scott PhD Stanford University gives the subject. He convinced me. www.drgenscott.com
It really isn't necessary to quote the full academic qualifications of someone you cite, or their institution. It actually looks rather desperate. Also, are you sure that's the right link?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »If that's the case, then you better level the same claim at atheists on these forums.
No problem. You point 'em out, and I'll accuse them, if they're doing what is being done here.
It's not intended to be a dig at Soul Winner - it's an honest attempt to keep him/her from doing something that makes any of us who are scientists immediately go "oh dear...pseudoscience alert". The exact qualifications of a scientist are not actually important, except to indicate that they are in a relevant field. Much of the time, the bald statement "PhD Stanford" actually disguises the fact that the person concerned actually earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at Stanford University, as is the case here. The "PhD" and the "Stanford University" are borrowed glory, to disguise the complete irrelevance of the pastor's background to a debate about evolution.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
RE: analogies for natural selection.... This one is the best by far in my opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4FqAUEEv_U
Made it clear as day for me really.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
1. Evolution is anything BUT random chance. It is very very pointedly favouring particular genes over others, hence certain individuals and ultimately species over others.
2. The reason athiests get angry with religious types is because religion is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
DeV.0 -
It's money making racket...Soul Winner wrote: »If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?0 -
The reason athiests get angry with religious types is because religion is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
DeV. Now you've done it...Fire in the hole! 0 -
It really isn't necessary to quote the full academic qualifications of someone you cite, or their institution. It actually looks rather desperate. Also, are you sure that's the right link?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Why not? I think credentials are very important. Sorry bout that typo though it's actually www.drgenescott.com.0 -
The reason athiests get angry with religious types is because religion is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists!0 -
Much of the time, the bald statement "PhD Stanford" actually disguises the fact that the person concerned actually earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at Stanford University, as is the case here. The "PhD" and the "Stanford University" are borrowed glory, to disguise the complete irrelevance of the pastor's background to a debate about evolution.
cordially,
Scofflaw
That really wasn't my intention whatsoever. The sub conversation was relating to the subject of the Resurrection of Christ not that of Evolution. The PhD in question also spent three and half studying the evidences for the Resurrection of Christ from which he emerged convinced its truth. The reason I added his credentials was merely to show that it was no fool who treated the subject. It was not an ‘act of desperation’ as you put it I'm sorry you are wrong there Scofflaw.0 -
The reason athiests get angry with religious types is because religion is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
DeV.
I'm sorry that Religion is not a simple subject that you can shelve an be done with. It's been around longer than the sciences and deserves respect and at least as level a playing field as other subjects. Science is a wonderful subject and deserves as much of an audience as any other but it does not have all the answers to all the questions and until it does then it cannot look down on religion or any other subject as being inferior to it. Religion itself is not he causer of war and evil. Mankind can do all that himself, even if it might be in the name of religion at times. Like I said in an earlier post 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' even if some religionist are prone to taking stupid pills from time to time.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Evolutionists do subscribe to the big bang theory do they not?
They can. I'm sure some don't. You would have to ask the individual evolutionary biologist what his/her views on the theories detailing the early formation of the universe are. They would probably tell you that that isn't their area of study
Well it depends on what the theme of this discussion is.Soul Winner wrote: »I think it has relevance in this discussion as the earth and all living things on it live in this universe despite it vast expanse.
If the theme is evolution then the big bang has nothing to do with it.
If the theme is scientific theories that contradict the teachings of some religions then it is relevant but then so is a whole load of other theories. For some reason people think evolution and the big bang are the only two theories of science that class with literal religious teachings of religions such as Christianity Hinduism or Scientology. In fact there are a load of other ones. Most of science contradicts literal religious teachings of these religions.Soul Winner wrote: »Doesn’t that suggest a controlling force directing it? A force that has a will of its own?
No. No more that rain water filling to exactly fit a hole in the ground suggests a guiding will or that the water itself has a will of its own to fill that puddle exactly.
In reality the water is filling the hole exactly because of the nature of gravity and of water.
The water will always fit the hole because it will spread out until it does fit the hole. Because we understand the processes involved no one ponders in amazement at how the water can appear to "know" in advance what the dimension of the hole are or how to fit it.
To you this may seem utterly obvious to the point of utter irrelevance. But that is only because you fully understand the process that causes water to fill an empty space. If you didn't it would amaze you.
I assure you that if you fully understand Darwinian evolution it will appear just as obvious.Soul Winner wrote: »Are not all biologist in agreement that mutations in cellular activity are detrimental to the cell as apposed to improving it?
No, in fact I know of no biologist who says that beyond the Creationist ones. The evidence and observation tells a completely different story. The vast majority of mutations cause no significant improvement or hamper to the organism. On average every human is walking around with 60-70 mutations away from their parents genetic code.
Mutations can cause serious problems, and are more likely to cause problems than they are to cause benefits. But that doesn't mean they can't cause benefits.
It is also important to remember the difference between a benefit and a problem is often decided by the environment. A mutation that causes a benefit in one environment may be a problem in a different one.
If what you are talking about is mutation later in life caused by things like radiation or chemicals then again it is important to remember that that is not the level at which evolution picks mutation because any mutation at this level is not passed on the off spring of the organism. So while the same facts about mutation above hold it is irrelevant from an evolutionary point of view because, unless the occur in the sperm or egg cells of the parent, these mutations never go further than the organism they are in.Soul Winner wrote: »Not sure this analogy is a good one for what I think you are trying to get across but that could be because what I’m thinking is way off the mark so you’ll have to forgive me.
Well I hope it helped explain why evolution is not a random process.
If you replace the coins in the analogy with mutations, and then replace the hole with the environment testing the fitness of each mutation, you can see how thousands of random mutations can flow by over the hole but only those mutations that provide the organism with a greater survival chance, as determined by the environment, are selected by natural selection to propagate at a greater rate through the species.
So the mutations are random, but natural selection filters through the specific mutations that adapt the species to the environment.
Have you read the God Delusion?Soul Winner wrote: »Thank you. Richard on the other hand wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ where he puts forth his argument that our beliefs in God are basically delusional which suggests those of us who holds such views to be fools because we really do believe that there is a God.
Because if my memory serves he explains why he doesn't believe that rejection of evolution or the belief in God is down to lack of intelligence on the part of the believer. He dismisses that explanation as too easy an answer that doesn't fit with the evidence around him. Dawkins is ever the scientist.
Yes, "probably". It is impossible to know anything for certain.Soul Winner wrote: »Probably?Soul Winner wrote: »And how come it only affects human beings who are supposedly the highest form of animal.
Well who says it only effects human beings?
There is a lot of evidence that other species, such as cats, will view moving non-living objects as other animals, and threat them as such. This hints at the evolutionary origin of our system of viewing the universe around as agents.
It would seem no coincidence that most cultures model their concepts of "god" on the characteristics of human beings. We give our gods the same emotions and motivations as humans and explain their actions within human terms. Some religious attempt to justify that by saying that we came from the god in the first place so we are in fact modeled upon him.Soul Winner wrote: »But that doesn’t explain the intrusion of a personal God who revealed himself to Abraham, Jacob(re-named Israel and Moses etc.. and spoke to them directly and told them what to do. Now you might say that this is hard to believe but even today these men are among the most respected and revered in the world.
I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Are you asking me to explain why Abraham (assuming he was a real person) believed God was physically speaking to him?
Well, again assuming that the story in the Bible is based on a real event (unlikely), I would explain it the same way that people today believe they are communicating with spirits and gods. The homeless guy down the road to me believes God talks to him and tells him to do things. How would you explain that as being anything other than God actually talking to him?
Well first of all I would point out that the Egyptians weren't "primitive man"Soul Winner wrote: »So how did primitive man line up such colossal structures like the pyramids in Egypt to constellations in the universe? How did primitive man build such intricate and huge structures? ? How did they build into them the Lunar, Solar and Sidereal calendars?
Humans had been around for about 100,000 years before the formation of the Egyptian civilization. The last 10,000 years of human development have been notable for the rapid development of human culture and understand of the world (rapid in the time line of the Earth, a planet 4.3 billion years old)
To answer you question, they used a developed system of mathematics, which is still alive to day.
Not sure what you mean. Genetic mutations lead to the development of our brains, so yes indirectly.Soul Winner wrote: »Do you think genetic mutations had anything to do with it?Soul Winner wrote: »And how is it that even today with all our technological advances we cannot nor replicate them? Some of these stones weigh in excess of 70 tonnes. It defies logic?
We cannot replicate what? The pyramids? I think you aren't quite following the historical problem with the pyramids. They could be build easily today using modern engineering. The problem is that historians can't quite figure out how the Egyptians built them using the engineering of the day. The most likely explanation is they used brute force, thousands of slaves working for years to get them built.
Yes they have no "purpose" in that no intelligence created them for a specific reason. I'm not sure why a person would have a problem with that, nor do I quite follow how introducing a God suddenly makes things much clearer.Soul Winner wrote: »It sounds like you are suggesting that humans have created purpose. Does that mean that the sun has no purpose? The moon? The rivers? The clouds? Germinating insects? The list is endless.
For example what purpose does NGC 1818, a small cluster of stars orbiting the center of small galaxy a few million light years from Earth, have in a religious context.
The idea that these stars some how have a purpose to their existence, a reason for existing, or that it is necessary to believe they have a purpose to have peace of mind, is rather nonsensical to me.
Well that to me would suggest that you were looking for something external to you to provide you with a purpose in life, and religion provided that. Thats great, but actually completely irrelevant to whether or not the universe has a purpose. Assuming that God doesn't exist, then the people of the religion have simply assigned you a purpose. This makes you happy, so would that not suggest to you that humans can assign purpose to their lives and the lives of others? You may believe that the purpose ultimately comes from God, but it physically came from other humans.Soul Winner wrote: »I was disillusioned with life before I found the truth that God does indeed exists.Soul Winner wrote: »I would suggest that people don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and read more about the world’s religions to try understand them better.
By all means suggest that, but it actually has nothing to do with evolution.Soul Winner wrote: »Not sure I would go with that one. Did we not have these abilities long ago? Haven’t we always been social creatures?
Well a lot of mammals are social creatures to some extent, and mammals have been around for 65 million years. But not to the level that modern primates (including ourselves) are today.
Humans and other primates have more complex social structures that a lot of other species. We evolved these over hundreds of thousands of years because they helped us survive.
Well anything possible Soul Winner. Its possible that we are all living in giant computers controlled by a race of super intelligent machines.Soul Winner wrote: »Isn’t it possible that this just might be true though?
The question is whether it is likely.
Because their isn't a lot of evidence, proper evidence, to suggest that the physical world is not all there is.Soul Winner wrote: »Why do we throw out these beliefs when there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the physical world is not all there is?
There is certainly a lot of wishful interpretation of unexplained events, but that is not evidence.
At the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe. If someone wants to believe in ghosts and an afterlife then they will interpret a funny noise or a weird light as a ghost, and they will say "Look, that is evidence ghosts are real!" In fact it isn't evidence for that at all, it is evidence that there was a noise or light. What that noise or light is is anybodies guess. But people will assign it as evidence for the particular belief they want to believe in. One might call it a ghost because they believe in ghosts. Another might call it a UFO because they believe in aliens. Another might call it an angel because they believe in angels.
The point to remember is that none of this is actually evidence for any of this.Soul Winner wrote: »Just because we cannot see it doesn’t mean its not there. Are the human eyes the judge and jury or all reality?
If we can't properly test (observe) it then what makes you think it is there in the first place?
That is the question people need to ask themselves, why do they believe in these supernatural things.
Is it because they are making a rational conclusion based on evidence, or is it because they really want it all to be true.
Human culture.Soul Winner wrote: »Who placed it there?Soul Winner wrote: »If there is a God and there is a heaven to gain if we trust in him then there is everything to win wouldn’t you agree?
Well what if your god isn't actually the right god, and by betting on that horse I condemn myself to the wrath of Zeus or Odin?
I will take my chances with what I can test.
Betting on one particular god on the very slim off chance that it is actually the right one doesn't seem like such a good idea. If it turns out that one of the long list of gods worshiped by humans actually is real I would hope he would understand my logic.
Well no offense, but the errors in your previous posts suggests otherwise. For example evolution is not a product of "chance" That is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, and it is hard to see how you could understand the theory at all if you are basing it on that assertion.Soul Winner wrote: »My “unbiased” self has somewhat of an idea as to what (as you call) neo-Darwinism is about.
Considering there are hundreds of thousands of experiments carried out each year in biology labs across the globe that support the models of neo-Darwinian evolution, I find it rather hard to believe that they are ALL fraudulent.Soul Winner wrote: »Why abandon the original Darwinian concepts that change the worlds thinking which are still expressed in science text books today when most if not all it’s major supporting experiments have been proven fraudulent?
As I said in my earlier post, if the models of Darwinian evolution are wrong then they would be useless to biologists, and biologists wouldn't use the.
The Miller-Urey experiment wasn't an experiment testing the theory of evolution, it was an experiment testing a particular theory of abiogenesis.Soul Winner wrote: »The Miller-Urey being the most notable
Well your wrong.Soul Winner wrote: »I beg to differ.
If it wasn't a testable theory it wouldn't be used in science because non-testable theories are unscientific and largely useless.
Who has asked you to accept that there has never been a major cataclysm in the history of the Earth?Soul Winner wrote: »We are asked to accept that there was no major cataclysms that hit the earth which would interrupt the natural flow of the evolution process when all the evidence shows that the earth has been hit by several major cataclysms the most notable being the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Because I have never seen a evolutionary history of life on Earth that didn't include several major extinction level events down through the years. In fact these events, suggested by geological evidence, fit very well into our understanding of evolutionary history. It would be hard to explain the evolutionary time line without them.
I'm not sure you quite understand what fossilization is.Soul Winner wrote: »How can you fossilise bodies of animals without a cataclysmic event?
Fossilization takes place due to the materials in the bones of animals turning into rock. This takes place over a long period of time after the bones have been covered up by layers of soil, soil that itself turns to rock.
Neither a cataclysmic event, nor a fire, is required for fossilization to take place. The meat of a dead animal will long have decomposed by the time the bones start to be covered with dirt, let alone before it begins to fossilize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
Can you quote the bit where he called you a foolSoul Winner wrote: »Richard DawkinsSoul Winner wrote: »It probably wouldn’t be perfect to anything living close by but from a safe distance it would be beautiful.
Beauty does not imply perfection.
Directed by natural selection, as I said.Soul Winner wrote: »Directed by who though? Or what?
No you don't.Soul Winner wrote: »You need a will and a purpose in directing something.
A river is directed downwards along a specific path by gravity. It cannot go any other way than the way the environment and gravity direct it to go.
Your question is like asking either a) who decided that the river would flow that particular way? or b) how did the river know to flow that way?
As I hope you can see neither question applies. No intelligence decided that the river should flow that way, least of all the river itself. It ended up that way because of the nature of the environment and gravity.0 -
That's a nice try, but anarchists don't disbelieve in the notion of government per se.The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists! 0 -
Advertisement
-
The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.
Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists!
Alright.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Putting my finger in the air, there are about as many university-trained biologists who doubt evolution as there are university-trained historians who doubt the Holocaust happened. And the doubters doubt for distressingly similar reasons.Soul Winner wrote: »I am no Biologist but I am aware that there are divisions within the science community as a whole not just in biology. Intelligent Design versus Evolution for example.
See Wicknight's example with the coins. You can have a random process which gives rise to a result which is non-random. For example, rain falls in random places, but it collects into lakes and rivers which are scattered about the place non-randomly.SW wrote:
Huh? Forgive me but you would need to break that down into smaller pieces for me? I'm sure it envelopes more than the sum of its words.robindch wrote:...Not really. Natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance and the "selection" part of "natural selection" entirely dominates the random process which gives rise to variation. If it didn't, then Genetic Algorithms wouldn't work.
You've really misunderstood the rest of my first post. You asked:
...and I gave a few reasons why the concept of a retributive god, once developed, would spread through a population. The theory of evolution, aka "differential reproductive success", explains why this happens, with a minimum of fuss, and rather neatly. Which isn't to say that the god doesn't exist, but simply that god doesn't need to exist in order for people to believe that he does.SW wrote:If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?
Read back over my original post here and see if it makes more sense in the light of the previous paragraph.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »That really wasn't my intention whatsoever. The sub conversation was relating to the subject of the Resurrection of Christ not that of Evolution. The PhD in question also spent three and half studying the evidences for the Resurrection of Christ from which he emerged convinced its truth. The reason I added his credentials was merely to show that it was no fool who treated the subject. It was not an ‘act of desperation’ as you put it I'm sorry you are wrong there Scofflaw.
My apologies if you took that meaning from it! For one thing, it's far too early in this debate for you to be desperate.
Unfortunately, a PhD is no guarantee that a person is not a fool. It proves that they have a certain base level of discipline, intelligence, and intellectual rigour, but only in respect of the subject of their thesis.
Look at it like this. There are, let us say, several million subjects on which a doctoral thesis can be done. The award of a PhD, then, indicates that the holder is more expert than most people in one out of several million subjects. Their competence in the rest of the several million possible areas of expertise remains unproven, so outside their focus area their PhD remains irrelevant.robindch wrote:
See Wicknight's example with the coins. You can have a random process which gives rise to a result which is non-random. For example, rain falls in random places, but it collects into lakes and rivers which are scattered about the place non-randomly.Soul Winner wrote:
Huh? Forgive me but you would need to break that down into smaller pieces for me? I'm sure it envelopes more than the sum of its words.robindch wrote:...Not really. Natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance and the "selection" part of "natural selection" entirely dominates the random process which gives rise to variation. If it didn't, then Genetic Algorithms wouldn't work.
The classic demonstration of the non-randomness of evolution would be very similar to the pepper moth experiment. We can simplify it slightly.
Imagine a population of black moths. These moths live in birch woodland, and are preyed upon by birds. The birds eat about 50% of the black moths in any generation.
Now, introduce a heritable mutation that produces a white moth, otherwise identical to the black moths. This is random, as mutation is - the mutation could equally well have produced red moths.
The white moths are harder for birds to spot against the birches, so only 20% of them are eaten by birds in any generation. This is not random - it's an inevitable result of the white moths being harder to spot against the birch trees.
Over the course of several generations, you will observe an ever-increasing proportion of white moths in the woodland population, simply because more of them than the black moths survive to breed.
So we have a random mutation, which is then operated on by non-random selection. Does that make sense? Where do you see the system as requiring the intervention of a 'designer' or 'director' to ensure that we get mostly white moths in the woodland?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Isn’t it possible that this just might be true though?
Its possible.
So is the existence of an invisible, intangible pink unicorn in my bedroom who lives off eating invisible, intangible grass which is growing underneath my bed. We'll come back to him (or her? I can't tell!) in a bit....
Who is the "we" you refer to here? It would seem that you mean 'atheist' or - in the inaccurate sense that you've been (ab)using it thus far - 'evolutionist'.Why do we throw out these beliefs ...
Everyone throws out beliefs. If you can understand and explain why you throw out your beliefs, you'll be a long way to being able to understand why others do similarly.
Is there? When you say "evidence", what exactly do you mean? I suspect you mean it in the same non-scientific sense that you used the term "theory" earlier....when there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the physical world is not all there is?
In the scientific sense of the term, I would argue that there is no evidence of what you speak of. Indeed, virtually by definition there cannot be, as evidence in science requires observation, which in turn would be "the physical world".
If you go beyond the physical world, you go beyond the observable.
The scientific perspective is that such issues are not addressable. This may be mistaken by some to mean "science says it doesn't exist", but thats a mischaracterisation. Science does not address the existence of such things.
Dawkins, (and some posters such as Wicknight), may argue that we can apply logic and say that there are many things that science cannot address which we no not even contemplate taking the existence of seriously (the invisible, intangible pink unicorn in my bedroom being one), but this is still heading beyond the realms of science.
I agree, but I would ask if that is that your position regarding my invisible, intangible pink unicorn? Do you accept that it could be there? Do you accept that it is there?Just because we cannot see it doesn’t mean its not there.Are the human eyes the judge and jury or all reality?
Certainly not. Nor is science.
It is perhaps mischaracterised as such either by those who misunderstand it or those who wish to undermine what it does address.
The question of 'ultimate purpose', to tie all of this back in, is non-scientific. Its not addressed by science in the slightest. Science neither says there is nor is not an ultimate purpose. Science only comment on the matter is that there does not appear to be a need for an ultimate purpose, insofar as we can define what an "ultimate purpose" may be.
Science cannot tell you if the purpose of the rain is turn a hole into a puddle, or if the purpose of a hole is to turn rain into a puddle.
It cannot tell you what the purpose of the puddle is, let alone the ultimate purpose of rain falling, holes existing, and puddles forming.
What science can and does tell us is how a puddle forms when rain and a hole interact under the right conditions, and what those conditions are.
Science tells us that we do not need a "god of puddle-making" in order for puddles to form. It tells us that a puddle can form without the need for a god of puddle-making. It does not say that there is or is not god of puddle-making, for that heads outside the realm of its remit.
In short, science addresses the how. Faith addresses the why. Religion, in my experience, seems to take faith, add in a dash of the how, and then require that this latter addition be defended to preserve the faith.0 -
No problem. You point 'em out, and I'll accuse them, if they're doing what is being done here.
It's not intended to be a dig at Soul Winner - it's an honest attempt to keep him/her from doing something that makes any of us who are scientists immediately go "oh dear...pseudoscience alert". The exact qualifications of a scientist are not actually important, except to indicate that they are in a relevant field. Much of the time, the bald statement "PhD Stanford" actually disguises the fact that the person concerned actually earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at Stanford University, as is the case here. The "PhD" and the "Stanford University" are borrowed glory, to disguise the complete irrelevance of the pastor's background to a debate about evolution.
cordially,
Scofflaw
So you won't be impressed with the Ph.D I purchased for $25?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »So you won't be impressed with the Ph.D I purchased for $25?
Probably not, I'm afraid. Would you regard my Ministry in the Universal Life Church as giving me any spiritual authority?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'm assuming that you can't buy that for $25?0
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I'm assuming that you can't buy that for $25?
No. It's free. However, it does make me a genuine licensed Minister within the State of California.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.
We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.
So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.
We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.
So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.
But those 'tangible' effects could just as easily be ascribed to the real-world reactions of humans to a fictional, but believed real, character.0
Advertisement