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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down
-
12-11-2007 3:35pm#1Hello folks
I hope you are all feeling good on this beautiful day in Dublin
This has been irking me for a while and I thought I'd jot it down for discussion here. I've often wondered what the thoughts are of those of you who are atheist in your convictions and those of you who believe evolution to be the truest explanation of how this universe came into being on the following scenario...
Let's say that I am a believer in God the creator of all things in Heaven and on Earth. But for arguments sake let us assume that in reality he/she/it doesn't in actuality exist and that all things are just mere products of a series of chance happenings and as a result of which we are all just chance products of a chance evolutionary chain of chance happenings spanned over billions of years in a by chance universe with no purpose or design to it whatsoever.
Why then would an atheist or those who prescribe to (or have faith in) the theory of evolution consider me as (Richard Dawkins would) to be a fool for believing in such things as the supernatural when it’s obviously of no ultimate benefit to me whatsoever in this purposeless universe. When by the same token his or her criticism of me is as equally of no benefit to them and just as foolish if things exist they way they themselves believe them to be?
A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose and this includes the criticism from evolutionists of those who believe in a God who did purpose it.
The evolutionists believe we evolved our working parts (organs etc) for specific bodily functions in order to ‘just’ survive in this by chance living planet, but from whence has evolved (and why? as there is no survival benefits from it) the ability to choose freely one’s belief system in this purposeless universe? What is the point of it all if there really is no creator? If we are all but chance happenings ourselves then where is the evolutionary benefit for survival (to borrow from CS Lewis) in evolving a God concept in our consciousness? Is this fallacy to the laws of nature as some believe them to be the start of the evolutionary wind down of the human race? Is this pointless God concept development in our genes but the beginning of the end to the survival instinct gene in homo sapiens? Or are religious people just the outcasts or waste product of the human race which strives to evolve for purely survival purposes in a purposeless universe? If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?
Nobody wins if there is no God because all things are purposeless from the get go and have no sense in them nor were they meant to have if it all started by chance including the purpose of evolution.
If I were a blank page in this world not yet convinced of either argument as to the belief systems in relation to how we came to be then it would be a hard fight to compel me toward the side of the evolutionist as I would find it much harder to place my faith in the ‘by chance everything just came into being’ belief system (which has to be taken on faith) than the belief in a supernatural all powerful being who started it all with purpose (which also has to be taken by faith). Both concepts require faith but at least the religious side will tell you that from the outset. The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool. That just smacks of dark ages religious mentality if you ask me and has no true old fashioned scientific searching after truth aspect to it at all.
The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years. The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.
All replies are welcome except the replies from those who can't reply without putting me down for choosing the belief in a supernatural God over that of the ‘theory’ of evolution. I want your arguments not your insults.
Thanks
J0
Comments
-
Says who?Soul Winner wrote: »A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose0 -
Firstly, lets deal with the usual canards.
You should distinguish between discussion about, for example, how species arise and how biology works (this happens all the time in science) and specific attacks on evolution by religiously-motivated people. They're not the same and not all commentary deserves equal attention. For example, if OJ Simpson were to claim that his wife was murdered by an invisible green pixie with an axe, he'd be laughed out of court, just as JC would be laughed out of a conference on biology run by biologists. I imagine that you are unfamiliar with the ongoing (and frequently heated) debates within biology because I imagine you are unfamiliar with biology in general. Please correct me if I am wrong.SW wrote:The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool. That just smacks of dark ages religious mentality if you ask me and has no true old fashioned scientific searching after truth aspect to it at all.
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.SW wrote:‘by chance everything just came into being [...] The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years
Why does there have to be a purpose for everything? What's the color blue for? What's the far side of the moon for?SW wrote:A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose
Research on the topic seems to indicate that there's not much personal benefit per se in believing in god. And that leads researchers to conclude that belief in religion is a by-product of other features of the brain which were positively selected for -- things like misfirings of the ability to determine or assert intention, the ability to render ideas adaptable etc.SW wrote:If we are all but chance happenings ourselves then where is the evolutionary benefit for survival (to borrow from CS Lewis) in evolving a God concept in our consciousness?
Selection operates not only at the individual level, but at the group level too, so that if one group outperforms another group, then the features of the first group will spread throughout the population. So even if it's not specifically beneficial one way or the other to believe in god, then it's certainly beneficial, in a manichaeistic manner, to the group for lots of people to believe in god.
For example, if you believe in a violent god who supports you invading and subjugating unbelieving populations, then over time, your own tribe/city/state probably will invade and subjugate other populations causing belief in your own god to spread as believers in other, less militarily successful gods are killed.
Additionally, many religions -- for example christianity -- tell their believers that they must have many children, that they shouldn't use contraception and that propagation of the belief is vital. In this, it's again easy to see that over long periods of time, that children of believers will probably outbreed non-believers and the belief-system, or its descendants, will probably come to dominate. There are plenty more adaptive strategies too: for example, administrative authorities who agree to murder non-believers in return for the religious institutions legitimizing the administrative authorities, the existence of schools and hospitals which select religious believers over non-believers (like in Ireland). And endlessly more ways.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I've often wondered what the thoughts are of those of you who are atheist in your convictions and those of you who believe evolution to be the truest explanation of how this universe came into being on the following scenario...
What do you mean?
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being. It is a theory about how biological life replicates and diversifies on Earth.Soul Winner wrote: »But for arguments sake let us assume that in reality he/she/it doesn't in actuality exist and that all things are just mere products of a series of chance happenings and as a result of which we are all just chance products of a chance evolutionary chain of chance happenings spanned over billions of years in a by chance universe with no purpose or design to it whatsoever.
That is an awful lot of "chance" ... evolution isn't actually a random system, it is directed by natural selection.
Chance only comes into play at the start with mutation. After that mutations that give benefit are selected based on fitness by the environment.
Think of it this way. You have a random flow of coins from around the world. They flow over a hole that is shaped so that only one coin can fall into the whole, say the 5 cent Euro coin. It doesn't matter how much random coins you throw into the machine, only 5 cent coins are going to be collected through this hole.
If any coin could fit the hole then the odds that you would only get 5 cent coins is ridiculously high to say that it would be impossible for only 5 cent coins to fall into the hole. But when the hole only fits 5 cent coins it now becomes impossible for anything but 5 cent coins to fall in. The hole (the environment) is selecting only a certain coin, and the out put of the system is a bag full of 5 cent coins.Soul Winner wrote: »Why then would an atheist or those who prescribe to (or have faith in) the theory of evolution consider me as (Richard Dawkins would) to be a fool for believing in such things as the supernatural when it’s obviously of no ultimate benefit to me whatsoever in this purposeless universe.
Firstly, I don't think you are a "fool". I doubt Richard Dawkins does either.
Secondly, religion is probably a by product of a number of evolutionary traits that do actually provide you with great benefit.
For example it appears to be human nature to apply agency to inanimate objects. This agency over the years has developed into the cultural concepts of "gods". For example bronze age man used to believe that the weather and the sessions were under direct control of gods or spirits. This explained to them why certain things happened in the context of familiar human interactions. So when there was a drought, or a flood, or other natural disaster they rationalised that this was because the "gods" who controlled these things were angry or displeased.
So the question is why do we do this? Why do we tend to assign agency to non-living inanimate objects or natural phenomenon? Well it seems to be because viewing the world in the way works well in simpler tribal systems. It just doesn't work that well when applied to wider questions about the universe around us. So this is a case of one aspect of evolution playing catch up with another aspect. We have developed some of higher intellectual powers quicker than we could grow out of this way of viewing the world.
This leads to the peculiar phenomenon in human culture such as religion.
Dawkins calls them "misfiring" of the original evolutionary instincts, though I'm not quite sure I agree that that is a good way of thinking of them.Soul Winner wrote: »A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose and this includes the criticism from evolutionists of those who believe in a God who did purpose it.
Because no god exists to give the universe purpose doesn't mean that humans can't find purpose for themselves in their own lives. In fact I would strongly recommend that people find their own purpose that suits them rather than subscribing to a religious purpose that may ultimately lead them to feeling disillusioned with life.Soul Winner wrote: »The evolutionists believe we evolved our working parts (organs etc) for specific bodily functions in order to ‘just’ survive in this by chance living planet, but from whence has evolved (and why? as there is no survival benefits from it) the ability to choose freely one’s belief system in this purposeless universe?
There are huge survival benefits from the development of our higher brain functions. In a relatively short period of time from evolutionary point of view (100,000 years) humans have spread out over the entire planet.
As humans developed we evolved social systems that benefit groups over individuals. This includes our emotional systems, for example guilt, love, sadness, empathy etc. These emotional systems evolved because humans working together in social groups improved the survival chances over humans that worked individually.Soul Winner wrote: »If we are all but chance happenings ourselves then where is the evolutionary benefit for survival (to borrow from CS Lewis) in evolving a God concept in our consciousness?
As I said above, religion is most likely a by product of the way evolution has evolved our sense of the world, around the idea of agency in nature. That does provide survival benefit.
This can be demonstrated by the fact that not all human cultures develop concepts of "gods" in the first place, but they all develop concepts of something (spirits/demons/ghosts) that controls nature around them.
The concept of God itself was not evolved, it is a cultural concept that is placed upon the more primeval instinct to view nature as an agent.Soul Winner wrote: »Nobody wins if there is no God because all things are purposeless from the get go and have no sense in them nor were they meant to have if it all started by chance including the purpose of evolution.
Not sure what you mean by "nobody wins"?
What do we not win?Soul Winner wrote: »If I were a blank page in this world not yet convinced of either argument as to the belief systems in relation to how we came to be then it would be a hard fight to compel me toward the side of the evolutionist as I would find it much harder to place my faith in the ‘by chance everything just came into being’ belief system (which has to be taken on faith) than the belief in a supernatural all powerful being who started it all with purpose (which also has to be taken by faith).
Well to be honest you don't seem to quite understand the theories of neo-Darwinian evolution, so I imagine if evolution was explained to you properly your "unbiased" self might have a different opinion.Soul Winner wrote: »Both concepts require faith but at least the religious side will tell you that from the outset. The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool.
Evolution doesn't require "faith". It is a testable theory.
Who has called you a "fool"?Soul Winner wrote: »The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years.
I was reading at lunch about the phenomena of galaxies falling into each other under the pull of gravity. This creates heat and energy on an almost unimaginable scale, and obviously if any life existed in these galaxies it has been completely vaporised.
To me that isn't what I would call "perfect"Soul Winner wrote: »The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.
Actually it is much much higher than that. But as I said above, evolution doesn't state that an enzyme evolved "by chance"
Evolution is not a random process, it is a directed process. It is directed by a system known as "natural selection"
Which is why I said that I don't think you actually understand evolution, which could be why you reject it.0 -
You might consider putting this in the big Creationism thread, although I completely understand if you feel it would get lost in the madness.Soul Winner wrote:This has been irking me for a while and I thought I'd jot it down for discussion here. I've often wondered what the thoughts are of those of you who are atheist in your convictions and those of you who believe evolution to be the truest explanation of how this universe came into being on the following scenario...
Can we just clear something up first? Evolution has nothing to do with (a) the Big Bang, (b) cosmology, (c) the formation of the earth, (d) geology, (e) the origin of life.
You are, I think, referring to the scientific "story" of the universe when you say "evolution". If you don't mind, it would be better to use the term "naturalistic world-view", cumbersome as it is. Otherwise, you will spend most of your time having the points above explained forcefully to you over and over again (it's already happening, as you can see) - and that's not what you're asking about, I think.Soul Winner wrote:Why then would an atheist or those who prescribe to (or have faith in) the theory of evolution consider me as (Richard Dawkins would) to be a fool for believing in such things as the supernatural when it’s obviously of no ultimate benefit to me whatsoever in this purposeless universe. When by the same token his or her criticism of me is as equally of no benefit to them and just as foolish if things exist they way they themselves believe them to be?
Personally, I have no objection to whatever origins theory people prefer to subscribe to. On the other hand, I will cheerfully come down on people who claim that science proves things it doesn't - ideally, I would come down on them like a ton of bricks, but realistically it's more water off the duck's back.
Why do I do so? I do it because claiming that "science proves that the Earth is only 10,000 years old" requires the author of the claim to traduce science - to pretend that pseudoscience is science, and science is pseudoscience.
Science is a very good tool for finding out what the natural world is doing, and for finding out the actual results of policy decisions - determining the real situation. By analogy, it is like a map showing us the world around us, helping us work out how to get to where we want to be from where we are. The distortion of science required to support Creationist claims, then, is the equivalent of people deliberately falsifying chunks of the map, and casting doubt over the rest.Soul Winner wrote:The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years. The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.
Again, if you're looking to debate whether evolutionary theory itself is correct, you should really come over to the Creationism thread. Perhaps you can clarify whether you wish to debate evolution, or debate the debate, if you see what I mean?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Soul Winner wrote:A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purposeSays who?
Good question. Not sure. Me I suppose. Well its axiomatic to me at least. Why its axiomatic? I don't know, probably just the way my brain works? A big bang sounds like a pretty random event which suggests that there’s no real purpose to it so anything existing as a result of that would be as purposeless wouldn't it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Good question. Not sure. Me I suppose. Well its axiomatic to me at least. Why its axiomatic? I don't know, probably just the way my brain works? A big bang sounds like a pretty random event which suggests that there’s no real purpose to it so anything existing as a result of that would be as purposeless wouldn't it?
If we're going on that basis, though, I personally get a much greater sense of purpose out of deciding my own purpose than I do out of existing for God's purposes.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Might be suited to the A&A forum, but is more likely to stay civil here..?
I find it curious you would spurn evolutionary theory due to it's "dark ages religious mentality", but prefer to accept the religion that spawned that dark age in the first place.Soul Winner wrote: »The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool. That just smacks of dark ages religious mentality if you ask me and has no true old fashioned scientific searching after truth aspect to it at all.
Regarding purpose, what is the purpose you think believing in a God gives you?0 -
If we're going on that basis, though, I personally get a much greater sense of purpose out of deciding my own purpose than I do out of existing for God's purposes.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Agreed.
Never quite understand why people take greater comfort in having a purpose dictated to them by a religion.0 -
-
...For example, if OJ Simpson were to claim that his wife was murdered by an invisible green pixie with an axe, he'd be laughed out of court, just as JC would be laughed out of a conference on biology run by biologists.
Why would JC be laughed out of a biologist's conference? He was able to stand his ground against the most learned men of his generation. At 12 he astonished the elders with his understanding of the scriptures. If he was who he claimed to be then he created biology....I imagine that you are unfamiliar with the ongoing (and frequently heated) debates within biology because I imagine you are unfamiliar with biology in general. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Not entirely wrong but not entirely right either. 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....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.
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....Why does there have to be a purpose for everything? What's the color blue for?
If there is a purpose for everything then only the ‘purposer’ if there is one, knows the answer to that. But a Biblical Scholar would argue that the colour Blue represents the eternal nature of God in the Old Testament Tabernacle vale. Other colours in the vale include White, Red and Purple all signifying various aspects of the nature of Christ. Not sure what a naturalist would say the colour blue means....Research on the topic seems to indicate that there's not much personal benefit per se in believing in god. And that leads researchers to conclude that belief in religion is a by-product of other features of the brain which were positively selected for -- things like misfirings of the ability to determine or assert intention, the ability to render ideas adaptable etc.
What research would that be? Who did this research? How did they draw these conclusions? Are these now indisputable facts as well? Or just assumptions because there is no obvious evolutionary explanation?Selection operates not only at the individual level, but at the group level too, so that if one group outperforms another group, then the features of the first group will spread throughout the population. So even if it's not specifically beneficial one way or the other to believe in god, then it's certainly beneficial, in a manichaeistic manner, to the group for lots of people to believe in god.
I’m really sorry but I do not know what you mean by this. What does ‘manichaeistic’ mean? All I can take from it is something that Darwin tried to prove with his finches with the long and short beaks. But wasn’t this proven by later studies to be false? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?For example, if you believe in a violent god who supports you invading and subjugating unbelieving populations, then over time, your own tribe/city/state probably will invade and subjugate other populations causing belief in your own god to spread as believers in other, less militarily successful gods are killed.
Not sure what you’re getting at and I fail to see how that is an example of the other part of the quote. If God exists (and we must remember in this discussion that there is no comprehensible proof that shows he doesn’t) then he is all powerful and quite frankly can do whatever he wants to do can’t he? I mean if you were God wouldn’t you do what you wanted to do? Would you be subject to the likes and dislikes of your creation if indeed you did actually create it?Additionally, many religions -- for example christianity -- tell their believers that they must have many children, that they shouldn't use contraception and that propagation of the belief is vital.
Where does Christianity tell you to do that?In this, it's again easy to see that over long periods of time, that children of believers will probably outbreed non-believers and the belief-system, or its descendants, will probably come to dominate.
Have you any examples that would support this?There are plenty more adaptive strategies too: for example, administrative authorities who agree to murder non-believers in return for the religious institutions legitimizing the administrative authorities, the existence of schools and hospitals which select religious believers over non-believers (like in Ireland). And endlessly more ways.
Again some examples would be nice. I any case what has this got to do with the original post?
Hold on Wicknight I’ll get around to replying to you later. I need to head out for a an hour.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wrong JCSoul Winner wrote: »Why would JC be laughed out of a biologist's conference? He was able to stand his ground against the most learned men of his generation. At 12 he astonished the elders with his understanding of the scriptures. If he was who he claimed to be then he created biology.
Look in the "The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy" thread for a poster called J C. 0 -
Two words: Theistic evolution.0
-
Might be suited to the A&A forum, but is more likely to stay civil here..?
I find it curious you would spurn evolutionary theory due to it's "dark ages religious mentality", but prefer to accept the religion that spawned that dark age in the first place.
Regarding purpose, what is the purpose you think believing in a God gives you?
I would also spurn the dark ages of the religious elite. They kept the masses in check with fear and bad doctrine. The kick back from science will not do itself no favours in the end. The phrase 'over kill' fits here. Now we have a scientific generation that more that spurns the notion of God even being in the picture when it comes to explaining how we got here when at the same time there is no proof to show that he doesn’t exist, just assumptions.0 -
Think of it this way. You have a random flow of coins from around the world. They flow over a hole that is shaped so that only one coin can fall into the whole, say the 5 cent Euro coin. It doesn't matter how much random coins you throw into the machine, only 5 cent coins are going to be collected through this hole.
If any coin could fit the hole then the odds that you would only get 5 cent coins is ridiculously high to say that it would be impossible for only 5 cent coins to fall into the hole. But when the hole only fits 5 cent coins it now becomes impossible for anything but 5 cent coins to fall in. The hole (the environment) is selecting only a certain coin, and the out put of the system is a bag full of 5 cent coins.
That's a great analogy. Cheers for that.
Good luck.
AD.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I would also spurn the dark ages of the religious elite. They kept the masses in check with fear and bad doctrine. The kick back from science will not do itself no favours in the end. The phrase 'over kill' fits here. Now we have a scientific generation that more that spurns the notion of God even being in the picture when it comes to explaining how we got here when at the same time there is no proof to show that he doesn’t exist, just assumptions.
Explaining the theory of evolution without mentioning god is as much "spurning" god as me explaining how to tie my shoelaces without mentioning god.
Sure it's possible, but it's not a relevant part of the scientific description.0 -
Explaining the theory of evolution without mentioning god is as much "spurning" god as me explaining how to tie my shoelaces without mentioning god.
Sure it's possible, but it's not a relevant part of the scientific description.
What a lot of people here seem to forget that the theory of evolution is just that a theory. Where are the hard facts to support it that are not based on frauds? E.G. The Miller-Urey experiment, Pepper Moths, Piltown Man and so on...0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »What a lot of people here seem to forget that the theory of evolution is just that a theory. Where are the hard facts to support it that are not based on frauds? E.G. The Miller-Urey experiment, Pepper Moths, Piltown Man and so on...
Yes, a theory which is the most supported and "proven" something in science can come to. A scientific theory is not an idea, it's not something they came up with one night down the pub. It's an explanation of hard facts supported by evidence.
Read up on scientific theories in general.0 -
If we're going on that basis, though, I personally get a much greater sense of purpose out of deciding my own purpose than I do out of existing for God's purposes.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Not that you need me to or anything but I can accept that. But if the God of the Bible exists then the only choice you have is to choose masters, you do not have a choice to have no master.0 -
Everything in science is "just" a theory.Soul Winner wrote: »What a lot of people here seem to forget that the theory of evolution is just that a theory.
Theories (conceptual models of how scientists understand the universe is structured and operates) are the corner stones of science.Soul Winner wrote: »Where are the hard facts to support it that are not based on frauds? E.G. The Miller-Urey experiment, Pepper Moths, Piltown Man and so on...
About 150 years of study. The hundreds of thousands of biologists across the world who have been working on evolution for over a hundred years aren't just making this stuff up.
If neo-Darwinian biological evolution was not the most supported biological theory then scientists simply wouldn't use it, because it would not be useful for doing anything.
Darwinian evolution's greatest strength, as with all good scientific theories, is that you can use it to do things. Modern medicine is an example.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What do you mean?
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being. It is a theory about how biological life replicates and diversifies on Earth.
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?That is an awful lot of "chance" ... evolution isn't actually a random system, it is directed by natural selection.
Doesn’t that suggest a controlling force directing it? A force that has a will of its own?Chance only comes into play at the start with mutation. After that mutations that give benefit are selected based on fitness by the environment.
Are not all biologist in agreement that mutations in cellular activity are detrimental to the cell as apposed to improving it?Think of it this way. You have a random flow of coins from around the world. They flow over a hole that is shaped so that only one coin can fall into the whole, say the 5 cent Euro coin. It doesn't matter how much random coins you throw into the machine, only 5 cent coins are going to be collected through this hole.If any coin could fit the hole then the odds that you would only get 5 cent coins is ridiculously high to say that it would be impossible for only 5 cent coins to fall into the hole. But when the hole only fits 5 cent coins it now becomes impossible for anything but 5 cent coins to fall in. The hole (the environment) is selecting only a certain coin, and the out put of the system is a bag full of 5 cent coins.
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.Firstly, I don't think you are a "fool". I doubt Richard Dawkins does either.
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.Secondly, religion is probably a by product of a number of evolutionary traits that do actually provide you with great benefit.
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.For example it appears to be human nature to apply agency to inanimate objects. This agency over the years has developed into the cultural concepts of "gods". For example bronze age man used to believe that the weather and the sessions were under direct control of gods or spirits. This explained to them why certain things happened in the context of familiar human interactions. So when there was a drought, or a flood, or other natural disaster they rationalised that this was because the "gods" who controlled these things were angry or displeased.
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.So the question is why do we do this? Why do we tend to assign agency to non-living inanimate objects or natural phenomenon? Well it seems to be because viewing the world in the way works well in simpler tribal systems. It just doesn't work that well when applied to wider questions about the universe around us. So this is a case of one aspect of evolution playing catch up with another aspect. We have developed some of higher intellectual powers quicker than we could grow out of this way of viewing the world. This leads to the peculiar phenomenon in human culture such as religion.
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?Dawkins calls them "misfiring" of the original evolutionary instincts, though I'm not quite sure I agree that that is a good way of thinking of them.
I agree, I don’t either.Because no god exists to give the universe purpose doesn't mean that humans can't find purpose for themselves in their own lives. In fact I would strongly recommend that people find their own purpose that suits them rather than subscribing to a religious purpose that may ultimately lead them to feeling disillusioned with life.
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.There are huge survival benefits from the development of our higher brain functions. In a relatively short period of time from evolutionary point of view (100,000 years) humans have spread out over the entire planet. As humans developed we evolved social systems that benefit groups over individuals. This includes our emotional systems, for example guilt, love, sadness, empathy etc. These emotional systems evolved because humans working together in social groups improved the survival chances over humans that worked individually.
Not sure I would go with that one. Did we not have these abilities long ago? Haven’t we always been social creatures?As I said above, religion is most likely a by product of the way evolution has evolved our sense of the world, around the idea of agency in nature. That does provide survival benefit.
This can be demonstrated by the fact that not all human cultures develop concepts of "gods" in the first place, but they all develop concepts of something (spirits/demons/ghosts) that controls nature around them.
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?The concept of God itself was not evolved, it is a cultural concept that is placed upon the more primeval instinct to view nature as an agent.
Who placed it there?Not sure what you mean by "nobody wins"?
What do we not win?
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 to be honest you don't seem to quite understand the theories of neo-Darwinian evolution, so I imagine if evolution was explained to you properly your "unbiased" self might have a different opinion.
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.Evolution doesn't require "faith". It is a testable theory.
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. 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?Who has called you a "fool"?
Richard DawkinsI was reading at lunch about the phenomena of galaxies falling into each other under the pull of gravity. This creates heat and energy on an almost unimaginable scale, and obviously if any life existed in these galaxies it has been completely vaporised.
To me that isn't what I would call "perfect"
This will happen to our own Milky Way in 10 billon years when it will collide with Andromeda. It probably wouldn’t be perfect to anything living close by but from a safe distance it would be beautiful.Actually it is much much higher than that. But as I said above, evolution doesn't state that an enzyme evolved "by chance"
Evolution is not a random process, it is a directed process. It is directed by a system known as "natural selection"
Which is why I said that I don't think you actually understand evolution, which could be why you reject it.
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.
"Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own." Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Albert Einstein
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs." Hebrews 1 v 1-40 -
You can be a Christian and accept evolution. Setting yourself up against something that most people, including Christians, hold as a truth is problematic, and dare I say 'dangerous'.
If your faith is predicated upon a truth you later come to reject because of overwhelming evidence, then where does that leave you? Of course, this isn't about capitulation or bending your faith. It is about looking at the facts as best we can in the light of our faith.
In the words of the Stephen Jay Gould - himself an agnostic and often referred to as one of the most influential palaeontologist of last century (Looking at his picture, I think I he appeared in an episode of The Simpsons :rolleyes:):
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism"
In much the same idea of 'The Thunderdome' (except without Tina Turner), some would have us believe that Christianity and science are locked in a titanically ferocious battle - "two ideologies enter, one ideology leaves". That of course is a myth perpetuated by people on both sides of the debate for their own ends. The reality for many - respected scientists and 'ordinary' folk alike - is that it is possible to be a Christian and embrace science, including evolution.
I personally never knew what to make of this issue when growing up. I would have leaned towards the idea that Genesis was a metaphorical tale, but I feared that this was going to cause a conflict in my beliefs simply because it appeared to me as if it was either God or science. It's not a question of choosing side, though. This is a false belief that is all too common, IMO. Ultimately I feel that far too much time and energy is spent on this topic.
If you wish, I can recommend a book or two that discusses this contentious aspect of Christianity and science in an enlightening manner.0 -
'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'.
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?). 0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »If your faith is predicated upon a truth you later come to reject because of overwhelming evidence, then where does that leave you? Of course, this isn't about capitulation or bending your faith. It is about looking at the facts as best we can in the light of our faith.
My faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as a 'fact' of history. Christianity has no other basis. If its not true then it all falls down. Like everything else in history it can be studied and you can come away convinced of its truth or its falsity. The tragedy is that not many people take the time to look because they are already convinced that it didn't happen. Well I've looked and I'm convinced it did. But that is getting away from the subject in hand. I take on board the other things you said and respect them.Fanny Cradock wrote: »If you wish, I can recommend a book or two that discusses this contentious aspect of Christianity and science in an enlightening manner.
Yes please I would love to read your recommendations. What are they?0 -
Just what we need, another creationism thread.
0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »If your faith is predicated upon a truth you later come to reject because of overwhelming evidence, then where does that leave you? Of course, this isn't about capitulation or bending your faith. It is about looking at the facts as best we can in the light of our faith.
My faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as a 'fact' of history. Christianity has no other basis. If its not true then it all falls down. Like everything else in history it can be studied and you can come away convinced of its truth or its falsity. The tragedy is that not many people take the time to look because they are already convinced that it didn't happen. Well I've looked and I'm convinced it did. But that is getting away from the subject in hand. I take on board the other things you said and respect them.Fanny Cradock wrote: »If you wish, I can recommend a book or two that discusses this contentious aspect of Christianity and science in an enlightening manner.
Yes please I would love to read your recommendations. What are they?0 -
-
I find it curious you would spurn evolutionary theory due to it's "dark ages religious mentality", but prefer to accept the religion that spawned that dark age in the first place.
I always understood that the Dark Ages (which most modern historians now think weren't really that dark) were spawned by the collapse of the Roman Empire. I thought that blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on Christianity had died with Edward Gibbon. Are you trying to revive that long discredited theory?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »What's wrong with that? After all it is the Christianity forum in fairness.
We already have a very long, and extremely depressing, thread devoted to this subject. I speak as a Christian pastor.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
'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
Advertisement