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
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Not at all - I'm working from first principles here, trying to put together what you guys say and make sense of it. If 'progress' in evolution comes by the elimination of the less fitted, how can ensuring the survival of them be beneficial?
"Progress" does not come from the elimination of anyone. Evolution is non-teleological. It is not moving towards any particular goal. That's a misconception that has been floating around in the public for some time. That classic picture of various ape species marching towards the tool using man. Linear and goal-oriented and totally inaccurate.
There is no evolutionary "progress", there's just survival and reproduction and the outcome of what those demand at a given time.
A human estimation of what constitutes "fit" is just that, it may not at all resemble what natural selection allows to survive. By acting to eliminate the weak we are neither serving evolution nor defying it. We are merely trying to enforce some human ideals upon it. The "goal", is a human one. Whether eugenics is moral in itself is another issue, but evolution isn't a justification for eugenics. It's the theory that we must understand to perform eugenics. It gives us no excuse to do it, any more than nuclear theory could make Hiroshima moral.It need not shipwreck the good ship Evolution, but it sure would slow it drastically.
Again, this assumes the good ship has a destination. Or that someone is at the wheel. It does not and there is not. The good ship evolution drifts on the current until the wind picks up. It's not going anywhere, it's not even going in a straight line.And while the group that did so crawled along, the competing groups would thrive.
They may out compete us some day. But here we are enforcing near-universal altruism, social welfare, healthcare, laws against violence and victimisation. And we've covered the globe. We're the most successful vertebrate species on Earth. How many other large animals can claim 6 billion individuals? On the basis of that evidence, our combination of traits is working very, very well.Please explain why this is not so.
Done.0 -
Not at all - I'm working from first principles here, trying to put together what you guys say and make sense of it.
No offence Wolfsbane, but that is very difficult to believe. We are on what?, page 995 of this thread and you still seem to have rattling around your head various myths and nonsense about evolution that one only finds on Creationist websites.
It is very hard to take the claim that you are listening to what we are saying seriously.If 'progress' in evolution comes by the elimination of the less fitted, how can ensuring the survival of them be beneficial?
Natural selection only happens (I assuming that by quoting "progress" you appreciate Atomics point that evolution is not goal orientated) because one cannot ensure every replicating entity's survival. It is a consequence of this, not the purpose of this.
There is no intelligent "goal" to evolution, but if you want to talk about a goal in the abstract sense, ie what it is doing, the "goal" is that the genes reproduce themselves. Self replication. Self-replication is a property that stopped life simply dying out millions of years ago. The only thing that life is trying to do is self-replicate itself
Evolution happens because with in the environment not every entity can self-replicate. Simply through nature some will be able to and some won't. Those that can will, and will survive to pass on the ability, those that can't won't.
That is not the same as saying that the goal is to ensure that not every entity can self-replicate. It is a fact of life of the harsh environment, not the purpose of the process.
The idea that we should "help" evolution by eliminating the weaker even more efficiently than nature does is to miss the whole point of life, replication. It is missing the wood for the trees.
If one wants to "help" the way to do this is to ensure that as many life forms can reproduce, that is the only thing life is trying to do.0 -
No offence Wolfsbane, but that is very difficult to believe. We are on what?, page 995 of this thread and you still seem to have rattling around your head various myths and nonsense about evolution that one only finds on Creationist websites.
It is very hard to take the claim that you are listening to what we are saying seriously.
Yeah, I'm inclined to take his comments in good faith, but this is starting to strain credibility somewhat. I fully expect a random member of the public to have the teleological evolution myth in their mind somewhere, but Wolfie's been in this game for a long time.0 -
AtomicHorror said:
Yes, I know you don't think evolution has a goal - hence my quotation marks around progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all - I'm working from first principles here, trying to put together what you guys say and make sense of it. If 'progress' in evolution comes by the elimination of the less fitted, how can ensuring the survival of them be beneficial?
"Progress" does not come from the elimination of anyone. Evolution is non-teleological. It is not moving towards any particular goal. That's a misconception that has been floating around in the public for some time. That classic picture of various ape species marching towards the tool using man. Linear and goal-oriented and totally inaccurate.
But surely what we are today came from the elimination of less fit species? One might say our survival at the expense of several forms of sub-human life, for example, is not progress; that we are no better or worse than they were. I would of course hold to humankind being superior to all other lifeforms, but I understand why you do not. Whatever, if our ancestors had cared for the genetically enfeebled as we aspire to today, would we have survived to become the dominant species?
Nuclear theory is not the mechanism proported to separate man from pondscum and all the intermediaries. Evolution is. Those who wish to see his sort of man replace all other sorts will use evolutionary tools for the job. He will select the traits he wants and eliminate the ones he doesn't.There is no evolutionary "progress", there's just survival and reproduction and the outcome of what those demand at a given time.
A human estimation of what constitutes "fit" is just that, it may not at all resemble what natural selection allows to survive. By acting to eliminate the weak we are neither serving evolution nor defying it. We are merely trying to enforce some human ideals upon it. The "goal", is a human one. Whether eugenics is moral in itself is another issue, but evolution isn't a justification for eugenics. It's the theory that we must understand to perform eugenics. It gives us no excuse to do it, any more than nuclear theory could make Hiroshima moral.
The action is justified by claiming that nature uses the same means - albeit non-intelligently, non-directedly.
To refute the justification, one must come up with a moral case: it feels bad, I assume. If our feelings are but a result of non-directed evolution, our reason says we can access how valid they are for our case. The answer, it seems to me, is that such morality is a general, broadbrush mechanism of evolution and not applicable in all cases, the eugenics case being one example.
The eugenics master wants it to go in his line - and the non-directed course cannot guarantee that, even if one was willing to wait for countless ages. So he is going to put his hand on the tiller, trim the sails, etc. Forced sterilization, lethal injection, the gas chamber and firing squad are all to hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It need not shipwreck the good ship Evolution, but it sure would slow it drastically.
Again, this assumes the good ship has a destination. Or that someone is at the wheel. It does not and there is not. The good ship evolution drifts on the current until the wind picks up. It's not going anywhere, it's not even going in a straight line.
So our non-human ancestors did practice near-universal altruism? That's how man arose? All the ape-types got along together, interbreeding, and we emerged from that happy family?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And while the group that did so crawled along, the competing groups would thrive.
They may out compete us some day. But here we are enforcing near-universal altruism, social welfare, healthcare, laws against violence and victimisation. And we've covered the globe. We're the most successful vertebrate species on Earth. How many other large animals can claim 6 billion individuals? On the basis of that evidence, our combination of traits is working very, very well.0 -
Wicknight said:
Agreed - no-goal, non-directed.Evolution happens because with in the environment not every entity can self-replicate. Simply through nature some will be able to and some won't. Those that can will, and will survive to pass on the ability, those that can't won't.
That is not the same as saying that the goal is to ensure that not every entity can self-replicate. It is a fact of life of the harsh environment, not the purpose of the process.
No no one is talking about helping evolution. They are talking about helping themselves (their descendants) by using evolution. They do conceive that to be in line with evolution's course - the survival of the fittest - as they consider themselves to be the cream of humanity.The idea that we should "help" evolution by eliminating the weaker even more efficiently than nature does is to miss the whole point of life, replication. It is missing the wood for the trees.
If one wants to "help" the way to do this is to ensure that as many life forms can reproduce, that is the only thing life is trying to do.
But they are not devotee's to a God called Evolution; they do not seek the survival of any and all lifeforms. Just those that they need and over which they will rule.
But I see you revert to life 'trying' to do something. By the same token one can say 'life' is trying to eliminate the less fit.0 -
Advertisement
-
robindch said:
quoting Martin Luther
if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews' devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country and be told to return to their land and their possessions in Jerusalem, where they may lie, curse, blaspheme, defame, murder, steal, rob, practice usury, mock, and indulge in all those infamous abominations which they practice among us
Yes, Luther was not free from the prevailing mindset that required the State to intervene in religious affairs. But it seems the case he made against the Jews concerned more their civic practises - or what were perceived to be their civic practises.
To what degree their condemnation was justified is beyond my knowledge of the time - but similar accusations are around today in both liberal and fascist camps. Money-lending and alleged manipulation of the market touch people who don't give a fig about religious things.
I note also that Luther was not in favour of exterminating the Jews. He was in fact a proto-Zionist, unlike many today who want the Jews expelled from the land of Israel/Palestine.0 -
No no one is talking about helping evolution. They are talking about helping themselves (their descendants) by using evolution.
I'm not sure where to even start with that.
How would killing off others help you and your descendants to evolve (adapt to your environment)?
The only way to help your descendent would be through increasing your genetic fitness to face various environmental challenges, through something like gene therapy. And considering you don't know what environmental challenges they will face that is going to be rather difficult.
That has nothing to do with anyone else, and certainly nothing to do with culling people.They do conceive that to be in line with evolution's course - the survival of the fittest - as they consider themselves to be the cream of humanity.
But how do you get from that to the idea that we should cull people or stop them breeding. That won't do anything.
Say a killer virus outbreak kills a large population. You survive due to a genetic immunity, a mutation in your genes. You pass this on to your family, and they survive. Eventually the only people left are those with the immunity. Evolution.
Now, say in another universe you don't have the immunity. Some how you find out the virus is coming (time traveling monkeys :pac:) and you decide you need to do something.
So you kill a whole lot of people without the immunity. The virus hits and you die.
See my point? How does culling the "weak" help you in anyway?But I see you revert to life 'trying' to do something. By the same token one can say 'life' is trying to eliminate the less fit.
No one can't. Only if one doesn't understand evolution. The environment eliminates the less fit. And it doesn't do it for any purpose, any more than a volcano erupts for a purpose.
The "goal" of evolution is not to kill off the weak, it is to try and make sure you survive your environment. Evolution is a battle between life trying to replicate and the environment trying to kill it.0 -
Yes, I know you don't think evolution has a goal - hence my quotation marks around progress.
But surely what we are today came from the elimination of less fit species?
If by elimination you mean extinction, then yes. In some cases. But others have survived as we have. The fit prevail more than the weak, extinction is never a certainty. And what we are today includes altruism.One might say our survival at the expense of several forms of sub-human life, for example, is not progress; that we are no better or worse than they were.
At their expense? Not all selection is based on direct competition. We didn't kill them and take their food. They were not fit to the environment, and we were. We certainly are better off than species that have not thrived to our extent. We are fit to a wider environment. The problem is that you're suggesting we can or should make a human judgement on what is fit and what is not. The fact is that the "weak" to whom you often refer are fit. They are surviving and proliferating. That is the only judgement passed by evolution itself.I would of course hold to humankind being superior to all other lifeforms, but I understand why you do not. Whatever, if our ancestors had cared for the genetically enfeebled as we aspire to today, would we have survived to become the dominant species?
At a certain point, they did start caring more widely. Our kin selection instinct came to be broadly applied and the result was larger and larger tribes. It seems very probable that the first tribal alliances, amongst many other factors, laid the groundwork for our domination of Earth.Nuclear theory is not the mechanism proported to separate man from pondscum and all the intermediaries. Evolution is. Those who wish to see his sort of man replace all other sorts will use evolutionary tools for the job. He will select the traits he wants and eliminate the ones he doesn't.
My point about nuclear theory is that both it and evolutionary theory merely provide us with knowledge. Tools with which we may do good or evil. Those tools bring no moral implications in themselves.The action is justified by claiming that nature uses the same means - albeit non-intelligently, non-directedly.
Explain to me how that is a justification for a course of action over inaction. Nature uses many means that we have no interest in replicating for our own uses. And we won't call them moral because they are natural.To refute the justification, one must come up with a moral case: it feels bad, I assume. If our feelings are but a result of non-directed evolution, our reason says we can access how valid they are for our case.
This is what we do in day to day life. Even those of us who think morality comes from God. In complex moral situations, we use reason to judge the broader morals.
But you're missing a point here, how does this allow us to dismiss our morals? They are what compels us to act or not in the first place. Does the suggestion that we ought to practice eugenics come out of rationality alone? How could it? Our impulse to act always begins from our values, our emotions. Eugenics is not suggested by evolution. It is suggested by the morals of people who do not value certain other people. Evolution then becomes their flimsy "reason" for such action. We can't rationally say "I will dismiss my morals for the greater good". That's nonsense. What is the greater good in the absence of morals?The eugenics master wants it to go in his line - and the non-directed course cannot guarantee that, even if one was willing to wait for countless ages. So he is going to put his hand on the tiller, trim the sails, etc. Forced sterilization, lethal injection, the gas chamber and firing squad are all to hand.
But evolution itself does not suggest this. Just as the drifting boat does not suggest a course. The course, the goal is the moral judgement of the eugenicist who uses evolution as a tool. The course comes from his valuation of people, not from the science.So our non-human ancestors did practice near-universal altruism?
When did I say that? I said we practice it and it does not appear to disadvantage us. Altruism is seen in many other species, but it's usually applied only to kin, as it once was for humans. In us, it was exapted to a new function.That's how man arose? All the ape-types got along together, interbreeding, and we emerged from that happy family?
Of course not, we competed. It might have gone any way. But humans developed several traits which put them far ahead of their fellow apes. But why should the fact of that competition demand any particular course of action from us now?0 -
No no one is talking about helping evolution. They are talking about helping themselves (their descendants) by using evolution. They do conceive that to be in line with evolution's course - the survival of the fittest - as they consider themselves to be the cream of humanity.
Then we are agreed that evolution does not suggest eugenics? Any more than nuclear theory suggests bombs over power plants or gravity suggests pushing people from buildings over putting satellites in orbit?
I mean, if we are to claim that evolution has moral implications, then we could as easily argue that selective breeding of animals should be banned as it subverts natural selection. This would be the far end of the spectrum from eugenics and would certainly be making a god of evolution just as surely.0 -
No, no, noOne might say our survival at the expense of several forms of sub-human life
It was not necessary for them to go extinct for us to be here. It doesn't work like that. It was simply a consequence of them not being adapted. Them dying did not evolve us some how.
Imagine a tidal wave. The people who can run fast enough will survive. Those that can't won't
You either will beat it or you won't. It doesn't matter if 10 people are slower than you and end up dying or no one. The tidal wave doesn't have a count of people it will kill and then stop. Thrown 10 weaker people at the tidal wave won't increase your chances of out running it.
You can't placate natural selection by killing off your own group of people. Natural selection (the environment) isn't going to say "Ok, well that was my quota filled, I'll leave the rest of you alone now"0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is not easy for us to distinguish at times, for our brain is the interface with our spirit and our spirit can only express itself via the chemistry there.
I did not say our spirits do everything. I said our brains and our spirits are separate things. The brain may give rise to incoherent/irrational behaviour due to a physical/chemical malfunction; but it could also be our spirit, depending on the nature of the behaviour.If the system works just as well without the invisible factory, and there is no evidence that invisible factory does anything or even exists, why introduce it. Occam's Razor is it were.
There is nothing the spirit is needed to explain. Our brains do everything and this is what the evidence reveals. To claim that the spirit really does everything and our brains just mimic the spirit is down right silly.
But Occam's Razor doesn't cover it in any event - there is more evidence of the spirit world than how the spirit/brain works. People have encountered spiritual events.
We are talking here of spirits, not of the far-flung reaches of the Universe. The people who wrote the Bible were just as human as we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I were discussing science, you might have a point. But in this discussion I am asserting the Biblical explanation - so I don't have to scientifically prove it. But I'll return to that below.
There is no Biblical explanation. We are talking about concepts that the people who wrote the Bible had no concept of. It is simply your assumption that things like "heaven and Earth" refer to the universe, since the people who wrote those passages had no idea of the universe.
Our spiritual descent from Adam:Romans 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, how our spirits are descended from Adam, God does not say.
God doesn't say our spirits are actually descended from Adam, or that our spirits "interface" with the brain. He certainly doesn't say that Adam's DNA was perfect, or that the Fall caused it to change.
Modern Christians just made up all that to try and fit the vague descriptions in Genesis with modern knowledge.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
We are both spirit and body:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Adam's perfection:
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Perfection lost at the Fall:
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate...
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
Fell from perfection and life to corruption and death.COLOR="Red"]Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm don't think we can say our bodies became corrupt by the action of our spirit upon them - rather both body and spirit fell with the first sin. [/COLOR]
"Fell" where?
Pain in birth for women, hard labour for food for man and DEATH for all. See above."Fell" how? The Bible doesn't mention anything happening to our bodies beyond women experiencing painful child birth.
Again you guys are just making this stuff up.
The creation model deals with the material world that follows on from God's creative act or intervention - not with how those acts or interventions arose.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The creation model accepts as a given that creation is now corrupt, subject to decay, imperfect. How that physically was initiated we cannot say - but we can point to its universal existence.
You don't have a "model". Do you understand what that word means. "God did it" is not a model.
A little hint is that anything you say you believe "as a given" is not a model.
So the assumption is not the model.
So you deny the existence of a spirit world has been experienced by some people? Just how you know that is a bit of a mystery. But you write them of as deluded; noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All evidence suggests morality comes from our body OR is mediated by it. The existence of a spirit world has been experienced by many, so it is no suprise they go for the latter explanation.
Well yes, but then people can be pretty dumb, that is not evidence for something. An awful lot of people like Celine Dion.
An awful lot of people like to believe they have experienced something they haven't, particularly if the idea brings them comfort.
Yes, that is what I have been saying throughout this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God brought corruption and death on creation in response to Adam's sin. God did not make Adam sin, but He did make him decay and die.
Finally we get to the terrible conclusion. God decided that all of his own creation will decay and suffer, from all humans to all animal life.
Yes, it is His fault in the same way a rapist going to prison is the fault of the judge. Usually people put it differently.So it is his fault we are like this. Well at least you are finally admitting that is the only logical conclusion.
Correct. God reveals it to us in His word.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The How, we don't know.
But you know it happened, right
I'm sure the 2nd Law is widely accepted. The evidence is all around in decay and death coming to ALL. The Creation Scientists have the scientific explanation, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A model of perfect biology being made subject to corruption and death? I would imagine any general imposition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would do the trick.
So that would be a no then. You don't have the evidence. You don't have the models. You don't have the science.0 -
You can't placate natural selection by killing off your own group of people. Natural selection (the environment) isn't going to say "Ok, well that was my quota filled, I'll leave the rest of you alone now"
Perhaps more to the point, it's questionable as to how well we could predict future evolutionary fitness. It's all very well breeding humans to be stronger and faster, but what if a random virus comes along that happens to exploit some trait that this new inbred population all have in common? Natural selection will quite happily wipe out that entire population despite our efforts to second guess it. We'd have to control the entire environment for eugenics to work as means to improve evolutionary fitness.
In Darwin's time, he could not have known that genetic diversity in humans is actually surprisingly narrow, due to several population bottlenecks in our past. It's often said (though it could be apocryphal) that individual dogs within the pure breeds display more genetic diversity than the entire human species. The narrower that diversity is, the more vulnerable a species is to disease or some other form of natural selection. Our unrestricted breeding could, for all the eugenicists know, be vital to our future survival.
It doesn't surprise me that the very first social philosophy to utilise the theory of evolution should be so naive. But I do wish people would stop blaming Darwin for it.0 -
No no one is talking about helping evolution. They are talking about helping themselves (their descendants) by using evolution. They do conceive that to be in line with evolution's course - the survival of the fittest - as they consider themselves to be the cream of humanity.
But they are not devotee's to a God called Evolution; they do not seek the survival of any and all lifeforms. Just those that they need and over which they will rule.
But I see you revert to life 'trying' to do something. By the same token one can say 'life' is trying to eliminate the less fit.
If you want to make sure that only your descendants - however fitted they may be to the present environment - come to dominate the gene pool, then your best bet would be to wipe out anyone who isn't descended from you. The state (real or imagined) of their genetic health wouldn't come into it at all.
Instead, you've been saying throughout this thread that evolution demands we try to leave more descendants by eliminating one group of 'unfit' individuals whose biological relationship to us is unknown, and promoting the survival of another 'fit' group whose relationship to us is again unknown. There is a rather obvious flaw in this, and it is due to a confusion of eugenics, with its notion of breeding to promote 'the good of the species', and evolution, in which natural selection does not act for the good of the species, and indeed is blind to it. Evolution selects for genes that leave more descendants over time, and that is it.
So going back to maximising your evolutionary success, imagine if you did try to cull the entire of humanity, leaving only your immediate family. This would be high stakes play. If you got away with it, you and your bloodline would inherit the earth, therein to be fruitful and multiply. But would your six billion or so intended victims just roll over? I suspect it wouldn't be long before they all turned up on your doorstep with smiting in mind, bringing about your abrupt evolutionary end. In the light of this, perhaps more cooperation and less confrontation will seem to be the better evolutionary strategy?
.0 -
I haven't been following this thread and thus may have no place interjecting as I am about to, and no doubt I will offend some people, for that I apologise, and sincerely mean not for this to be a wind up:
Some of the posts here are written as very well-propped arguments, drawing on quotations and citations, and are not just abusive aggressive argumentative ramblings. The language used seems on first instance very articulate, indicating that the writers of these are indeed intelligent people, even logical, and most inviting to a debate. I acknowledge this.
It is to me the most enormous of paradoxes that in this day and age, people of such intellegence exist whom believe in gods.
Note I say "this day and age". In the past, when I say past I mean not the few of thousand years that the Jewish Testament would have you believe is the age of the universe, but I mean to very early Homo Sapiens and perhaps earlier hominids (excuse my inaccuracy in terms here, I have no major education in the history of humans, only general knowledge). Among these people sprung a requirement for religion, [perhaps] for the purpose for two realities;
1. An explanation for why they were here wondering about why they were here, and every other spectacular phenomenon that the earth had to display, and
2. The death of a loved one was such a sorrowful event that it was comforting to believe that they had gone on in spirit form to another place.
A god and heaven provided solutions. This was all fine. The very gift that natural selection gave these people that had them wondering these things in the first place just hadn't had enough time to develop and prove plausible, realistic and ultimately true answers to these fundamental questions.
Now, today, for the most part, it has.
Science has an answer for everything. It has had since the beginning of time and will until it ends. Our marvellous brain just needs time to get around to understanding it. While there are still great mysteries (and simple ones) yet to be figured out, i.e., what was before the Big Bang, most of them have been provided for. Evolution through natural selection is one of these answers.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory, it is not there to be 'believed in' it does not require any faith, it is there, in stone, in all its wonderous glory. And how wonderful that is;
I was not converted from my traditional Roman Catholic Christian background, nor did I (at the point in reference) read any major texts on the topic of atheism or evolution/creation. I went to a catholic school ran by nuns. It wasn't that strict but they all taught the usual stuff, I never really took it seriously or thought baout it much until one day, it sort of just occurred to me, what a load of manure! Like it is wholesale ridiculous what they are teaching! And from this came an interest into what was the real truth about the origin of humans, life, the universe. And how rewarding that interest was. To take but one topic that is Natural Selection, it seemed to me that Darwin’s theories and their offspring offered some of the most fascinating explanations that proved to me to be far more beautiful than believing a god just plonked us on the earth almost for his own amusement.
Returning to my main point. The explanations that physics and science has provided with us are invaluable. It absolutely baffles me, baffles me beyond belief that there are intelligent people whom would rather believe in a supernatural ghost of sorts, whose conjurers offer no explanation, only branding those who question as 'sinners'. They refute scientific facts. Isn't this amazing universe with all its wonders not enough? Without having to believe in gods and heavens and hells and purgatory and limbo (or did they get rid of that place?). If I were to explain beauty of say, an Aurora to someone, saying that it is particles from the sun colliding in the earth’s magnetic field (or something like that right?), one would expect a reaction of amazement and appreciation, instead these people would refute it, saying that I am misinformed, that it is a god whom created this. Thus could be applied to evolution by natural selection.
I'm sure the pioneers of science and physics in the past wondered how long it would be before humans would come to realise the truth, and the necessity for religion would end, I'm sure they predicted a time that we have now long passed. I would have thought that at some stage the world would be divided between those who understand the truth, and those whom believe in the supernatural, the later being of lesser intelligence, and in time, they would too become enlightened to the wonders of science, and thus appreciate it. Now I don't think this will be the case, and it saddens me.0 -
Not at all. He objected to money-lending rather mildly in comparison with what he had to say about religious issues -- did you read any of the text? It's really rather nasty stuff, referring to jews as whores, christ-killers and all the rest.Yes, Luther was not free from the prevailing mindset that required the State to intervene in religious affairs. But it seems the case he made against the Jews concerned more their civic practises - or what were perceived to be their civic practises.
I don't quite know how you can conclude this. Luther said that the jews should be thrown out of their homes, their homes should be destroyed, their money and possessions should be sequestered by the state, their clerics should stay quiet on pain of execution, and the entire jewish population should be reduced to the level of landless peasantry.I note also that Luther was not in favour of exterminating the Jews. He was in fact a proto-Zionist [...]
That seems like a mighty strange kind of proto-Zionism to me.0 -
Total extermination is not necessary - just enough to establish total domination. I know evolution does not select for such ends - but man can. Reason tells him to promote the survival of only those humans that will give us the best advantage. That does not protect against indiscriminate threats like the tsunami - but it adds to our side of the balance.No, no, no
It was not necessary for them to go extinct for us to be here. It doesn't work like that. It was simply a consequence of them not being adapted. Them dying did not evolve us some how.
Imagine a tidal wave. The people who can run fast enough will survive. Those that can't won't
You either will beat it or you won't. It doesn't matter if 10 people are slower than you and end up dying or no one. The tidal wave doesn't have a count of people it will kill and then stop. Thrown 10 weaker people at the tidal wave won't increase your chances of out running it.
You can't placate natural selection by killing off your own group of people. Natural selection (the environment) isn't going to say "Ok, well that was my quota filled, I'll leave the rest of you alone now"
Again: it's not about placating the enviroment; it's about maximizing our group. The survival and prosperity of our competitors may well determine how we evolve. Killing off our enfeebled members and killing off any of the competing groups - that makes good materialist sense.0 -
I just read your quote. It seemed to focus on practises. But all non-official religion was persecuted in those times - Calvinists, Catholics, Lutherans all sought to impose their religion as the only one to be practised, sometimes the only one to be held.Not at all. He objected to money-lending rather mildly in comparison with what he had to say about religious issues -- did you read any of the text? It's really rather nasty stuff, referring to jews as whores, christ-killers and all the rest.I don't quite know how you can conclude this. Luther said that the jews should be thrown out of their homes, their homes should be destroyed, their money and possessions should be sequestered by the state, their clerics should stay quiet on pain of execution, and the entire jewish population should be reduced to the level of landless peasantry.
That seems like a mighty strange kind of proto-Zionism to me.
Your quote had Luther suggest the Jews be removed from Germany and sent home to Israel - the establishment of a Jewish state in their historic homeland. That's Zionism.
A bit strange, I agree. But then some of the Zionists who formed the State of Israel in the last century were prepared to see mass-murder of the Jews, rather than have them escape to America, etc. It was Israel or nothing.0 -
Total extermination is not necessary - just enough to establish total domination. I know evolution does not select for such ends - but man can. Reason tells him to promote the survival of only those humans that will give us the best advantage.
It might if we had any idea of what traits would confer such an advantage. The ones typically chosen by eugenicists are highly valued by humans, but that guarantees nothing. Human judgement of what will enhance survival is just speculation, not science.Again: it's not about placating the enviroment; it's about maximizing our group.
There are 6 billion of us. We didn't need eugenics to get here.The survival and prosperity of our competitors may well determine how we evolve.
What competitors? What species are competing for the resources humans need?Killing off our enfeebled members and killing off any of the competing groups - that makes good materialist sense.
Only if:
1. You genuinely know that such an action will benefit the human species in the long run.
2. You genuinely know that evolution can't do a perfectly adequate job of this without our intervention.
3. Your valuation of human life is low enough that you can kill many people to serve 1 and 2.
Nobody really knows 1 and 2 to any significant degree, because nobody knows the future environment in enough detail. Point 3 has rather sadly been demonstrated by some very unpleasant people.0 -
WxfrdJay said:
Welcome to the thread!Returning to my main point. The explanations that physics and science has provided with us are invaluable.
Creationists agree with what you say above.
As some evolutionists here point out, science does not disprove God.It absolutely baffles me, baffles me beyond belief that there are intelligent people whom would rather believe in a supernatural ghost of sorts, whose conjurers offer no explanation, only branding those who question as 'sinners'.
We refute scientific opinions and hypotheses, etc - not facts.They refute scientific facts.
One doesn't have to believe in purgatory or limbo if one believes in God. In fact, the Bible contradicts those states.Isn't this amazing universe with all its wonders not enough? Without having to believe in gods and heavens and hells and purgatory and limbo (or did they get rid of that place?).
No, they wouldn't. Please point out where you have read/heard this.If I were to explain beauty of say, an Aurora to someone, saying that it is particles from the sun colliding in the earth’s magnetic field (or something like that right?), one would expect a reaction of amazement and appreciation, instead these people would refute it,
God created the universe and the forces that give rise to the Aurora. He does not immediately create each Aurora.saying that I am misinformed, that it is a god whom created this.
I have seen the Aurora - I have never seen evolution by natural selection. Have you?Thus could be applied to evolution by natural selection.
No doubt some did - but it seems from what has been recorded that most attributed the magnificence of the universe to God.I'm sure the pioneers of science and physics in the past wondered how long it would be before humans would come to realise the truth, and the necessity for religion would end, I'm sure they predicted a time that we have now long passed.
Don't be sad. Review the facts; throw out your prejudices; see how science and God are not mutually exclusive; marvel at the wonders God has created; Worship Him and be happy.I would have thought that at some stage the world would be divided between those who understand the truth, and those whom believe in the supernatural, the later being of lesser intelligence, and in time, they would too become enlightened to the wonders of science, and thus appreciate it. Now I don't think this will be the case, and it saddens me. 0 -
We refute scientific opinions and hypotheses, etc - not facts.
I'm afraid you really do try to refute facts. Evolution being one of them.God created the universe and the forces that give rise to the Aurora. He does not immediately create each Aurora.
But apparently creating forces that drive evolution was beyond Him :pac:I have seen the Aurora - I have never seen evolution by natural selection. Have you?
Er, creationist don't dispute evolution by natural selection. They dispute how far it can proceed. Otherwise where did all the extra species come from after the Flood?Don't be sad. Review the facts; throw out your prejudices; see how science and God are not mutually exclusive; marvel at the wonders God has created; Worship Him and be happy.
Unfortunately, science and your version of God are incompatible. The God of the literal genesis has been falsified conclusively.0 -
Advertisement
-
No paradox to me. People's intelligence has probably not evolved much over the last few millenia;). It seems that faith can touch intelligent (sophisticated) people just as easily as simple folk.It is to me the most enormous of paradoxes that in this day and age, people of such intellegence exist whom believe in gods.
The same could be said of revealed scripture;)Science has an answer for everything. It has had since the beginning of time and will until it ends. Our marvellous brain just needs time to get around to understanding it.
However, I enjoy reading scientists' arguments if well expressed because they do not depend on a personal revelation. On the other hand, I enjoy reading a sympathetic Christian intellectual because they can rationalise what I feel.0 -
Reason tells him to promote the survival of only those humans that will give us the best advantage.
Why?
Even if we ignore Atomics very valid point that it is impossible to know what traits will give us the best advantage in the first place, what purpose do you think it serves to only "promote" the survival of those humans with these traits?
What do you think that does?
I ask because we are going around in circle trying to explain to you that this does nothing for you, or your descendants. Perhaps if you explain what you think it does we might have a better way to explain all this to you.That does not protect against indiscriminate threats like the tsunami - but it adds to our side of the balance.
But all threats are as indiscriminate as the tsunami. The environment doesn't consciously pick out who lives and who dies.
Why is it about that. Or why do you think it is about that?Again: it's not about placating the enviroment; it's about maximizing our group.
No not really. What process do you think would result in that?The survival and prosperity of our competitors may well determine how we evolve.0 -
One more question for the evolutionists: I'd recently asked if you saw a big divide between humans and "all other species" and, in summary, got the answer that it was not a particularly special divide, no more perhaps than between any other species and the rest.
Now, do you see a fundamental distinction between living things and non-living things?
For instance, the way an organism may evolve over time as a function of its environment suggests the way a given compound in a chemical reaction might emerge as a function of its reactive environment. Also, would a gene be classified as a living thing or a non-living thing (in broad brush-strokes)?0 -
postcynical wrote: »One more question for the evolutionists: I'd recently asked if you saw a big divide between humans and "all other species" and, in summary, got the answer that it was not a particularly special divide, no more perhaps than between any other species and the rest.
Now, do you see a fundamental distinction between living things and non-living things?
Yes. Living things can self-replicate. There are other criteria, but to me that is the most important one.postcynical wrote: »For instance, the way an organism may evolve over time as a function of its environment suggests the way a given compound in a chemical reaction might emerge as a function of its reactive environment.
It's a similar idea, but life is a very complex and very long-term chemical reaction. So complex that we've had to define a science with that reaction alone as its frame of reference- biology.postcynical wrote: »Also, would a gene be classified as a living thing or a non-living thing (in broad brush-strokes)?
I'm sure you'd get a great many and varied answers to that one. I'm going to say "not really". There's two aspects to a gene, the gene itself, which is information within a certain context; and the medium of the gene, which is the compound in which it is stored. If a gene, in isolation, can self-replicate indefinitely then it is a living thing. The thing that will probably determine that is the medium it is stored in. RNA can sometimes self-replicate but DNA generally can't and as far as we know protein cannot at all. Even stored in an ideal medium, most genes in isolation cannot self-replicate and wouldn't fit my main criterion for life.0 -
postcynical wrote: »Now, do you see a fundamental distinction between living things and non-living things?
Not fundamental in terms of the universe in general . Living things are a certain type of complex chemical reaction. But at a fundamental level it is not any different to any other chemical reaction, it follows all the same rules of chemistry and physics.
"Life" is just a term humans have come up with to call this chemical reaction. To the universe it is all just chemistry.0 -
Not fundamental in terms of the universe in general . Living things are a certain type of complex chemical reaction. But at a fundamental level it is not any different to any other chemical reaction, it follows all the same rules of chemistry and physics.
"Life" is just a term humans have come up with to call this chemical reaction. To the universe it is all just chemistry.
Which is just physics :pac:0 -
-
Nice little blog entry I stumbled across (while looking for palaeontology news) concerning evolution, creationism and racism.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00419.htmMartin LeFevre wrote:Looking over the books on a friend’s bookshelf, I spotted a thick tome on evolution, replete with pictures of various fauna and flora. “You can have that one, I don’t believe in evolution anymore.” Dumbfounded, I replied, “Oh, and did you stop believing in gravity as well?”
Not very distant on the tree of ignorance that the “I don’t believe in evolution” people embody, are the studied absurdities of the racialists, who maintain that the different races of man grew from different species of apes.
Racialism is a belief in the significance of racial categories. It is an underlying philosophical orientation necessary to sustain racism, the belief that racial traits and capacities determine an inherent hierarchy of races.
Given the history of slavery, colonialism, and genocide flowing from racism and ideologies of ‘social Darwinism,’ the motives of those who maintain that race is of primary importance must be strenuously questioned.
An example of racialism is an essay by celebrity photographer Akhil Bakshi, who believes that the races of man evolved from different apes. In 2006 Bakshi led an expedition, supported by India’s prime minister, and claimed afterward that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are separate species, which evolved on different continents.
Bakshi’s essay, with the highfalutin title “Continental Drift and Concurrent Evolution of Human Species, A Critique of the African-origin Theory”, contains such gems as this: “One branch of an orang utan (sic) could have evolved into an Asiatic Ape-man who also eventually stood upright and developed Mongoloid features (Java Man, Peking Man) – today’s yellow race of Chinese, Japanese, etc.”
Until recently, there was a legitimate debate between paleoanthropologists regarding whether modern humans in Africa, Asia, and Europe evolved independently from an ancient Homo erectus lineage (‘multiregionalism’); or whether ancient humans in Asia and Europe were replaced by a new species of human (the ‘Out of Africa model’). But it is patently absurd to suggest that different species of apes gave rise to different races of humans. And it plays right into the hands of racists.
A google search of Bakshi’s essay indicates that it has struck a chord amongst people who promote blogs like: “White people save blacks again;” and “****, Whites, and Asians have different ape ancestors.”
Such filth attests to the fact that racialism and racism are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, in the etymology of the word, racialism originally meant what is now defined as racism—the belief in the innate superiority of particular races.
The idea that the races evolved from different species of ancient humans cannot be dismissed just because it plays into racists’ hands. But the overwhelming evidence, and scientific consensus is that racial differences represent relatively recent and superficial evolutionary developments.
Bakshi, who is not a scientist much less paleoanthropologist, trumpets his racialism with red meat rhetoric such as: “Are we to believe that in only 40,000 – 50,000 years the Negroid race evolved into Caucasian and Mongoloid races with vastly different physical characteristics?”
Yes, we are to believe it, because genetic and DNA evidence proves that all humans are very closely related. As Chris Stringer, one of the world’s foremost paleoanthropologists says in “The Evolution of Modern Humans” , “Despite distinctive external features such as skin colour, nose shape and eye form, modern humans are surprisingly similar in their overall genetic makeup.”
The illusion of innate separateness is a powerful tendency in human consciousness. But as we have seen in the United States, there is no such thing as “separate but equal.”
It’s not surprising that peoples that have dominated other peoples need a justification for their brutality and suppression. Nor is it surprising that peoples who have been dominated want to preserve their distinctness in the face of the onslaught of globalization. But embracing harebrained racialist theories does not preserve diversity; it further divides people.
As Dr. Stringer has said, “Africa was our genetic, physical and behavioural homeland, and Africa today may well contain as much genetic diversity as the rest of the world put together. All of us are indeed 'Africans under the skin'.”0 -
We are agreed that any scientific model is only that - not a moral imperative.AtomicHorror wrote: »Then we are agreed that evolution does not suggest eugenics? Any more than nuclear theory suggests bombs over power plants or gravity suggests pushing people from buildings over putting satellites in orbit?
I mean, if we are to claim that evolution has moral implications, then we could as easily argue that selective breeding of animals should be banned as it subverts natural selection. This would be the far end of the spectrum from eugenics and would certainly be making a god of evolution just as surely.
But the model may suggest a course of action. Reason observes the fact (or perceived fact) and sees how that best serves our interests. We observe the fact that gravity causes a human body to fall at a certain rate; that the human body is destroyed by impacts over a certain level; and from this we deduce it harmful to throw oneself or others off a 200 foot cliff.
The theory of gravity expressed no evaluation ('harmful') of such an action. Reason makes the connection between the scientific facts and the impact they have for us.
Now comes the issue of morality. Reasoning from science alone cannot tell us if throwing someone off the cliff is good or evil. We need other data. We need an assessment of the value of human life; of our responsibility to one another; of our responsibility to a Higher Authority (if there is one).
So we ask ourselves these questions about the nature and meaning of life:
Non-theistic evolution tells us we are just complicated forms of matter, that our self-awareness is just the result of chemical processes. That our conscience and emotions reflect only a chemical response conditioned by long evolutionary processes, and are not objectively of value.
So regardless of how we might feel about throwing our neighbour off the cliff, Reason tells us it is of no objective value. If it suits us, we may do it or not. There is on ought to in life.
Theism will inform our Reason that we are more than complicated chemicals and may have to give an account for treating others badly.
Christianity tells our Reason we are made in the image of God, and that He requires of us an account for every harmful action against our neighbour. Reason then tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves, no matter what emotion we may feel about them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right back from Germany, and ramping up to being bothered to start posting again... and I see the thread has moved on to more moral arguments...
but just to kick back a bit to Snellings paper, which wolfsbane linked to, on Po RadioHalos in Biotite... it's an interesting paper by an interesting chap, I took a quick read of his bio and some other stuff...
Ignoring the immediate response that his paper generates and forcing myself to consider Snellings point of view I still find several problems with this work... even assuming Snellings spontaneous changes in the decays rates are accurate, and so on...
I'm having a hard time constructing a well structured response... I feel there are so many things wrong with the model I'm not sure where to start... so I'm just going to list things...
1, Getting the 210Po out of the Zircons, you've got to get the temperature up above the closure temp for Uranium products in zircon, although the rock in this area has only reached about 400C based on Snellings paper and the level of metamorphism... hmmm actually I think there's an inconstancy between what Snelling says and what the metamorphism suggests for temperature but I'd have to double check and I don't want to so I'll just let it slide... Max temp at key location was 400C not high enough.
2, Very Rapid cooling from the closure temperature of Zircon... with out the usual signs of rapid cooling.
3, The accelerated decay rate, many orders of magnitude faster than today required to produce the Po for the model would mean that the Po would decay faster too... Normally 210Po has a half-life of ~138 days... if the 238U (and all other isotopes in the decay chain between 238U and 210Po) decayed (only) a thousand times faster than normal then so did the Po giving it a half life of ... 0.138 days in this hypothetical scenario, which I feel is already not enough time for what Snelling is proposing ... at the same time each gram of 210Po is producing ~140 Kilowatts... not counting the energy from the rest of the decay chain ...
4, the annealing temperatures for the Radiohalos is, according to Snelling, ~150 degrees, above the 110degree annealing temperature of fission tracks in apatite... if the supposed period rapid decay during the creation event and the flood event (as mentioned in the paper) had ended by the time the Po Radiohalos had formed, which frankly would seem to be a requirement, then the fission track ages of the apatites in the rock should show young ages (not necessarily biblical ages)... but the apatites from The Thunderhead Sandstone give ages on geological timescales, so I'm not at all convinced there.
5, Snelling doesn't just require decay rates 1000 times faster than modern day rates... he needs ~400,000,000 years worth of decay to have happened in the last ~4,000 years since the flood... at a glance and with simple maths that's 100,000 times the current rate... but in fact he needs most of this decay to been much higher in the first year and then have the rates of decay dropping off towards are current day rates... but lets just leave it at a low 100,000 times today's rate... the 210Po is then producing 140 megawatts per gram not counting the energy from the other 13 decay steps between 238U and 210Po... (and its half life would now be no where near long enough to get out of the zircons and into the sites in the biotite)
6, ARGH...
with decay rates that high I feel that any rocks with high concentrations of U could go super critical and not be happy bunnies.
Also I really don't think that the hydrothermal fluid that Snelling is talking about would be able to handle the heat generated in this situation... but we are talking about a cataclysmic scenario here anyway... so what's one more explosion?
There's more and we could get more technical but well... what's the point?
Wolfsbane, there are huge problems with this paper, although on the plus side he does go out and gather samples bring them in and do some work on them... it's a rich tapestry.
Not to mention that God messing with the decay rates would pull us back to the idea of God deliberately making the earth look older... unless God has to change things like the Nuclear forces to affect miracles...
at which point all bets are off because I think in that event things that would normally be effectively stable could then be highly radioactive...
Poor Noah and co... all the radioactive isotopes in their bodies decaying in a few short hours... mmm toasty warm.
8(or what ever, it's like 3am now), if the Po was decaying in the biotite I guess you'd find somewhat elevated levels of 206Pb in them... but that would be for another paper.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement