EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

Perhaps I need to be very clear . . . I fully understand and accept science, scientific method, and specifically (to stay OT) evolution theory . . . except for the IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE OF RANDOMNESS, CHANCE, OR WHATEVER as the explanation for the appearance of mutations. I also bristle at the use of nature and natural AS IF they are something other than God and God's design . . . as in . . . "Oh there is no God . . . science has proven that those (_fill in the blank_) are just the result of "natural" processes . . . like "natural" selection (using survival). It is a subtle but insidious distinction I am railing against that does much unnecessary damage to belief in God (I could care less what it does to religions). Is this any clearer? I am pro-science AND pro-God . . . because the reality was made unambiguous to me personally.

Actually, modern genetics does have an explanation for what causes mutations. We just use words like "random" or "chance" as a shorthand to describe the pattern of their occurence. But at this point we know enough about how DNA replicates to know what causes mutations--it's part of the copying process. So you're fundamentally wrong in your assumption.

 

[doppelganger]

The use of the word polluted reveals the very insidious nature of the anti-theist bias that exists . . .

Whoa, hold on there, partner . . . Theism is a metaphysical/ontological endeavor and it has no business in an epistemological approach to philosophy (it's 'polluting' your philosophy, therefore). That I think confusing theism with epistemology is a grand error in no way changes my neutrality on the question "Does 'God' exist?" - though I consider that question itself to be meaningless precisely because the epistemological methodology that produces it is inherently flawed.

 

[Magic Man]

Obviously this thread is far too active for me to keep up with, given my schedule. But I will point out that MysticPhD still has not defined his idea of "god" in any useful, tangible way, and he is still arguing via bald assertion.

Well, he has said that he's a theist. That along with his "purposeful design" ideas give me enough of an indication of what his God is. That's all the explanation I need.

Again MysticPhD, if you are of a scientific bent (as you claim to be), you should appreciate the fact that many here are unwilling to accept your bald assertions as unquestioned gospel. You would be well served to actually back up your arguments with some substance. Failing that, you're going to continue to go 'round in circles.

Exactly. He says so many things as if they're obvious facts, despite the fact that they're nothing more than his opinion.

 

[themadhair]

When yopu don't know or can't know . . . you have to be neutral. There is no basis for taking one side or the other.

Followed up with:

EVERYTHING is natural (God).

I’m calling troll at this point.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, he has said that he's a theist. That along with his "purposeful design" ideas give me enough of an indication of what his God is. That's all the explanation I need.

I especially like the way he tries to pass off his version of God as nothing more than "nature", yet his avatar is a knockoff of the Intel logo with:

Jesus Inside

 

[doppelganger]

I'll go further.

Science doesn't care if there is a God. It concerns itself (exclusively) with the natural world.

Or rather building explanatory models for our observations about the natural world to better our ability to make useful predictions.

 

[Tristesse]

I especially like the way he tries to pass off his version of God as nothing more than "nature", yet his avatar is a knockoff of the Intel logo with:

Jesus Inside

Yeah, I bet he figures if he can get us to all agree that god is nature, we'll submit to his jesus as god idea. haha

 

[themadhair]

I especially like the way he tries to pass off his version of God as nothing more than "nature", yet his avatar is a knockoff of the Intel logo with:

Jesus Inside

Not to mention he/she is attempting to criticise science, which thrives on rigour and careful definition, in favour of his alternative ‘god’, which is still totally undefined.

 

[Autodidact]

If you have to ask . . . I must assume you are less of a scientist than you have been billed as. A "field" refers to an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity or electricity. A universal (or unified) field theory would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various individual field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations. As Michio Katu said, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." Absent a field our mathematics would not work and be meaningless. Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Einstein's gravity field became problematic when Quantum theory (strong and weak nuclear forces) emerged. Relativity explains the macro world and quantum theory explains the micro . . . but they are incompatible. The idea that "nature" would prescribe two completely incompatible ways for the world to work was unacceptable . . . the Holy Grail became the search for the universal (or unified) field theory that would reconcile ALL the forces that establish the current fields. The standard model reconciles the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces . . . but not gravity. NO field is NOT an option.

Assumes what you're trying to prove. It's basically Paley's watch all over again. You assume it's a field, which is defined as blah blah blah. It's the same as assuming there's creation, therefore it must be created. It's just semantics. You don't know whether the universe is a field, a creation, or none of the above. Compared to the universe you are smaller than a sub-atomic particle, and it's not reasonable to expect to understand it.

btw, your personal revelation is of no epistemological value, unless you want to grant the same status to my personal revelation that there is no God? cuz I had this experience, you know, so I KNOW for a fact that there is no God.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Or rather building explanatory models for our observations about the natural world to better our ability to make useful predictions.

I could rent a nice tuxedo, with a cumberbund and a carnation in the lapel, thinking I was looking pretty good. I'd drive up to the prom in my new Cadillac, and I'd have my high school sweetheart on my arm.

Then, when I get to the dance, you'd be standing there in a handmade silk shirt, a crushed velvet dinner jacket, and $4000 handmade Italian leather shoes (unborn calfskin, of course). You'd arrive in your Rolls Royce, with the chaffeur waiting curbside, and you'd have a movie starlet on each arm.

I just can't get ahead of you.

 

[Magic Man]

I especially like the way he tries to pass off his version of God as nothing more than "nature", yet his avatar is a knockoff of the Intel logo with:

Jesus Inside

Great point. I forgot about his avatar. I think he really is part of the ID crowd at this point. Trying to get us to agree to "some sort of design", and then BAM, bait and switch. I guess he doesn't know who he's dealing with.

 

[Autodidact]

One might ask, where does science demonstrate that there is no design? Obviously, if one may do an experiment and achieve the same results over and over, that would be a domonstration of design rather than random happenstance.

It doesn't. Why is this so hard for people to understand. Science doesn't address the issue one way or the other. It gives a natural explanation for apparent design. It has nothing to say about ultimate purpose. Sheez this is fatiguing.

 

[Autodidact]

Science is a tool. It maybe used by bias people in an attempt to prove almost anything. A person who has a bias that's pro-evolution, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving evolution are useful and those that cause questions to arise are misapplied or not to be trusted.

Baloney. You obviously know nothing about science in general or evolution in particular.
So, in your book is it just biologists that use science to bolster their personal bias, or all scientists?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Great point. I forgto about his avatar. I think he really is part of the ID crowd at this point. Trying to get us to agree to "some sort of design", and then BAM, bait and switch. I guess he doesn't know who he's dealing with.

You're probably right. Amazingly, after 20 pages, he still thinks we are going to suddenly collapse under the weight of his stunningly superficial argument.

Oh yeah.

 

[themadhair]

I think he really is part of the ID crowd at this point. Trying to get us to agree to "some sort of design", and then BAM, bait and switch. I guess he doesn't know who he's dealing with.

Thinking same here. It’s rather pointless to argue for design in any form without reference to what it was designed for.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, I just have a few minutes between lab times, so I'll try to be quick.

That was a sarcastic question . . . forgot the "roll eyes" smiley. But thanks for your civility.

You're welcome, I try to be civil whenever possible.

We don't know the design features of the non-coding areas (nor do we know that what we consider errors aren't part of the propagation design). . . but recent epigenetic processes have been seen to use them in activation/ deactivation processes . . . some of which are heritable.

Epigenetics uses a few otherwise silent areas of the genome, by no means does it use the majority. These areas are usually down regulated so that they don't actively code, but are otherwise perfectly functional.
There are large parts of the genome that are functionless due to profound errors in the nucleotide sequences.

A design feature to ensure change (the essence of life itself?) or error?

Either way that change is not directional. Downs syndrome is not adaptive even if it is a change.

Or designed to produce change over time to provide life the flexibility needed for survival?

From a scientific standpoint I can't say if it was 'designed' as there is no scientific testable evidence of a 'designer' or of any purposeful 'design' in the process. It operates via natural chemical processes.

Note the useof Nature AS IF it were separate.

Separate from what?

We agree . . . too bad so much attention is focused on those aspects in science classes AS IF they were part of what science has VALIDATED . . . leading to the arrogant proclamations of such as Dawkins, et al.

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about here... I've never heard Dawkins' proclamations extoled in a science class.
I learn science, scientific method and technique and how to present my data and ideas in a concise technical manner.

wa:do

ps. what is your opinion of chaos math and chaos theory?

 

[LittleNipper]

Baloney. You obviously know nothing about science in general or evolution in particular.
So, in your book is it just biologists that use science to bolster their personal bias, or all scientists?

What I say is totally in error and you know everything about science and evolution in particular. It would be so nice if the world and science were that simple, but that is a different subject.

There are bible believing men who happen to be biologists. The problem is that these men are not allowed free access to present their spiritual considerations throughout a secularized society without offending those in places of power.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, to differ but the very opposite is true. Nature demonstrated that in order to create special breeds of cats, dogs, etc.; if takes the conscientious involvement of a human in the very least. The Tangerine (as an example) did not come about as the result of natural selection but HUMAN CHOICE AND MANIPULATION.

Please explain how natural selection operates significantly differently than artificial selection, and why that demonstrates that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is incorrect.

HOWEVER, man has never been either able to create life

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? Have you ever taken a Biology class? You have no idea why this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

nor produce a new species for all his tampering...

Sorry, you're wrong. Scientists have created several new species. FAIL Here's one.

 

[Autodidact]

Erosion is useful to the diamond cutter.

You're obviously a biased erosionist. Are you possibly an atheist?

 

[LittleNipper]

It doesn't. Why is this so hard for people to understand. Science doesn't address the issue one way or the other. It gives a natural explanation for apparent design. It has nothing to say about ultimate purpose. Sheez this is fatiguing.

You're tied because you are motivated under your own power. Science doesn't present any explanation. Secularists have learned to present the data they discover in that light... They have learned to ignore divine revelation leaving any equation they develope incomplete.