The ONLY religious question!

[Kenny]

I think you would do better to go to an article with more depth and citations, read it carefully, and then follow the citations. In the end, the one thing that I really like from the article that you cite is Orgel's Second Rule: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

I wouldn't argue the point. However, your Orgel's Second Rule is an opinion and not scientifically approved

Try this

I found Wikipedia to be quite funny (not to mention that even I have changed some information on it).

First it says that the scientific community rejects irreducible complexity and yet Behe is part of that scientific community. Obviously the poster just made an "oops".

But your biggest mistake is your last question: this whole business of everything having some teleological purpose is a complete red herring.

Your biggest mistake is to think that your estimation is the valid one. Am I to assume that just because you said it was a red herring it MUST be?

And if you think it isn't, well then I guess you're going to have to accept a universe in which the forces of evil really are much stronger than the forces of good.

That has never seemed to fit well with the Christian worldview, which is one of the reasons I've never accepted it.

Ok... let me delve here a little deeper since everything above that doesn't have much content.

First, certainly it doesn't fit into the Christian world view. If that doesn't fit your world view, I support your every right not to subscribe it. Certainly the Christian world view consists of a spiritual being called Satan to explain evil. Whether evil is stronger than good, IMV, is more of a argument of omniscience.

Second, so as to not to participate in the fallacy of confirmation bias, if I were to subscribe to evolution without purpose then I would definitely have to subscribe to inferior races. Those who evolved in Australia would have to be less than those who evolved in Europe.

It is said that the very essence of all matter is sound and light waves.

Well, if somebody said that, it was not anyone familiar with science.

That would make me wonder if you are familiar with science. Do we send information though light in fiber glass?

And since he is a scientist, I would assume he has some authority (though not all).

Then we have the famous E=mc2 which declares that what we see can be quantified by light.

A very bad use of the word "information." Read Shannon, perhaps, then Dennett.

Are you saying that all scientists always agree on everything?

?
No, that is incorrect. Science begins by observing (anything at all, really, which craves an explanation), and positing a hypothetical explanation, then testing that see whether it holds. Repeat forever....(it's a long recipe).

To make it simple... they saw that the earth was round before they hypothesized it? More complex, they observed quantum physics before they hypothesized E=Mc2? One can only wonder why no one else saw it before Einstein.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I found Wikipedia to be quite funny (not to mention that even I have changed some information on it).

And did you do so honestly, and make explicit citation of all of your sources? I ask only because I've noted that you do not do so here.

There are lots of dishonest people in the world, but they very often get found out. Let's hope that you wouldn't even consider being one of them. And just so you understand my meaning, posting an opinion which you cannot vouch for, in an effort to have it be accepted as "factually true," is dishonest.

First it says that the scientific community rejects irreducible complexity and yet Behe is part of that scientific community. Obviously the poster just made an "oops".

I'm going to put a little challenge to you about this "scientific community." Let's assume that all of the scientists alive at this moment who are working or researching in the sciences relevant to evolution would stand as tall as -- oh let's say the Empire State Building (since it's still standing). Now divide them into two "piles," those who support evolution -- including the evolution of man -- and those that do not. How high do you reckon each pile would be? Roughly 51 stories each, or more like 100 stories versus 2?

Second question: if you stack up every peer-reviewed paper on evolution (and why it's true) against the total of all the peer-reviewed papers on Intelligent Design PLUS Irreducible Complexity, what do you think the comparison would be? Roughly equal? Or would one be as tall as the Jolly Green Giant and the other reach up almost to half the height of his little toe? (Hint: it would take only a miniscule amount of research to demonstrate that the second of each of those comparisons is the correct one.)

Now, I will grant you that it is possible that Behe and a tiny few others are the only ones that are correct on the topic of evolution, but that brings up a corollary question: why is it true that the huge majority is wrong in only one scientific subject -- that of evolution? Is it possible (just asking) that the only reason for that is "I DON'T FREAKIN' WANNA HEAR IT? Because it offends my religious belief?" I mean, the Bible doesn't touch on TV, computers, electronic communications, space travel, robotics, neurology, neuroscience and a thousand other disciplines. But they don't interfere with the powerful notion that "God created me specially because he loves me," so everybody just goes ahead and assumes that God isn't actually programming and running their computers or making their car engines turn over, and accept that science -- in these cases unlike evolution -- works.

I understand this completely, by the way. This is human nature at its most normal and its most stubborn. We will not permit our core values to be assaulted, no matter what the proofs. You've seen it yourself a hundred times by parents confronted with a horrific crime committed by their own child: "He couldn't have done it!" or "that's not my daughter at all," even when the deed is captured on 3 separate cell phone videos and a stationary security camera!

For me, it has always been different. I truly do wish to KNOW things. And if I wish to know things (rather than have my own world-view simply confirmed for my own comfort) then I have to step out of that comfort zone and look at things I might rather not see. I've done that all my life, and been considered something of an outsider for exactly that reason for most of it. And because of this, I've had to confront a lot of stuff that was hard. (Example: you know something of my beginnings as a battered kid -- early in my life I wanted the brute killed and believed strongly in killing anybody who hurt others. You also know that now, in my later years, I am decidedly anti-capital punishment. My world-view had to change based on what I learned. That's not easy.)

Your biggest mistake is to think that your estimation is the valid one. Am I to assume that just because you said it was a red herring it MUST be?

Grin if you like, Ken, but teleology plays almost no part in almost everything that happens in this world. There's a reason when a large chunk of concrete falls off a building, but that reason is not a purpose. There's no teleology there. And that is most especially true when it falls on the stroller with twins being pushed along by their mother and kills them. That's just an ugly accident. This is also true when a mutation changes a cell in a woman's breast, or a man's testicle or prostate, or a child's brain -- and begins the cancer that takes them on a last, painful journey to death.

Ok... let me delve here a little deeper since everything above that doesn't have much content.

First, certainly it doesn't fit into the Christian world view. If that doesn't fit your world view, I support your every right not to subscribe it. Certainly the Christian world view consists of a spiritual being called Satan to explain evil. Whether evil is stronger than good, IMV, is more of a argument of omniscience.

Not omniscience, Ken, but omnipotence. And "omni" because it means "all," tells you everything you need to know. Either both God and Satan are both omnipotent (and therefore both "gods") or only one of them is. And if only one of them is, the other can NEVER, EVER win -- unless that win is permitted by the omnipotent side. In which case, of course, you've got to ask yourself why that cancerous breast, testicle or brain.

And of course, you can't answer it. All that you or anyone else who believes it can really do is throw up their hands and say, "it's God's will." And once again, that doesn't take me to any place that I would like to be.

Second, so as to not to participate in the fallacy of confirmation bias, if I were to subscribe to evolution without purpose then I would definitely have to subscribe to inferior races. Those who evolved in Australia would have to be less than those who evolved in Europe.

That is complete and utter nonsense -- it forgets that evolution can not only add but subtract, that evolution can not only complicate but simplify. And it makes the even more incorrect assumption that there is some teleological end purpose to evolution -- and there is not. This is one shibboleth that I dearly wish you could let go of, because it distorts your ability to understand what it's all about.

That would make me wonder if you are familiar with science. Do we send information though light in fiber glass?

No, you send signals (which are not information) -- and you can do it with electrons through copper, too, not just light through fibre. Matter of fact, you can do it through space itself with waves of EM radiation (this is called "radio," you may have heard of it). You can do it with your fingers using ASL, or with your eyes and a knowing wink to somebody familiar with you.And these signals are made of up encoded semantic data at one end, and decoded into semantic data at the other. (I don't really think it would be wise of you to challenge my understanding of science compared to your own -- but feel free to do so if you don't mind being embarrassed.)

Then we have the famous E=mc2 which declares that what we see can be quantified by light.

For example, that is precisely NOT what that formula means. What it means is that energy and mass are equivalent, and may be converted from one form to the other -- with a very tiny amount of mass being convertible to an absolutely immense amount of energy, and vice-versa. That immensity difference is simply the constant c2 (the speed of light, 300,000 kilometers/second, multiplied by itself, which is 90,000,000,000).

Are you saying that all scientists always agree on everything?

Of course not -- but they disagree using the tools of science.

To make it simple... they saw that the earth was round before they hypothesized it?

Of course they did -- and you could have, too. Just stand on the beach and watch a large sailing vessel approach -- as you first see the flag and top sail, then more and more sail, then the foc'sle and finally the hull. You are seeing it "climbing the curve" of the earth. That notion was used 200 years before Christ was born -- by Eratosthenes -- to make a fairly accurate calculation about the circumference of that globe by measuring the angle of the sun at the same time of day, 500 miles apart, north to south.)

More complex, they observed quantum physics before they hypothesized E=Mc2? One can only wonder why no one else saw it before Einstein.

Are you suggesting that there is never a reason for any discovery, because "one can only wonder why no one else say it before?"

 

[Kenny]

And did you do so honestly, and make explicit citation of all of your sources? I ask only because I've noted that you do not do so here.

There are lots of dishonest people in the world, but they very often get found out. Let's hope that you wouldn't even consider being one of them. And just so you understand my meaning, posting an opinion which you cannot vouch for, in an effort to have it be accepted as "factually true," is dishonest.

What I have found is so many intelligent people use tactics versus honest discussions. Ultimately dishonest in their points because they use a variety methods to deviate from the subject at hand.

To be clear in my statement, to make the issue "honesty" and looking at every jot instead of just saying "would you support this portion with a site to reference" would be trying to deviate the discussion at hand.

I do hope you are not that type of person.

I'm going to put a little challenge to you about this "scientific community." Let's assume that all of the scientists alive at this moment who are working or researching in the sciences relevant to evolution would stand as tall as -- oh let's say the Empire State Building (since it's still standing). Now divide them into two "piles," those who support evolution -- including the evolution of man -- and those that do not. How high do you reckon each pile would be? Roughly 51 stories each, or more like 100 stories versus 2?

Second question: if you stack up every peer-reviewed paper on evolution (and why it's true) against the total of all the peer-reviewed papers on Intelligent Design PLUS Irreducible Complexity, what do you think the comparison would be? Roughly equal? Or would one be as tall as the Jolly Green Giant and the other reach up almost to half the height of his little toe? (Hint: it would take only a minuscule amount of research to demonstrate that the second of each of those comparisons is the correct one.)

Quite a picture. May I give you another picture that gives the other side of the coin? (incidentally, you didn't support your statement with a source. But that's just a jot and will be overlooked)

http://superbeefy.com/how-was-alfre...nd-the-supercontinent-pangaea-finally-proven/

Alfred Wegener's position on the continental drift, in your Empire State Building's two stack would be 99.5% of the 100 stories against him (calling it a fairy tail) vs. him... and yet he was right.

Now, I will grant you that it is possible that Behe and a tiny few others are the only ones that are correct on the topic of evolution, but that brings up a corollary question: why is it true that the huge majority is wrong in only one scientific subject -- that of evolution? Is it possible (just asking) that the only reason for that is "I DON'T FREAKIN' WANNA HEAR IT? Because it offends my religious belief?" I mean, the Bible doesn't touch on TV, computers, electronic communications, space travel, robotics, neurology, neuroscience and a thousand other disciplines. But they don't interfere with the powerful notion that "God created me specially because he loves me," so everybody just goes ahead and assumes that God isn't actually programming and running their computers or making their car engines turn over, and accept that science -- in these cases unlike evolution -- works.

I would say that slices in both directions. Mention God to many of the scientists and their answer would be "I DON'T FREAKIN' WANNA HEAR IT!" I wonder if that taints their objectivity vs the real scientific viewpoint of "let's look at all the facts and where it leads regardless of our position on God".

I understand this completely, by the way. This is human nature at its most normal and its most stubborn. We will not permit our core values to be assaulted, no matter what the proofs. You've seen it yourself a hundred times by parents confronted with a horrific crime committed by their own child: "He couldn't have done it!" or "that's not my daughter at all," even when the deed is captured on 3 separate cell phone videos and a stationary security camera!

We CAN agree on some things

For me, it has always been different. I truly do wish to KNOW things. And if I wish to know things (rather than have my own world-view simply confirmed for my own comfort) then I have to step out of that comfort zone and look at things I might rather not see. I've done that all my life, and been considered something of an outsider for exactly that reason for most of it. And because of this, I've had to confront a lot of stuff that was hard. (Example: you know something of my beginnings as a battered kid -- early in my life I wanted the brute killed and believed strongly in killing anybody who hurt others. You also know that now, in my later years, I am decidedly anti-capital punishment. My world-view had to change based on what I learned. That's not easy.)

Agreed.

I have a true story. One day I wore pink underwear. Usually that tilts someone's head when I say that. As the story goes, I had placed some white underwear with my red shirt. (I knew better but, hey, I'm human). I washed it again and again. They got lighter but always had a pink hue to it.

The application is that we, as people, go through experiences such as yours. Regardless of how much we say it over and have gotten over it, we still have a slight bias because of the life wash we went through with the red of horrible experiences.

It makes me wonder about the following statement by Vitz, a psychologist, who was an atheist until his late thirties.

"After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world’s most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead)."

Atheists and Their Fathers

Is it possible that the red tint bled through their lives? Although it may not be the only reason, it may just be an important factor in many of the cases. There ability to "hear God" or "know God" is hindered by the static of their experience.

Grin if you like, Ken, but theleology plays almost no part in almost everything that happens in this world. There's a reason when a large chunk of concrete falls off a building, but that reason is not a purpose. There's no teleology there. And that is most especially true when it falls on the stroller with twins being pushed along by their mother and kills them. That's just an ugly accident. This is also true when a mutation changes a cell in a woman's breast, or a man's testicle or prostate, or a child's brain -- and begins the cancer that takes them on a last, painful journey to death.

I think that is too simplistic of a statement--although there is some truth to it. IF there is a God and the concrete falls because there is gravity--there is a purpose for gravity, it is to keep us from floating into outer space. The concrete that hit someone is a terrible accident but the gravity still had a purpose.

Cancer mutations. Horrible things. Could it be spiritual too? IF there is a God, and IF Jesus was correct when he said words are spiritual and forgiveness a must, is there a correlation?

Anger, Forgiveness, and Healing

In Christian circles there have been many reports of people healed after forgiveness. One could say it just chemicals.. but forgiveness could also be classified as a spiritual act.

Not omniscience, Ken, but omnipotence. And "omni" because it means "all," tells you everything you need to know. Either both God and Satan are both omnipotent (and therefore both "gods") or only one of them is. And if only one of them is, the other can NEVER, EVER win -- unless that win is permitted by the omnipotent side. In which case, of course, you've got to ask yourself why that cancerous breast, testicle or brain.

That would be a scientific error. Imagine if I said " either there is an ionic bond or a covalent bond" and omitted the fact that there are metallic bonds too.

If we are going to use the Christian understanding and information, then you have to take the whole of the message and not pick the ones that suits your position. I would call that a "half truth", a fallacy.

And of course, you can't answer it. All that you or anyone else who believes it can really do is throw up their hands and say, "it's God's will." And once again, that doesn't take me to any place that I would like to be.

It isn't nice to put words in people's mouths. It also isn't nice to come to conclusions that I didn't say or make. Or, if you like, please quote where I said that. (supportive documentation)

Splitting it into two

 

[Kenny]

Ken said: Second, so as to not to participate in the fallacy of confirmation bias, if I were to subscribe to evolution without purpose then I would definitely have to subscribe to inferior races. Those who evolved in Australia would have to be less than those who evolved in Europe.

That is complete and utter nonsense -- it forgets that evolution can not only add but subtract, that evolution can not only complicate but simplify. And it makes the even more incorrect assumption that there is some teleological end purpose to evolution -- and there is not.

You have just proved my point. If it can add, it can add to one race and not the other. If it can subtract, then it can take away from one race to another.

Definition:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation cogeneration by such processes as mutation, natural selection, anagenetic drift. dictionary.com

If one mutates due to situations, environment, and other natural selection, and we change from a fish to a reptile, then the very nature of evolution is that one race (Europe) developed and the aborigines didn't and thus we have racism. A byproduct of evolution.

This is one shibboleth that I dearly wish you could let go of, because it distorts your ability to understand what it's all about.

This is called an ad hominem fallacy

No, you send signals (which are not information) -- and you can do it with electrons through copper, too, not just light through fibre. Matter of fact, you can do it through space itself with waves of EM radiation (this is called "radio," you may have heard of it). You can do it with your fingers using ASL, or with your eyes and a knowing wink to somebody familiar with you.And these signals are made of up encoded semantic data at one end, and decoded into semantic data at the other. (I don't really think it would be wise of you to challenge my understanding of science compared to your own -- but feel free to do so if you don't mind being embarrassed.)

Another ad hominem.

How to Send Data by Light: Fiber Optics [Updated]: 9 Steps

'nuf said.

For example, that is precisely NOT what that formula means. What it means is that energy and mass are equivalent, and may be converted from one form to the other -- with a very tiny amount of mass being convertible to an absolutely immense amount of energy, and vice-versa. That immensity difference is simply the constant c2 (the speed of light, 300,000 kilometers/second, multiplied by itself, which is 90,000,000,000).

EXACTLY.

Of course they did -- and you could have, too. Just stand on the beach and watch a large sailing vessel approach -- as you first see the flag and top sail, then more and more sail, then the foc'sle and finally the hull. You are seeing it "climbing the curve" of the earth. That notion was used 200 years before Christ was born -- by Eratosthenes -- to make a fairly accurate calculation about the circumference of that globe by measuring the angle of the sun at the same time of day, 500 miles apart, north to south.)

Yes, you can say that now because you know. But back then it was a flat earth.

Are you suggesting that there is never a reason for any discovery, because "one can only wonder why no one else say it before?"

Very funny. Let's not use a strawman.

 

[Milton Platt]

Because God made it so you have to seek the truth. Even without a god that would be how it works. The truth doesn't come to you, you don't accidentally find it. You have to seek the truth. It can be found it your honest with yourself, open to all ideas and patient.

So when scientists ferret out the truth of something, why are theists not open to it?

 

[Willamena]

The only religious question, as far as I can see, and which has been answered in so many ways, is, "Am I going to die?"

 

[Desert Snake]

So when scientists ferret out the truth of something, why are theists not open to it?

Usually the arguments between these positions arent realating to proven facts. More like scientific speculation, which often is changing anyway.

 

[bobhikes]

So when scientists ferret out the truth of something, why are theists not open to it?

Because God wants us to have faith. When you love someone you trust them you don't verify everything they do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have just proved my point. If it can add, it can add to one race and not the other. If it can subtract, then it can take away from one race to another.

Definition:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation cogeneration by such processes as mutation, natural selection, anagenetic drift. dictionary.com

If one mutates due to situations, environment, and other natural selection, and we change from a fish to a reptile, then the very nature of evolution is that one race (Europe) developed and the aborigines didn't and thus we have racism. A byproduct of evolution.

No, racism is not a by-product of evolution -- it's a by-product of stupidity. All humans belong to a single species: homo sapiens. Social development is another matter and does not come under the aegis of evolution. Groups of humans who are isolated from one another will develop socially in different ways, because social development is the result of inter-group communication.
"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded. It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions. (Svante Pääbo, biologist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, on the lack of a genetic basis underlying racial categories (February 5, 2016)"

This is called an ad hominem fallacy

It was not an ad hominem, it was a remark having to do with your conception of evolution as having a purpose, which it does not. If you think it has a purpose, then you will forever be unable to understand it.

Another ad hominem.

How to Send Data by Light: Fiber Optics [Updated]: 9 Steps

'nuf said.

And again, not an ad hominem. You said "That would make me wonder if you are familiar with science. Do we send information though light in fiber glass?" And by the way, that first sentence is an ad hominem, but ignore that. I pointed out two things -- one of which you just reinforced in your link -- we do not send "information," we send signals (which you may consider data). It is not information until it is given context through semantic conversion. And second, that fiber optics is NOT the only way to send data. You can do it with smoke signals, electrons in copper wire, electro-magnetic radiation, and a whole lot more.

'nuf said.

EXACTLY.

You said: "Then we have the famous E=mc2 which declares that what we see can be quantified by light." I said something entirely different, and now you are trying to claim I agreed with you? That seems disingenuous to me.

Yes, you can say that now because you know. But back then it was a flat earth.

The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy[1][2] but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6]

1 Dicks, D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72–198. ISBN 978-0-8014-0561-7.
2 Cormack, Lesley B. (2015), "That before Columbus, geographers and other educated people thought the Earth was flat", in Numbers, Ronald L.; Kampourakis, Kostas, Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, Harvard University Press, pp. 16–22
3 Continuation into Roman and medieval thought: Reinhard Krüger: "Materialien und Dokumente zur mittelalterlichen Erdkugeltheorie von der Spätantike bis zur Kolumbusfahrt (1492)"
4 Direct adoption of the Greek concept by Islam: Ragep, F. Jamil: "Astronomy", in: Krämer, Gudrun (ed.) et al.: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Brill 2010, without page numbers
5 Direct adoption by India: D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (554f.); Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN 0-415-96930-1, p. 463
6 Adoption by China via European science: Jean-Claude Martzloff, “Space and Time in Chinese Texts of Astronomy and of Mathematical Astronomy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, Chinese Science 11 (1993–94): 66–92 (69) and Christopher Cullen, "A Chinese Eratosthenes of the Flat Earth: A Study of a Fragment of Cosmology in Huai Nan Tzu, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1976), pp. 106–127 (107)

 

[Diak (Jack) Anosh]

This is quite applicable to you as it is to him.

Funny but not applicable. You can believe that if you want to.


Except, what evidence is there?

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

This has a lot of information but never really debunked anything.

So, at this point, it would certainly still seem to be irreducibly complex. There are so many other questions (such as the evolution of the eye) that has no reason for becoming without purpose. Who created purpose?

It is said that the very essence of all matter is sound and light waves. Within these light waves is all the information that causes what we see today. Who put that information there?

Which is your prerogative and i don't fault you to salting your beets. But didn't much of science started by believing something before they found evidence?

Not at all. They proved the Earth is flat long before religious people believed it. Oh, wait, it was the universities that were run by the Jesuits that proved that. A complete fiasco by an
agreement between religion and science.

Oh, then there was the "Earth is the center of the universe" science proved again by the help of Religious centered Universities.

Wait, that didn;t work out either.

Hmmmmm! I got it....

Thinking!! thinki...think...

 

[Diak (Jack) Anosh]

And did you do so honestly, and make explicit citation of all of your sources? I ask only because I've noted that you do not do so here.

There are lots of dishonest people in the world, but they very often get found out. Let's hope that you wouldn't even consider being one of them. And just so you understand my meaning, posting an opinion which you cannot vouch for, in an effort to have it be accepted as "factually true," is dishonest.

I'm going to put a little challenge to you about this "scientific community." Let's assume that all of the scientists alive at this moment who are working or researching in the sciences relevant to evolution would stand as tall as -- oh let's say the Empire State Building (since it's still standing). Now divide them into two "piles," those who support evolution -- including the evolution of man -- and those that do not. How high do you reckon each pile would be? Roughly 51 stories each, or more like 100 stories versus 2?

Second question: if you stack up every peer-reviewed paper on evolution (and why it's true) against the total of all the peer-reviewed papers on Intelligent Design PLUS Irreducible Complexity, what do you think the comparison would be? Roughly equal? Or would one be as tall as the Jolly Green Giant and the other reach up almost to half the height of his little toe? (Hint: it would take only a miniscule amount of research to demonstrate that the second of each of those comparisons is the correct one.)

Now, I will grant you that it is possible that Behe and a tiny few others are the only ones that are correct on the topic of evolution, but that brings up a corollary question: why is it true that the huge majority is wrong in only one scientific subject -- that of evolution? Is it possible (just asking) that the only reason for that is "I DON'T FREAKIN' WANNA HEAR IT? Because it offends my religious belief?" I mean, the Bible doesn't touch on TV, computers, electronic communications, space travel, robotics, neurology, neuroscience and a thousand other disciplines. But they don't interfere with the powerful notion that "God created me specially because he loves me," so everybody just goes ahead and assumes that God isn't actually programming and running their computers or making their car engines turn over, and accept that science -- in these cases unlike evolution -- works.

I understand this completely, by the way. This is human nature at its most normal and its most stubborn. We will not permit our core values to be assaulted, no matter what the proofs. You've seen it yourself a hundred times by parents confronted with a horrific crime committed by their own child: "He couldn't have done it!" or "that's not my daughter at all," even when the deed is captured on 3 separate cell phone videos and a stationary security camera!

For me, it has always been different. I truly do wish to KNOW things. And if I wish to know things (rather than have my own world-view simply confirmed for my own comfort) then I have to step out of that comfort zone and look at things I might rather not see. I've done that all my life, and been considered something of an outsider for exactly that reason for most of it. And because of this, I've had to confront a lot of stuff that was hard. (Example: you know something of my beginnings as a battered kid -- early in my life I wanted the brute killed and believed strongly in killing anybody who hurt others. You also know that now, in my later years, I am decidedly anti-capital punishment. My world-view had to change based on what I learned. That's not easy.)

Grin if you like, Ken, but teleology plays almost no part in almost everything that happens in this world. There's a reason when a large chunk of concrete falls off a building, but that reason is not a purpose. There's no teleology there. And that is most especially true when it falls on the stroller with twins being pushed along by their mother and kills them. That's just an ugly accident. This is also true when a mutation changes a cell in a woman's breast, or a man's testicle or prostate, or a child's brain -- and begins the cancer that takes them on a last, painful journey to death.

Not omniscience, Ken, but omnipotence. And "omni" because it means "all," tells you everything you need to know. Either both God and Satan are both omnipotent (and therefore both "gods") or only one of them is. And if only one of them is, the other can NEVER, EVER win -- unless that win is permitted by the omnipotent side. In which case, of course, you've got to ask yourself why that cancerous breast, testicle or brain.

And of course, you can't answer it. All that you or anyone else who believes it can really do is throw up their hands and say, "it's God's will." And once again, that doesn't take me to any place that I would like to be.

That is complete and utter nonsense -- it forgets that evolution can not only add but subtract, that evolution can not only complicate but simplify. And it makes the even more incorrect assumption that there is some teleological end purpose to evolution -- and there is not. This is one shibboleth that I dearly wish you could let go of, because it distorts your ability to understand what it's all about.

No, you send signals (which are not information) -- and you can do it with electrons through copper, too, not just light through fibre. Matter of fact, you can do it through space itself with waves of EM radiation (this is called "radio," you may have heard of it). You can do it with your fingers using ASL, or with your eyes and a knowing wink to somebody familiar with you.And these signals are made of up encoded semantic data at one end, and decoded into semantic data at the other. (I don't really think it would be wise of you to challenge my understanding of science compared to your own -- but feel free to do so if you don't mind being embarrassed.)

For example, that is precisely NOT what that formula means. What it means is that energy and mass are equivalent, and may be converted from one form to the other -- with a very tiny amount of mass being convertible to an absolutely immense amount of energy, and vice-versa. That immensity difference is simply the constant c2 (the speed of light, 300,000 kilometers/second, multiplied by itself, which is 90,000,000,000).

Of course not -- but they disagree using the tools of science.

Of course they did -- and you could have, too. Just stand on the beach and watch a large sailing vessel approach -- as you first see the flag and top sail, then more and more sail, then the foc'sle and finally the hull. You are seeing it "climbing the curve" of the earth. That notion was used 200 years before Christ was born -- by Eratosthenes -- to make a fairly accurate calculation about the circumference of that globe by measuring the angle of the sun at the same time of day, 500 miles apart, north to south.)

Are you suggesting that there is never a reason for any discovery, because "one can only wonder why no one else say it before?"

The basic difference is simple - The Scientist believes the result of his research;
The Theist researches the result of his belief. The problem is, with science, we have to read books about science to aid in our understanding and grow from it . But when we read books about the bible, it stunts our growth. We need only read the bible. And I speak not of translations. THOSE are not the bible, they are whatever the translators make them to be.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The basic difference is simple - The Scientist believes the result of his research;

I would challenge that -- I think it is much more likely that the scientist accepts what he learns from developing a theory from observations and testing that theory. If the tests do not confirm the theory, it is no longer believed (except by a very bad scientist). And if the tests do confirm the theory, what need is there of belief?

The Theist researches the result of his belief. The problem is, with science, we have to read books about science to aid in our understanding and grow from it . But when we read books about the bible, it stunts our growth. We need only read the bible. And I speak not of translations. THOSE are not the bible, they are whatever the translators make them to be.

Again, I think this is false. Studying only the Bible, you ought to believe that you could remove mountains (for example), only through faith. And as, so far, nobody has done such a feat without lots of very heavy equipment and explosives, one must come to the conclusion that either a) there's nobody alive with sufficient faith, or b) what the Bible says is simply not true.

And I vote for the latter. One of the basic reasons I would do so is the example of those Christians who will not seek medical attention for a sick child -- believing that would deny they had enough faith -- and the child dies, as has happened all too often. Surely, having enough faith to allow your own child to suffer and perish should be convincing enough for God to come through as promised. That He doesn't seem to bother suggests I may have it right.

Of course, that's just me as a "scientist" observing events, forming theories, and testing them.

 

[Diak (Jack) Anosh]

I would challenge that -- I think it is much more likely that the scientist accepts what he learns from developing a theory from observations and testing that theory. If the tests do not confirm the theory, it is no longer believed (except by a very bad scientist). And if the tests do confirm the theory, what need is there of belief?

Belief is not a result of a need. One believes what he sees, hears, feels, without giving any thought whatsoever to whether that belief is right, wrong, good, bad, needed, superfluous, or any other contingency.

Again, I think this is false. Studying only the Bible, you ought to believe that you could remove mountains (for example), only through faith. And as, so far, nobody has done such a feat without lots of very heavy equipment and explosives, one must come to the conclusion that either a) there's nobody alive with sufficient faith, or b) what the Bible says is simply not true.

Nowhere does it say "you can move mountains by faith alone." It says to his 12 apostles "if you have faith, you can move mountains."

Do you know any original of the twelve Apostles?

Mark 11:23 says "Whosoever..." So I know it applies beyond the Apostles, but then you have to acknowledge the time frame for miracles done to prove the gospel, and those miracles ceased when the New Testament was completed in 96 a.d. with the Gospel of John.

 

[Kenny]

No, racism is not a by-product of evolution -- it's a by-product of stupidity. All humans belong to a single species: homo sapiens. Social development is another matter and does not come under the aegis of evolution. Groups of humans who are isolated from one another will develop socially in different ways, because social development is the result of inter-group communication.

You have violated the very principles of evolution.

According to evolution, the very reason we have different primates is because of different environments, different pressures, different changes in genomes at different times.

The Five Forces of Evolution
Definition of EVOLUTION
What is Evolution?
DNA Is Constantly Changing through the Process of Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable


To think that four different primates in different parts of the world with different surroundings, environment conditions, would develop into the same species at the same time is a violation of the principles as put forth by evolution.

What is the difference between the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum? Size of brain and intellect. (according to evolution). Thus, by basis of evolutionary principles, the Australian aborigines are sub-human as compared to you.

Neanderthals: larger eyes and smaller brains? | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

So your position is faulty as an evolutionist. By nature of your belief system you have to be a racist. (of course you aren't in violation of your belief in evolution) Christians belief we were made from Adam and Eve... our basis of belief is that we are all the same.

It was not an ad hominem, it was a remark having to do with your conception of evolution as having a purpose, which it does not. If you think it has a purpose, then you will forever be unable to understand it.

It was. And you will forever be unable to understand God or hear Him if you don't see purpose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have violated the very principles of evolution.

According to evolution, the very reason we have different primates is because of different environments, different pressures, different changes in genomes at different times.

The Five Forces of Evolution
Definition of EVOLUTION
What is Evolution?
DNA Is Constantly Changing through the Process of Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable


To think that four different primates in different parts of the world with different surroundings, environment conditions, would develop into the same species at the same time is a violation of the principles as put forth by evolution.

What is the difference between the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum? Size of brain and intellect. (according to evolution). Thus, by basis of evolutionary principles, the Australian aborigines are sub-human as compared to you.

Neanderthals: larger eyes and smaller brains? | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

View attachment 17162





So your position is faulty as an evolutionist. By nature of your belief system you have to be a racist. (of course you aren't in violation of your belief in evolution) Christians belief we were made from Adam and Eve... our basis of belief is that we are all the same.



It was. And you will forever be unable to understand God or hear Him if you don't see purpose.

That, I'm afraid, is entirely incorrect. (By the way, it's Cro-Magnon, not Cro-Magnum. A magnum is a large champagne bottle, and while pleasant, it's not quite the same thing.)

The problem with your post is that you are assuming that Australian Aborigines (and others, in different places around the world) "evolved" into human species in situ. They did not. Homo Sapiens (that's us) evolved in Africa and spread out from there. Because of varying climates from place to place, and because of long separation, we developed some altered characteristics -- skin colour for different sunlight, eye shape for seeing in the blinding white of snowy landscapes, and so on -- but we are still all one species. Slightly different "breeds" if you will, but one species.

Like it or not, all dogs we know today are also one species. A dachshund can mate with a great dane and produce viable, fertile offspring (though it might not be fun for the dachshund if she's female, or interesting for the dane if she's female ) They are all canines, and therefore all the same species (dogs), though they may be of different breeds.

It's the same with us. An Innuit from the far north can happily mate with the Australian Aborigine (or with an ethnic Lao, for that matter), and produce perfectly good, perfectly viable, perfectly fertile human offspring.

Do not let the idea of evolution turn you into a racist, please. It has not done so to me. (And also, please note, that it doesn't take "Adam and Eve" to make me think we are all the same. It takes my knowledge of evolution. Without evolution -- which can produce modifications before species separation occurs, Maoris and Innuit are pretty hard to explain, if you assume nothing but descent in a straight line from on single couple.)

And by the way, it's an open question about whether Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, which did overlap for some time, mated with each other. Though I think it's fairly unlikely, as they were probably fairly sure to find each other repulsive. And for the record, Cro-Magnon is just about exactly who we are.

 

[Kenny]

That, I'm afraid, is entirely incorrect. (By the way, it's Cro-Magnon, not Cro-Magnum. A magnum is a large champagne bottle, and while pleasant, it's not quite the same thing.)

The problem with your post is that you are assuming that Australian Aborigines (and others, in different places around the world) "evolved" into human species in situ. They did not. Homo Sapiens (that's us) evolved in Africa and spread out from there. Because of varying climates from place to place, and because of long separation, we developed some altered characteristics -- skin colour for different sunlight, eye shape for seeing in the blinding white of snowy landscapes, and so on -- but we are still all one species. Slightly different "breeds" if you will, but one species.

Like it or not, all dogs we know today are also one species. A dachshund can mate with a great dane and produce viable, fertile offspring (though it might not be fun for the dachshund if she's female, or interesting for the dane if she's female ) They are all canines, and therefore all the same species (dogs), though they may be of different breeds.

It's the same with us. An Innuit from the far north can happily mate with the Australian Aborigine (or with an ethnic Lao, for that matter), and produce perfectly good, perfectly viable, perfectly fertile human offspring.

Do not let the idea of evolution turn you into a racist, please. It has not done so to me. (And also, please note, that it doesn't take "Adam and Eve" to make me think we are all the same. It takes my knowledge of evolution. Without evolution -- which can produce modifications before species separation occurs, Maoris and Innuit are pretty hard to explain, if you assume nothing but descent in a straight line from on single couple.)

And by the way, it's an open question about whether Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, which did overlap for some time, mated with each other. Though I think it's fairly unlikely, as they were probably fairly sure to find each other repulsive. And for the record, Cro-Magnon is just about exactly who we are.

A great discourse of information of unsupported logic isn't good enough. You will have to do better than that... so, they got from mainland to Australialand... how? They flew in their airplanes? Or floated on coconut rafts?

. The earliest definitely human remains found in Australia are those of Mungo Man LM3 and Mungo Lady, which have been dated at about 50,000 years old,[2] although the time of arrival of the first Indigenous Australians is a matter of debate among researchers, with estimates including thermoluminescence dating to between 61,000 and 52,000 years ago,[3] as well as a suggestion of up to 125,000 years ago[4] and a recent study by Hugo Reyes-Centeno, in 2014, suggesting 100,000 years ago.[5]

Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

So... they had to get there BEFORE 50,000 years... my guess is that they levitated.

No... your position isn't supported by common sense. My viewpoint is so much more logical.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A great discourse of information of unsupported logic isn't good enough. You will have to do better than that... so, they got from mainland to Australialand... how? They flew in their airplanes? Or floated on coconut rafts?

The earliest definitely human remains found in Australia are those of Mungo Man LM3 and Mungo Lady, which have been dated at about 50,000 years old,[2] although the time of arrival of the first Indigenous Australians is a matter of debate among researchers, with estimates including thermoluminescence dating to between 61,000 and 52,000 years ago,[3] as well as a suggestion of up to 125,000 years ago[4] and a recent study by Hugo Reyes-Centeno, in 2014, suggesting 100,000 years ago.[5]

Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

So... they had to get there BEFORE 50,000 years... my guess is that they levitated.

No... your position isn't supported by common sense. My viewpoint is so much more logical.

You might think your viewpoint is more logical, but it doesn't reflect science -- which is not something you try to do anyway, as I've observed. Let me walk you through the history as it is presently understood by archaeologists:

• The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs. Note -- these are definitively not human
• They were flaking crude stone tools by 2.5 million years ago. Then some of them spread from Africa into Asia and Europe after two million years ago. They were still not modern humans - homo sapiens.
• On a little less sure ground, most scientists think that people who look like us -- anatomically modern Homo sapiens -- evolved by at least 130,000 years ago from ancestors who had remained in Africa. Their brain had reached today's size. They, too, moved out of Africa and eventually replaced nonmodern human species, notably the Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, and Homo erectus, typified by Java Man and Peking Man fossils in the Far East.

One of the things you need to understand is that they were now cognitively fully human: intelligent, curious and inventive. Had they the need, and enough science knowledge in their ancestors, they could have invented anything we have.

So why does the magnificent achievement of these homo sapiens, some 70,000 years after they evolved, of showing up on rafts or primitive boats in Australia seem so impossible to you? Is it because you really do think that humans have only been around for about 6,000 years?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would also like to add, @Ken, that you appear not to have even read the article that you quoted, since just a couple of paragraphs down from your citation, it makes just about the same claim I just did -- migration from Africa!

 

[crowfeather]

What the hell do you think you know that everybody else doesn't? How can you be so blindly stupid as to imagine for yourself a God that could make his truth known to you -- but was utterly powerless to make it known to everybody else?

I don't think I know anything. I know what I know.
I am not, actually 'blindly stupid'.
God never made his Truth known to me. I went out there and sought it out, not from others, but from The Source.
God doesn't give a toss what people think of God. God gives life, not evening classes.
Those who don't know simply haven't made the effort to find out, first-hand.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think I know anything. I know what I know.
I am not, actually 'blindly stupid'.
God never made his Truth known to me. I went out there and sought it out, not from others, but from The Source.
God doesn't give a toss what people think of God. God gives life, not evening classes.
Those who don't know simply haven't made the effort to find out, first-hand.

Okay --- what did you find out from the source? You claim to know something, what is it?

"God gives life, not evening classes." So, all-powerful god gives life -- then wherefor death? Don't you mean, "God lends life?"

For myself, I would think very badly of myself if I were to give you something very precious, knowing full-well that I was going to take it from you later. That's not the kind of thing I've ever done to anybody, but of course, I'm not God. I'm nicer than that.