a
a
I agree with the point that was made about overextending the theory of evolution to try and explain certain processes that have (as of yet) insufficient evidence. But the theory of evolution has never tried to say anything about the existence of God. That is completely outside of the realm of science.
Now, many philosophers use the theory of evolution to counter some arguments for the existence of God by theists. But they are not at all saying that evolution proves that God does not exist. It is just used by atheists as a rebuttal to William Paley’s argument from design.
[quote]IQ wrote:
Given that atheism doesn’t imply a dogma or any specific personality traits it would depend entirely on the individual.[/quote]
Religion doesn’t imply a dogma or specific personality traits. As in, there are many different religions (multiplicity of dogma) and… I don’t even know how how to touch on the personality traits statement.
[quote]Even though religious dogma dictates that you shouldn’t question your beliefs (hence the need for faith) it is still possible for people to question and/or lose their faith. As with the atheists this depends entirely on the individual and not the religion or lack thereof.
[/quote]
The idea that [quote] religious dogma dictates that you shouldn’t question your beliefs[/quote] is too ludicrous to give serious consideration. I get the feeling you’ve just run into some fundamentalist nuts, and written off the entirity of religion because of it.
And I can’t tell if you’re saying people turn from religion because of the religion, but they turn from atheism because of… themselves… or what. The last part makes little sense.
[quote]
It should also be noted that the existence of a God wouldn’t necessarily be grounds for worship, therefore whether they could become true believers would depend upon your definition of a true believer.[/quote]
I’m really not seeing the point to this part either.
[quote]Fergy wrote:
pstruhar7786 wrote:
while almost always harmful, every once in a while a certain mutation can confer great genetic advantage
“While almost always neutral”
Fixed. 
[/quote]
He was right the first time - most new mutations are harmful
[quote]streamline wrote:
Evolution is a scientific Theory of the origins of human kind. There are thousands of unanswered questions. There is more than one theory about evolution as well.
[/quote]
This isnt exactly true… Evolution is the study of the change in frequency of a gene in a population over time. Thats it really. It doesnt have a “goal” of explaining where humans came from, and it certainly doesnt have anything to do with how life started.
There isnt really more than one “Theory” of evolution, rather the Theory has many explanatory models under its umbrella that make it up as a whole. These include things like genetic drift, mating and DNA combination, natural selection, and genetic mutation. All of these ideas, and more, all fit under the same Theory.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
streamline wrote:
Evolution is a scientific Theory of the origins of human kind. There are thousands of unanswered questions. There is more than one theory about evolution as well.
This isnt exactly true… Evolution is the study of the change in frequency of a gene in a population over time. Thats it really. It doesnt have a “goal” of explaining where humans came from, and it certainly doesnt have anything to do with how life started.
There isnt really more than one “Theory” of evolution, rather the Theory has many explanatory models under its umbrella that make it up as a whole. These include things like genetic drift, mating and DNA combination, natural selection, and genetic mutation. All of these ideas, and more, all fit under the same Theory.
[/quote]
X2, well said.
[quote]Otep wrote:
The idea that religious dogma dictates that you shouldn’t question your beliefs is too ludicrous to give serious consideration. I get the feeling you’ve just run into some fundamentalist nuts, and written off the entirity of religion because of it.[/quote]
Ummm… Isnt the very definition of Dogma an unquestionable belief/doctrine? From the definition: “… it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from”
The fact that there are Dogma’s doesn’t mean you shouldn’t question ANY of your beliefs, but there are religious Dogmas that are, by definition, unquestionable. Now THAT is an idea worth calling ludicrous.
[quote]It should also be noted that the existence of a God wouldn’t necessarily be grounds for worship, therefore whether they could become true believers would depend upon your definition of a true believer.
I’m really not seeing the point to this part either.[/quote]
We are getting a little too far into religious philosophy here, but the point of the statement was that even if it was proven there was a Creator, a God, a Supreme Being, an Intelligent Designer, that wouldn’t mean anything in terms of whether or not it deserved our worship. I exist, that means absolutely nothing in the way of you worshiping me.
I dont particularly find the whole of the actions and thoughts of the God of the bible worthy of praise myself, but thats just me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
Just for the sake of argument:
What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?
And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…
Umm… There are countless examples in science of something being proven wrong, and then the rest of the community readily accepting it. You just cant argue with fact… Unless you are religious.
What in our society (of which more than 50% of the population rejects the theory, and up to 75% reject it as a natural phenomenon) is based on evolution?
Not debating right or wrong in this post, but…
Things like global warming and evolution are religion for a lot of people. I would even go as far as to sometimes label “anti-christian” as much a religion as christianity itself.[/quote]
Agreed.
I’d go so far as to say atheism falls into that category.
And…(uh-oh): Evolution science falls into it too.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Religion doesn’t imply a dogma or specific personality traits. As in, there are many different religions (multiplicity of dogma) and… I don’t even know how how to touch on the personality traits statement.[/quote]
Religion implies the existence of a dogma, which dogma would depend upon which religion you subscribe to. Being religious would indicate that you are a faith based individual, this is a personality trait.
[quote]
The idea that religious dogma dictates that you shouldn’t question your beliefs is too ludicrous to give serious consideration. I get the feeling you’ve just run into some fundamentalist nuts, and written off the entirity of religion because of it.[/quote]
Religions are based on faith, faith is a belief which isn’t based on proof (or it would be knowledge), if religions wanted people to question their beliefs they would be based on knowledge.
Of course I haven’t met every religious person or been exposed to every religion so it’s possible I could be wrong. Unfortunately every discussion I have ever had with a religious person where I have questioned their beliefs resulted in them retreating back to faith, if I meet people who can support their beliefs without the need for faith I will be prepared to consider it.
I’m open minded.
I am saying that people turn towards/against religion based upon what they are looking for, this depends on the individual.
[quote]It should also be noted that the existence of a God wouldn’t necessarily be grounds for worship, therefore whether they could become true believers would depend upon your definition of a true believer.
I’m really not seeing the point to this part either.[/quote]
Well, you posed a question using the term “true believer”. Different people have different definitions for this term therefore you need to qualify the term before your question can be answered.
My definition of a “true believer” would be someone who follows all aspects of their dogma without exception, is this your understanding?
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I’d love to learn more about creation science. Please explain.[/quote]
To all those posts about Creation Science:
I’m no scientist and can only give some layman explanations and examples, but have so little time these days that I cannot even attempt to answer most of the questions/challenges that have come up.
I was merely pointing out an option for those out there who have an open mind to see what other scientists are saying…specifically those tackling Intelligent Design.
Now, I can refer you to some “simple” books that can make things clearer from the Intelligent Design perspective:
-The Case for Creator (by Lee Strobel)
-(or any “The Case for…” books by Lee Strobel)
-“Darwins Black Box” (by Michael J Behe)
-“The New Answers Book” (By Ken Ham)
-“Creation Evangelism for the New Millenium” (By Ken Ham)
-(Ken Ham books in general)
-“Scientific Creationism” (by Henry M. Morris)
(These are the only ones I’m personally familiar with, although there are a pluthera more out there).
Again, I’m no scientist, but I do not have blind faith in a Creator. From an Intellignet Design standpoint, we are designed with a mind and are encouraged (even ordered) to use it.
[quote]z0k wrote:
Fergy wrote:
pstruhar7786 wrote:
while almost always harmful, every once in a while a certain mutation can confer great genetic advantage
“While almost always neutral”
Fixed.
He was right the first time - most new mutations are harmful ;)[/quote]
x2
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I dont particularly find the whole of the actions and thoughts of the God of the bible worthy of praise myself, but thats just me. [/quote]
I think a new thread would be needed to tackle this, as I’m thinking I know what you are referring to, and I used to agree with you.
I don’t think that way anymore.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, if you can explain to me mechanistically how for example a different protein directs or a different set of proteins direct the arteries and veins to hook up in a different pattern to the heart, for example as in the difference between fish and amphibians, please do. [/quote]
This is a complicated question, and one that would require several pages to at least try to answer. I wouldn’t say that we aren’t even close to scientifically providing an explanation though. Hox genes have provided a lot of insight into how, for instance, a two chambered heart might mutate into a three chambered heart.
It doesn’t require several pages to “try to answer” because at the present time it cannot be explained mechanistically.
And I think it was correct of me to say it’s not even close.
There is likely a difference between being a scientist and therefore having a lot of experience and practice in actually having things nailed down and having to demonstrate doing so, and popular idea of what constitutes being fully understood and known without gaps.
For example, towards the end of my degree in microbiology you could ask me any number of environmental changes E. coli might be exposed to, and I could tell you (having been taught, and these being understood matters) at the molecular level how the bacterium sensed the difference and responded to it. Even then knowledge is not complete – e.g., WHY this protein sequence folds this way to yield this enzyme is too hard a problem – but certainly we can explain in great detail just how the bacterium regulates itself to various conditions.
Or in medicinal chemistry, in many cases we can do just that with regard to how a drug works (and are quite aware when this cannot be done, as also is often the case.)
Or studying physics or chemistry, one is used to either being able to provide a mathematical-proof-like solution of why and how a given thing is so, or not being able to do so.
Whereas to the non-scientist, the fact that scientists can name something that is involved is I think commonly taken as being that it is already known how something works right down to the fine details or must be close to it.
Sort of like aliens listening in on Earth radio transmissions, and upon one of their scientists saying it is uncertain to their science, at the detailed level, how profound muscle growth occurs in adult humans, and expresses that their race is not close to understanding how this occurs in humans: and a non-scientists replies “Well it would take several pages to explain but barbells go a long way towards explaining it. So see, we ARE close to fully understanding what happens in detail.”
Yes, barbells are involved (typically) but simply knowing that they are is not close to understanding it at a mechanistic level. And in fact barbells are not in and of themselves sufficient.
Lastly – and this will really be my last on it – one ought to consider information concerns. It will not happen that a change of a letter here, a letter there, will modify a book with large amounts of added valid, complex information.
There is rather clearly a large information difference between a viable fish-type heart and circulatory system and that of an amphibian.
A suggestion that changes of a few letters of DNA sequence – that is to say, a few mutations – or doublings of some of it or omissions of some of it naively (IMO) omits the consideration of how much information needs to be added. We don’t know exactly how much it is, but it’s a lot.
Again my point is not that we know it is impossible for this to occur via chemical processes and natural selection, but rather, to assert that we know that it IS possible is not true. We can’t say that we know that given protein changes would yield these bodyplan changes, we can’t even specify how much information change is needed, how many genes would need to be changed how much, etc, or I think even give a rational sounding explanation of how the first creature with this type of system successfully propagates its new genes what with the fact that it is the only one of its kind, or even if it is born with a twin sibling or that sort of thing.
As for an earlier post giving a suggestion that it sounds like I’d be interested in a text on developmental biology: What is the underlying assumption you are making? It is incorrect.
OK, really last post on this thread, I think I have stated all this as clearly as I can.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I’d love to learn more about creation science. Please explain.
To all those posts about Creation Science:
I’m no scientist and can only give some layman explanations and examples, but have so little time these days that I cannot even attempt to answer most of the questions/challenges that have come up.
I was merely pointing out an option for those out there who have an open mind to see what other scientists are saying…specifically those tackling Intelligent Design.
Now, I can refer you to some “simple” books that can make things clearer from the Intelligent Design perspective:
-The Case for Creator (by Lee Strobel)
-(or any “The Case for…” books by Lee Strobel)
-“Darwins Black Box” (by Michael J Behe)
-“The New Answers Book” (By Ken Ham)
-“Creation Evangelism for the New Millenium” (By Ken Ham)
-(Ken Ham books in general)
-“Scientific Creationism” (by Henry M. Morris)
(These are the only ones I’m personally familiar with, although there are a pluthera more out there).
Again, I’m no scientist, but I do not have blind faith in a Creator. From an Intellignet Design standpoint, we are designed with a mind and are encouraged (even ordered) to use it.
[/quote]
None of those books (and I am familiar with them, especially Behe’s) constitute science in any conceivable sense of the term. For a theory to be scientific, it must make concrete, testable predictions about the observable world that have a possibility of being falsified, i.e. proven to be untrue with the introduction of new evidence.
“Creation Science” makes no such predictions. Even Behe, who is a very good scientist, makes this error in his book. The “creation science” argument is that “evolution couldn’t possibly have done THIS, therefore god did it.” Do you see how this theory offers no predictions at all? It is only negative evidence. It provides no understanding at all of our world.
This is what truly angers me about the concept of “creation science.” It proposes that we utterly disregard the tradition of empirical investigation that has thus far served us so very well. Would it be reasonable for you to say “I don’t know how an airplane stays up in the air, so I think God did it”? Of course not, and if you had the equipment, you could conduct a series of investigations that would demonstrate the Bernoulli effect, lift, drag, shear, etc. and you would come to a better understanding of how an airplane stays aloft. But if you say “God did it” your understanding stops right there. If you allow God into science, (and I am not saying that the two are irreconcilable, only that science has nothing to say about God) then all need for investigation and understanding STOPS. “God did it,” “God wants it that way,” or “God will take care of it” become the only answers that matter. I cannot say this emphatically enough: THAT IS THE WAY BACK TO THE DARK AGES.
Uhh… they had science back then… obviously…
Not to disagree with you bill, but there is an animal with essentially a fractional chamber heart. Alligators hearts are somewhere between 3 (like other reptiles) and 4 (like mammals). They essentially have a 4 chamber heart with a flap of skin that acts as a valve that allows the mixing of blood like a 3 chambered heart (in order to regulate metabolic state).
I know it isn’t exactly a visual step in the evolution of a 4 chambered heart, but it is in that realm.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I’d love to learn more about creation science. Please explain.
To all those posts about Creation Science:
I’m no scientist and can only give some layman explanations and examples, but have so little time these days that I cannot even attempt to answer most of the questions/challenges that have come up.
I was merely pointing out an option for those out there who have an open mind to see what other scientists are saying…specifically those tackling Intelligent Design.
Now, I can refer you to some “simple” books that can make things clearer from the Intelligent Design perspective:
-The Case for Creator (by Lee Strobel)
-(or any “The Case for…” books by Lee Strobel)
-“Darwins Black Box” (by Michael J Behe)
-“The New Answers Book” (By Ken Ham)
-“Creation Evangelism for the New Millenium” (By Ken Ham)
-(Ken Ham books in general)
-“Scientific Creationism” (by Henry M. Morris)
(These are the only ones I’m personally familiar with, although there are a pluthera more out there).
Again, I’m no scientist, but I do not have blind faith in a Creator. From an Intellignet Design standpoint, we are designed with a mind and are encouraged (even ordered) to use it.
None of those books (and I am familiar with them, especially Behe’s) constitute science in any conceivable sense of the term. For a theory to be scientific, it must make concrete, testable predictions about the observable world that have a possibility of being falsified, i.e. proven to be untrue with the introduction of new evidence.
“Creation Science” makes no such predictions. Even Behe, who is a very good scientist, makes this error in his book. The “creation science” argument is that “evolution couldn’t possibly have done THIS, therefore god did it.” Do you see how this theory offers no predictions at all? It is only negative evidence. It provides no understanding at all of our world.
This is what truly angers me about the concept of “creation science.” It proposes that we utterly disregard the tradition of empirical investigation that has thus far served us so very well. Would it be reasonable for you to say “I don’t know how an airplane stays up in the air, so I think God did it”? Of course not, and if you had the equipment, you could conduct a series of investigations that would demonstrate the Bernoulli effect, lift, drag, shear, etc. and you would come to a better understanding of how an airplane stays aloft. But if you say “God did it” your understanding stops right there. If you allow God into science, (and I am not saying that the two are irreconcilable, only that science has nothing to say about God) then all need for investigation and understanding STOPS. “God did it,” “God wants it that way,” or “God will take care of it” become the only answers that matter. I cannot say this emphatically enough: THAT IS THE WAY BACK TO THE DARK AGES.[/quote]
First of all, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised to see that you took the time (previously) to at least investigate the possibility of Creation Science.
That fact speaks well of your intellect and your willingness to search.
Again, I’m no scientist, nor pretend to be…but in the defense of Creation Science, what other choice is there but to begin with a Creator? You have to begin with a base argument and go from there…a platform, so to speak. Evolution science has a similar thing, but starts from a different platform as a base.
Now, coming from a Creation Science standpoint, all that can feasibly be done is refute evidence presented by evolution scientists. This is true. Yet, they could never “interview” God to ask Him if things were created and how. It simply does not work that way.
They are using all the same data and proven scientific facts in order to refute evolution science because there is no way to understand the designing of things from an All Powerful God.
I wish there was, but there isn’t. You can’t make predictions beyond “God designed it that way.” That pretty much sums up the whole standpoint…simply put, we can’t make a test to see if God created it that way or not.
I think I understand your point, though. Yes, the Creation Scientist refutes the evolutionary theory but kind of leaves your jaw hanging for an explainable and “seeable” and testable answer…and you may feel kind of let down by the rationalization that “God did it that way,” but remember that these are still learned men and women with the same data that evolution scientists have.
They are not stupid, as I believe you know.
They research things too as it’s fascinating to them, and as many of them say, it actually increases their faith in Intelligent Design.
However:
Your example of the airplane and flight is not reasonable, though, for reason that even Creation Scientists would take and collect data to find an answer. IF there was real-world scientific evidence, they would, as scientists, have to conclude it was due to natural laws, etc.
Your example is trying to pass them off as chicken-bone-throwing savages relying on superstitions and overspiritualizing everything instead of actually researching and searching, which is definitely not the case with intellectual types (yes, Creation Scientists believe in God and Intelligent Design, but they still have an intellect and use it). They want answers, not mythology or legend or whatever.
Now, there are numerous people (well learned scientists) that actually have gone so far as to say absurd theories that are simply unthinkable that such intellectual men and women could actually believe (I mean, come on…Aliens???).
It’s been a very long day and I apologize for my poor explanation(s) but I can barely keep my eyes open. Still, I wanted to continue this dialogue as you seem to be open to discussion and not muck-slinging, belligerent or flaming.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I’d love to learn more about creation science. Please explain.
To all those posts about Creation Science:
I’m no scientist and can only give some layman explanations and examples, but have so little time these days that I cannot even attempt to answer most of the questions/challenges that have come up.
I was merely pointing out an option for those out there who have an open mind to see what other scientists are saying…specifically those tackling Intelligent Design.
Now, I can refer you to some “simple” books that can make things clearer from the Intelligent Design perspective:
-The Case for Creator (by Lee Strobel)
-(or any “The Case for…” books by Lee Strobel)
-“Darwins Black Box” (by Michael J Behe)
-“The New Answers Book” (By Ken Ham)
-“Creation Evangelism for the New Millenium” (By Ken Ham)
-(Ken Ham books in general)
-“Scientific Creationism” (by Henry M. Morris)
(These are the only ones I’m personally familiar with, although there are a pluthera more out there).
Again, I’m no scientist, but I do not have blind faith in a Creator. From an Intellignet Design standpoint, we are designed with a mind and are encouraged (even ordered) to use it.
[/quote]
I hate to make ad hominem attacks, but Behe is a hack and Ken Ham is an idiot. I’m only peripherally aware of Lee Strobel, but I’m not impressed.
Just a bunch of hackneyed apologists, IMO.