Theist and Atheist disputes about science

March 25, 2008

ID actually does not take a position on the age of the earth. Many believe that the earth is old.

Sorry JamesM, seems I am mistaken. So as we would expect, theists vary from literal translators of biblical creation, to more science educated IDers. My question is to ask what these educated scientists think of literalists? I know many of arguments have been stated on these threads when an atheist calls faith a roadblock to critical thinking and progress. I think it is important to note that faith in a God and faith in your religion are to different things. God can never be touched by new science, but "faiths" or religions are having to adapt or die. ID is an example of an adaptation.

So maybe many IDers believe in an old earth and "macroevolution". What about the creation of humans? Do they concede that the similarity in DNA of humans and chimps is closer than a chimp is to a gorilla? I wouldn't be surprised if many do.

The dispute is not between science and god, but between science and religions.

March 25, 2008

Sorry JamesM, seems I am mistaken. So as we would expect, theists vary from literal translators of biblical creation, to more science educated IDers.

Interestingly enough, among those who believe in macro-evolution and who do not believe in a God (ie Gould vs. Dawkins...gradual evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium), there is some big differences as to how evolution progressed. The amount of education does not necessarily indicate the creativity in the theories.

My question is to ask what these educated scientists think of literalists?

Again, you must seem to think that the more one is educated, the more one will not believe in a God. From my experiences with a number of scientists (PhDs), this is not the case. And yes, there are a number of "literalists" who have as much or more education than many who believe in the accepted theory of macro-evolution.

I know many of arguments have been stated on these threads when an atheist calls faith a roadblock to critical thinking and progress. I think it is important to note that faith in a God and faith in your religion are to different things.

Very true. And those who have been saved by grace do not have "faith in religion," they have their faith and trust in the Almighty God, Creator of the Worlds and Universe.

Point so noted.

God can never be touched by new science, but "faiths" or religions are having to adapt or die. ID is an example of an adaptation.

Again, true. God has not been touched by science. I am guessing that what you mean by "new science" is new THEORIES of science (which may or may not be supported by interpretation of old or new evidences). And I am guessing that what you mean by religions adapting is that people adapt their beliefs to the current theories. Sadly, you are correct. However, when faith is grounded in Jesus Christ, then current theories do not adapt to timeless truths.

ID is as follows:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

So maybe many IDers believe in an old earth and "macroevolution". What about the creation of humans? Do they concede that the similarity in DNA of humans and chimps is closer than a chimp is to a gorilla? I wouldn't be surprised if many do.

Similarity in DNA is not necessarily any indication of evolution between species. If that were the case, there is a 75% similarity between humans an nematodes. And if you want to compare the amount of chromosomes....48 in apes and 46 in man, then the potato is even more similar in chromosomes...it has 46. (Of course, this may indicate the need for many of us to stay on the couch for long periods of time. )

I don't think there is a "need to concede" the similarities. The question is...is there a need to say that this means that they evolved from the same ancestor, or does it simply mean that they have the same Creator?

The dispute is not between science and god, but between science and religions.

I would change your sentence slightly.....

"The dispute is not between science and god, but between the THEORIES of science and the TRUTHS of religions."

March 26, 2008

Interestingly enough, among those who believe in macro-evolution and who do not believe in a God (ie Gould vs. Dawkins...gradual evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium), there is some big differences as to how evolution progressed. The amount of education does not necessarily indicate the creativity in the theories.

Gradual evolution, or genetic drift, and punctuated equilibrium are both generally accepted by evolutionists. They are not at odds at all. Species change slowly in stable environments and when the environment increases pressure, evolution moves forward in leaps.

If you are likening this to the differences in thesist thinking, such as a 6 day creation vs ID evolution, then I can't agree. The idea of a 6 day creation has not been creative for centuries. Also, in scientific terms, 6 day creation is not a theory, but an idea similar to spontaneous generation.

Again, you must seem to think that the more one is educated, the more one will not believe in a God. From my experiences with a number of scientists (PhDs), this is not the case. And yes, there are a number of "literalists" who have as much or more education than many who believe in the accepted theory of macro-evolution.

No, no, no. Education only destroys religious ideas, not a belief in god. God is untouchable in the evidence department. But the stories of creation in all the world religions are proven wrong all the time. Theistic belief is an assumption that has nothing to do with education. As far as literalists being more educated than evolutionists, well they may be more educated in economics or even anatomy, but no way are they more educated in evolutionary biology. Otherwise they would see that evolution is a fact.

Similarity in DNA is not necessarily any indication of evolution between species. If that were the case, there is a 75% similarity between humans an nematodes. And if you want to compare the amount of chromosomes....48 in apes and 46 in man, then the potato is even more similar in chromosomes...it has 46. (Of course, this may indicate the need for many of us to stay on the couch for long periods of time.

Who cares about nematodes, humans and chimps are 98.77% similar. And I don't want to compare the amount of chromosomes because that doesn't make any difference at all. If it did, then you could say that a man with Down's Syndrome is closer related to a chimp than any other human, but that would be wrong. The fact of the matter is that humans and chimps are so close genetically, it is possible that an offspring could be produced between the two.

I don't think there is a "need to concede" the similarities. The question is...is there a need to say that this means that they evolved from the same ancestor, or does it simply mean that they have the same Creator?

Depends on what the methods of this creator are. If he uses magic to make beings out of dust and clay, then you could expect major difference. But if this creator used a process of evolution that happen over millions of years, then they would have had to come from a common ancestor. One or the other. Similarities point to evolution from common ancestry, whether intelligently directed or not. Ignorance of these similarities, or a lack of education in biology can cause an otherwise intelligent theist to dispute evolution. This is usually combined with some sort of emotional display like, "I didn't come from some stupid monkey!"

"The dispute is not between science and god, but between the THEORIES of science and the TRUTHS of religions."

Wow. It's like you are using words with the complete opposite meanings that I have learned for them. Theories as close to truths as we will ever get. They are tested over and over. Evidence is required for them to be theories. I don't know what you are calling the truths of religions, I assume you mean their histories in our context. Of all the religions of the world they can not all be true. Maybe one is, but it still has to defend itself against scientific understanding.

March 26, 2008

Evolution -- Platypus.

God's humer -- Platypus.

Whatever anyone believes - a Platypus is a Platypus and nuthin' else.

Think about it

Platypus's are awesome! I know an athiest could talk me under the table about how it can be explained scienficially, but seeing a platypus, or a baboon, or the color designs on birds, it seems so much like it was created by design with just some of the colors and markings.

I find it hard to believe that those pretty color patterns and designs came by chance, but I'm sure it could be explained. I just find it striking.

March 26, 2008

Colorful markings are usually the result of gradual sexual selection and the opposite of chance. Usually enhanced during courtship rituals.

Actually evolution through natural selection is the opposite of chance. The mutation of genes is chance and is happening all the time in every birth, but the genes that are valuable to adapt are selected not by chance but by the environment through survival of the fittest, or chosen by the population through sexual selection.

Platypus are freakin crazy though. Haven't looked much into their evolution specifically, but it does appear to be dinosaura evolving into mammal instead of bird like the rest. Keeping the egg and beak but going the way of fur, and developing poison at some point in all of that.

March 26, 2008

Gradual evolution, or genetic drift, and punctuated equilibrium are both generally accepted by evolutionists. They are not at odds at all. Species change slowly in stable environments and when the environment increases pressure, evolution moves
forward in leaps.

Actually the way Dawkins and Gould discussed it certainly does not sound like they are compatible. No, both are not generally accepted as mechanisms that explain all of evolution. BUT...I am not saying this invalidates the evolutionary theory at all. It is just that there are many ways to theorize HOW evolution works. While evolutionists may agree on what happened, they do not all agree on the mechanism(s) used, or how it happened.

If you are likening this to the differences in thesist thinking, such as a 6 day creation vs ID evolution, then I can't agree.

But it IS the same. Creationists do not disgaree on the "fact" that God created everything, but they do disagree on HOW He created everything.

The idea of a 6 day creation has not been creative for centuries.

Not true. Even in the scientific community it was quite prevalent just one hundred years ago. I am not sure what you mean by creative,but as a generally accepted idea, it was not that long ago.

Also, in scientific terms, 6 day creation is not a theory, but an idea similar to spontaneous generation.

This is true, but it does not mean that it is false. Abiogenesis cannot be tested either, but it is accepted by many.

Education only destroys religious ideas, not a belief in god.

Actually, for some people who hear only one side of the issue, education can destroy their belief in God. Education only destroys unfounded religious ideas. However, many people let go of religious beliefs once held even when they are actually believed by many to be true. Many other people who become well educated actually believe more firmly in the religious ideas that they have learned.

Again, not sure what you mean by "religious ideas," but I am assuming Christianity and other theistic beliefs. Technically, you have ideas about religion as do I. If you had further education regarding Christianity, those ideas may be destroyed as YOU discover the truth.

God is untouchable in the evidence department.

Hallelujah, brother, you have seen the light! Some would say there is no evidence, but well educated philosophers would disagree with this statement. Of course, then there are people who deny any evidence presented as "not good enough," so that they can hold onto their cherished anti-God beliefs.

But the stories of creation in all the world religions are proven wrong all the time.

How can something that is not testable be proven wrong? Since you have said that "God created" cannot be tested, then it cannot be proven wrong. Simply because the current theory says that life came from nothing rather than Someone...this does not mean that it is correct. Abiogenesis cannot be tested, so it cannot be proven wrong either by science. However, logically speaking (as argued by philosophers) "God did it" is more provable.

BTW, "stories of creation?" There are two arguments for HOW the world began that dominate today's discussions...Creation or Abiogenesis. Neither has been "proven" true or false. However, if one believes in no God, he is forced to choose some method that excludes a God.If

one believes in a God, technically, he can choose either, but then his God is not a Creator.

Theistic belief is an assumption that has nothing to do with education.

Uh, I think this is true as stated yet not completely accurate. People have many beliefs and make many assumptions with or without proof. By definition, an assumption is a belief without proof. And many of these are destroyed when they learn otherwise. But you are also making an assumption that people believe in a God DESPITE their education, and my experience tells me otherwise. Having done quite a bit of research into the proofs given and used for a God, I can say that this has strengthened rather than weakened that belief. Just as many who have "become educated" have lost their belief in a God, so have many who at one point were agnostic or atheist found that the evidences show that God does exist. Just recently, the well known atheist, Anthony Flew decided that the evidence proved there was a God. See his recent book...

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206556045&sr=8-1

And he was well known for debating theists.

And yes, I know of a number of who have lost their belief in God and written books, too.

Education goes beyond simply the teaching and acceptance of information in a classroom. While a "book smart" student may accept all without question, this does not mean that he has really learned anything. Much is taught that is not accurate, and a truly smart student actually discerns this. Accepting that "God does not exist" because a teacher says so, does not mean that one is well educated.

As far as literalists being more educated than evolutionists, well they may be more educated in economics or even anatomy, but no way are they more educated in evolutionary biology. Otherwise they would see that evolution is a fact.

This is a statement from either ignorance or denial. You cannot believe this to be true. That is saying that anyone who does not believe in a God must not be as educated in theology or religion when compared to one who does believe in a God. While this is true for many, it certainly is not true for all. No, educated people reach different conclusions yet each can be just as well-educated as the one who reached the opposite conclusion. One's education may lead them to believe that the current theories based on the interpretation of the evidence does not actually coincide with the "big picture." It is entirely possible that the "literalist" (which I guess we are assuming applies to someone who takes the Bible literally...because I think this word means a whole lot more than that) has drawn different conclusions based on the rest of what he knows.

And while you can keep saying it that evolution is a fact, macroevolution is still a theory.

Who cares about nematodes, humans and chimps are 98.77% similar.

Update your figures, please. Recent information shows 96% similarity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

And I don't want to compare the amount of chromosomes because that doesn't make any difference at all. If it did, then you could say that a man with Down's Syndrome is closer related to a chimp than any other human, but that would be wrong.

While I agree with you, I could find numerous of "well educated" evolutionists who do think that the similar numbers of chromosomes DO mean something. Perhaps they are not aware of the fact that potatoes are even more similar.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chromcom.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/science/01chimp.html

And yes, this kind of connection between mental retardation and evolution has been made, and still is made. Here is an interesting article that "shows" people who may be a "step back in evolution."

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm

Many early animal activists have said that since some humans such as those with Down's Syndrome are less mentally intelligent than most humans, then animals should also have a "human right." Peter Singer was one who alleged this back in the '70s.

The fact of the matter is that humans and chimps are so close genetically, it is possible that an offspring could be produced between the two.

So if a man and a monkey had sex, a baby could result? Would that "person" be sterile or fertile?

This is called the Humaneeze according to wikipedia....

The Humanzee (also known as the Chuman, or Manpanzee) is a hypothetical chimpanzee/human hybrid. Chimpanzees and humans are very closely related , leading to contested speculation that a hybrid is possible, though no specimen has ever been confirmed.

But remember, the chromosome numbers are not equal.

Here is a group that speculates on such a thing and makes the comparison to interracial marriages to show that they are not the best thing for the white race.

Our modern society condones interracial marriage and interracial breeding because of militant egalitarian brainwashing by Marxist professors and a leftist mass media. Just forty years ago, interracial marriages were largely taboo in America. Only persistent propaganda from a leftist media changed these attitudes. The ultimate justification for interracial breeding for many Americans is the fact that it’s possible. In the liberal mind, if it’s possible for a White to produce offspring with a Black, then it’s “natural” and therefore in their minds “OK.”

But what if it were possible for humans to have offspring with apes? Suddenly the “if it’s possible, it’s OK” criteria would no longer be valid. Let’s say the mixed offspring had 1000cc sized brains (instead of the 1500 cc brain of modern man) and 60 point IQs. Clearly this would be an enormous step backward in evolution.

If a modern liberal couldn’t stomach the idea of moving backwards in evolution by creating smaller-brained ape-human hybrids, then that person is deciding that a new criteria other than “if it’s possible, it’s OK” is needed. The brain size for different species of apes ranges from 400 cc to 700 cc. The brain size for different races of man ranges from 1200 cc to 1500 cc. Whites and northeast Asians have the largest average brain size. Third World
races have smaller average brain sizes. If a liberal decides that the larger brain size of the less-hairy species needs to be preserved, then they no longer can condemn a White
Nationalist for wanting to preserve the larger brain size of the more pale-skinned race.

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/what-if-an-ape-human-hybrid-were-possible_131.html

Please let us know if you find this possible.

Similarities point to evolution from common ancestry, whether intelligently directed or not. Ignorance of these similarities, or a lack of education in biology can cause an otherwise intelligent theist to dispute evolution.

Actually, the CONCLUSIONS are drawn that those similarities "prove" that evolution occurred...because the assumption is made that evolution between species occurred. However, one could easily assume that "God created" and show that those similarities prove that He did, because His creation shows the similarities of a Common Creator.

This is usually combined with some sort of emotional display like, "I didn't come from some stupid monkey!"

I can say it rather unemotionally. I didn't come from a smart monkey either.

Theories as close to truths as we will ever get. They are tested over and over. Evidence is required for them to be theories.

A theory is "the ANALYSIS of a set of facts in their relation to one another."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

It is NOT the closest thing we have to truth. It is the analysis of the facts that we have. As new facts emerge, the analysis can change. Yes, these theories can be tested over and over, but even still some theories emerge to be false, because new facts emerge. Part of being a theory is that the theory must be falsifiable. Hence, some theories prove to be false. No well-educated scientist would dare call a theory the closest thing we have to truth.

Can we say Flat Earth Theory?

Hey, even FACTS have been proven wrong! We once thought there were 30 orders of insects...there are now 31. We thought there were 9 planets...now we don't know what to even call a planet.

So, while it is fun to accept science as Gospel Truth, it is an ever changing set of ideas, facts, evidences and analyses of those ideas, facts and evidences. To say that what we know today will be true tomorrow would be only said by an uneducated individual.

March 26, 2008

Actually evolution through natural selection is the opposite of chance.

The opposite of chance is planned. And synonyms for "planned" are:

Synonyms: deliberate, intentional, prearranged, strategic, premeditated, on purpose, scheduled, intended, calculated, designed, organized, prepared.

http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561583727/planned.html

And this all happened without an Intelligent Designer?

Do YOU believe in magic? THIS is called "critical thinking?"

How far we go to avoid having to be accountable to God.

March 26, 2008

That is such a strawman. Did I ever suggest that a rock becomes a turtle? Matter evolves into more complex matter, like when the sun burns hydrogen into helium, and then eventually into iron. Higher up the evolution of matter, you will have complex molecules that combine to form what we like to label "life". I never once suggested that you could walk a mile without taking individual steps.

Calling it evolution is a Red Herring.

Chemical and nuclear reactions are not evolution.

March 27, 2008

And this all happened without an Intelligent Designer?

Do YOU believe in magic? THIS is called "critical thinking?"

The joke is on you. How was the designer designed? Self-designed? You still have to deal with the basic contradiction that ID simply ignores. ID simply boils down on presupposing a Creator / designer to get the same stuff done / explained.

Anyone who is familiar with Ockham's razor knows that such assumptions have no place in science. This of course does not prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God. It just points to the fact that these superfluous assumptions have no place in scientific theory.

Again, we could assume that God willed that the Number of Avogadro was 6.0221415 × 10^23, that e equals 2.718281. But whether or not God exists, it does not alter the value of these constants.

Whether or not I believe in God does not determine whether or not God exists. Likewise, if God exists, His existence is not dependent upon the beliefs of an individual.

You clearly demonstrate you understand little of evolution, if you come with such an idiotic semantic argument. You simply pretend that evolution occurs in a splendid isolation of everything, including the environment, laws of physics, chemistry et cetera.

March 27, 2008

The joke is on you. How was the designer designed? Self-designed? You still have to deal with the basic contradiction that ID simply ignores. ID simply boils down on presupposing a Creator / designer to get the same stuff done / explained.

Ah, the joke is on ME? Was THAT your smoking gun? I am in awe. Perhaps with a little googling, one can find that this question has been answered many times and many ways.

The question to one who believes in abiogenesis is...has the universe always existed, and if it did, then explain how that can be. And if it did not, what existed prior to that?

And as you undoubtedly know, Stephen Hawkings has shown that the universe could not have always existed.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.

So, the question is...what existed before the universe? Another universe?

Is this the simpler hypothesis, or is "God always existed" simpler?

As you know, God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time.

I find this just as easy...actually much easier, than believing that life appeared from nothing.

Anyone who is familiar with Ockham's razor knows that such assumptions have no place in science. This of course does not prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God. It just points to the fact that these superfluous assumptions have no place in scientific theory.

The assumption for most who assume that life began without a Creator is that it began from non-life. While this has not been tested nor can it be tested, it is assumed by many. While in some ways, it may be considered simpler, yet in other ways it actually brings up many more complicated questions.

Which is more simpler...God created, or life began from non-life? I don't have the answer, but one's worldview WILL determine how one answers it.

Again, we could assume that God willed that the Number of Avogadro was 6.0221415 × 10^23, that e equals 2.718281. But whether or not God exists, it does not alter the value of these constants.

Correct.

Whether or not I believe in God does not determine whether or not God exists. Likewise, if God exists, His existence is not dependent upon the beliefs of an individual.

Correct.

You clearly demonstrate you understand little of evolution, if you come with such an idiotic semantic argument.

Thank you for your kind words. It is always interesting how the educated end their arguments.

Go back and read about what I was commenting. I was quoting the statement made by shadowofman. I know his comments may not be typical of most evolutionists, but I was responding to HIS statements. I will quote it again for your perusal....

Actually evolution through natural selection is the opposite of chance. The mutation of genes is chance and is happening all the time in every birth, but the genes that are valuable to adapt are selected not by chance but by the environment through survival of the fittest, or chosen by the population through sexual selection.

And so, I pointed out that......

The opposite of chance is planned. And synonyms for "planned" are:

Synonyms: deliberate, intentional, prearranged, strategic, premeditated, on purpose, scheduled, intended, calculated, designed, organized, prepared.
http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561583727/planned.html

And this all happened without an Intelligent Designer?

IMO, it appears that many people in their haste to show that life began without a Creator actually discredit their own views with the words they use. And I don't mean that as a personal criticism to shadowofman, but I have heard this before.

"You don't know enough about evolution to not understand how evolution did not happen by chance yet even though it looks as if it is planned, it is not. And why cannot it be planned? Because we KNOW (assume) that there is no God. And why do we know there is no God? Because we can show that life began without him. And why can we show that life began without Him? Because we cannot include the idea of a Creator in our scientific theories, so we can only choose a naturalistic option. So since we CAN come up with an option without God, we now KNOW there is no God. So, since we can see that evolution did not happen by chance, and even though we know that it does appear planned, it cannot be, because we have shown that God does not exist because we did not include Him in our scientific theories."

And round and round we go...where we end up, nobody knows.

You simply pretend that evolution occurs in a splendid isolation of everything, including the environment, laws of physics, chemistry et cetera.

No, far from it. I don't pretend at all. I am amazed at how all of these many factors are and need to be in place for the many forms of life to exist. I am in awe of the many creations on this earth. And it is sad that so many people do not recognize this as more than mere accidents.

I know that I am supposed to assume that all of those things just happened to be there in just the right proportion and at just the right moment with just the right chemicals, life began, And somehow the exact laws and the exact environment etcetera was there. And over millions of years, just the right steps happened at just the right times to make exactly what was needed to be what we are today. And I am supposed to believe that all of these things happened not by chance not with intelligence.

I know, I know...the next response will be that...of course, it was there or we wouldn't be here.

You are right. I need more education.

Edited March 27, 2008 by JamesM

March 27, 2008

Calling it evolution is a Red Herring.
Chemical and nuclear reactions are not evolution.

Evolution simply means change, and generally toward complexity. The evolution of the elements is well known and understood as such. Matter evolves toward greater complexity, from hydrogen to the DNA molecule.

March 27, 2008

The opposite of chance is planned.

On the topic of natural selection. You can call it chance, but I call it planned. I concede that mutation, the first step in evolution is chance. A miscopy in DNA replication. Happens in every birth to varying degrees, and varying benefit/detriment. But then how these mutations play out in adapting to the environment is not chance.

If you took two deer with slightly different top speeds due to genetics, and placed them in an environment with predictors, the fittest is selected, and more likely to procreate. This is not chance, but selection. You could say planned by nature or god (if you were an evolutionary theist)

Natural selection is not chance.

March 27, 2008

I am going to keep this short because the more I post the more my words are completely misunderstood. I can't possibly correct all of the misunderstandings. Here are a few:

Actually the way Dawkins and Gould discussed it certainly does not sound like they are compatible.

I don't believe you. I have read all Gould's books and some of Dawkin's. They give credit where it's due. The fact is that both are quite valid and complimentary. Typically sexual selection works gradually, while adaptive evolution typically works in leaps due to drastic changes in environment.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested either, but it is accepted by many.

Nearly every single person on the planet believe in abiogenesis, from the most primitive tribesman to the most educated scientist. No one believes life always existed. Christians believe life was created from clay. That is abiogenesis. Life created from non-life. Unless you believe that god has DNA and used his DNA to create all other life, in which case you believe that life always existed.

The question to one who believes in abiogenesis is...has the universe always existed, and if it did, then explain how that can be. And if it did not, what existed prior to that?

Are you confusing the origin of the universe with the origin of life? This question is unanswerable, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

The many times I have compared the educations of literalists and evolutionists, I was mistaken as to comparing theists and atheists. To sum up my point, theist literalists are less educated then theist evolutionists. 99% of the time, the literalist is not educated in the evidence for evolution. There will always be the odd ball that knows it all but still ignores.

"You don't know enough about evolution to not understand how evolution did not happen by chance yet even though it looks as if it is planned, it is not. And why cannot it be planned? Because we KNOW (assume) that there is no God. And why do we know there is no God? Because we can show that life began without him. And why can we show that life began without Him? Because we cannot include the idea of a Creator in our scientific theories, so we can only choose a naturalistic option. So since we CAN come up with an option without God, we now KNOW there is no God. So, since we can see that evolution did not happen by chance, and even though we know that it does appear planned, it cannot be, because we have shown that God does not exist because we did not include Him in our scientific theories."

Theism and atheism are both valid opinions. My argument is with the science. If you ignore the fact of evolution you are blinded by religion. I make the distinction between religion and theism here. You seem to continually assume I am attacking theism. I cannot! Theism is an opinion, just as is my atheism. I am discussing the science. Clay to flesh vs primordial soup.

James, you have also suggested that I would buy into saying that mental retardation is less evolved, or that I am a white supremist or something whenever I suggested the possibility of humanzee. I don't know what the point of that was, but to restate:

You suggested that humans and chimps were very different because we have a different number of chromosomes. Or that a potato could be considered closer because of the same number of chromosomes. This is completely ridiculous.

People with Down's Syndrome have a different number of chromosomes then people without. This does NOT mean that they are far different than the rest of us. They are humans. Even though chimps have a different number, they are very, very similar to humans genetically. I'll give you your 96% though much of that difference is junk DNA.

This thread is not for the debate over whether or not god exists. That is not science. This is about disputes in science between theists and atheists. Theist Literalists vs Theist/Atheist Evolutionists

Abiogenesis vs people that think life always existed

March 27, 2008

Aww, you are complaining I am abrasive? Could it have something to do with your implied position? The position that anyone who does not agree with you is a retard, James?

So, the question is...what existed before the universe? Another universe?
Is this the simpler hypothesis, or is "God always existed" simpler?

That leaves you with 2 things to explain instead of 1. Which is less perfect.

1) God's existence.

2) How come the universe started.

Plus, you could do the same thing with say gravity. It really does not answer much, if you say "God willeth it so".

As you know, God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time.

More assumptions - and how they actually help to explain the process of evolution is beyond me. That is like saying, because 53 is a prime number pigs can't fly. If you want to debate the existence of God go ahead, but that has no place in scientific theory, which is indifferent to the existence of God.

I find this just as easy...actually much easier, than believing that life appeared from nothing.

I find it much easier to add 2 to 2. Does not make it hard for me to calculate 2^10 + 2^9. And it really does not make the outcome of the latter false. A belief, however strong, is just that. It cannot lay a claim to factuality. The only thing factual about any belief is the factual existence of the belief itself.

The assumption for most who assume that life began without a Creator is that it began from non-life. While this has not been tested nor can it be tested, it is assumed by many. While in some ways, it may be considered simpler, yet in other ways it actually brings up many more complicated questions.

Thus you are indicating that the Creator is life. As you know, life is defined by temporal demise. So you have already managed to contradict yourself in these few quoted lines.

Which is more simpler...God created, or life began from non-life? I don't have the answer, but one's worldview WILL determine how one answers it.

Which is simpler? God willeth gravity? Or all matter is attracted to each other? To make it more clear: would you prefer the people at NASA to work out the formulae so they can calculate the power a rocket needs to have in order to get into space, or would you prefer to scratch all the formulae, and leave it at "Godspeed"?

Edited March 27, 2008 by InsanityImpaired
Clarification

March 27, 2008

Aww, you are complaining I am abrasive? Could it have something to do with your implied position? The position that anyone who does not agree with you is a retard, James?

Did I say that you were abrasive? Perhaps you read the wrong post. But if you thought that based on your interpretation of my words and your assumptions, then I apologize for your wrong interpretation. It was not MY intention.

My implied position? Again, you are confusing me...which granted is not always that hard to do. It seems that you have been making a number of assumptions about me. As one who makes a note of stating that assumptions are not good, you seemed to have made quite a few about me. I can truthfully say that I have not nor do I consider anyone who disagrees with me a "retard." I have to make an assumption what you mean by retard as this is not a word used by anyone I know. If it means less intelligent, then I can say no. If I felt that way, then I would not waste my time responding.

Feel free to go back through my posts and see that my position is that I attempt to learn from those who disagree with me. And as shadowofman has shown that he understands his position quite well, I discuss or debate with him as a way of learning. Your post indicates to me that you have a good understanding of science and philosophy, so I responded. I highly doubt that I will persuade you, him or anyone to see my side...which (of course) is the "truth."

That leaves you with 2 things to explain instead of 1. Which is less perfect.
1) God's existence.
2) How come the universe started.
Plus, you could do the same thing with say gravity. It really does not answer much, if you say "God willeth it so".

No, it does not leave me with much to explain. As is plain, my position is that God exists and He reveals His Purposes in the Bible. He can speak for Himself quite well.

Now, if your question...why does God exist indicate what is His Cause, then it is an absurdity as an eternal Being would have no Cause.If your question is...for what purpose does God exist, then it is a different answer. I guess the question would also arise why do you exist (or do you for that matter), or why do I exist? And simply because we don't know the answer does not mean that we do NOT exist.

As for how come the universe was started, this is a question that is answered differently by most religions.

But since you mention gravity, again, asking why it exists and having no answer does not then follow to mean that gravity does NOT exist. So, these questions may be interesting from a philosophical standpoint, but they mean nothing when it comes to being evidence for or against the existence of God...or anything for that matter.

More assumptions - and how they actually help to explain the process of evolution is beyond me. That is like saying, because 53 is a prime number pigs can't fly. If you want to debate the existence of God go ahead, but that has no place in
scientific theory, which is indifferent to the existence of God.

You asked how the Designer was designed or who designed the Designer. I was responding to your question. So, yes, then "debating the existence of God" becomes relevant to your question. Sorry if that was too confusing.

And interestingly enough, while "scientific theory" wants to EXCLUDE God, many are using scientific theory to DISPROVE God's existence. This cannot be possible when He is not even being tested or included in the theories. So, to say that "we have proved God does not exist scientifically, yet no, you cannot include God as an Intelligent Designer" is not logical.

I find it much easier to add 2 to 2. Does not make it hard for me to calculate 2^10 + 2^9. And it really does not make the outcome of the latter false. A belief, however strong, is just that. It cannot lay a claim to factuality. The only thing factual about any belief is the factual existence of the belief itself.

This makes no sense. Of course, simply because one can do an easier task does not mean he or she cannot do a more difficult task, but since this was related to "God created" versus "Chemical created," I can say that "Chemicals created" is much more magical IMO than "God created."

And the Principle of Simplicity (or Occams razor) states that the simpler hypothesis is usually the correct one. You earlier used this as an argument against superfluous assumptions...now you decry the use of simplicity as an argument. Go figure.

So, a belief "CANNOT lay claim to to factuality?" So, all of your beliefs have no supporting facts? I believe that the earth is round, because photographs and calculations show it to be so. I think those are facts. I think many or most of the beliefs that we all have are supported by many facts.

The definition of a belief is: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/belief

I would guess that facts are included as relevant evidences for a belief.

Thus you are indicating that the Creator is life. As you know, life is defined by temporal demise. So you have already managed to contradict yourself in these few quoted lines.

NO, let me explain further. Either life began from some non-living chemicals that somehow without purpose (yet were somehow planned) came together magically to "create" life without a cause; or life as we know it on this Earth was created by an eternal God, who we have established therefore had no cause. The only contradiction is if you believe that there IS a God...which goes back to the debate of God's existence.

Which is simpler? God willeth gravity? Or all matter is attracted to each other? To make it more clear: would you prefer the people at NASA to work out the formulae so they can calculate the power a rocket needs to have in order to get into space, or would you prefer to scratch all the formulae, and leave it at "Godspeed"?

This is a nonsensical argument as one with your intelligence undoubtedly knows. Knowing why something happens or how something happens are certainly different than knowing if it happened or exists. Stating that "God gave us gravity" does not indicate how gravity works

or how it effects space travel. These are separate issues.

March 27, 2008

I am going to keep this short because the more I post the more my words are completely misunderstood. I can't possibly correct all of the misunderstandings.

I apologize for any time I misunderstood you, and thanks for the clarifications. I understand what you are saying...many times when I reread what I have typed, my words do not reflect my meaning as accurately as I would have liked.

I don't believe you. I have read all Gould's books and some of Dawkin's. They give credit where it's due. The fact is that both are quite valid and complimentary. Typically sexual selection works gradually, while adaptive evolution typically works in leaps due to drastic changes in environment.

You don't have to believe me, but perhaps if you read a book about this "intellectual standoff," you can see it is not something I created of my own.

http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/02/nettle.html

Also, read wikipedia under "Oppositions..." and "Controversies..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

Nearly every single person on the planet believe in abiogenesis, from the most primitive tribesman to the most educated scientist. No one believes life always existed.

You are correct in the strictest sense of the word. However, theists believe that life had a First Cause while those who do not believe in a God say that life began without a Cause.

Christians believe life was created from clay. That is abiogenesis. Life created from non-life. Unless you believe that god has DNA and used his DNA to create all other life, in which case you believe that life always existed.

No, Christians do not believe LIFE was created from clay or dust. And I am sure that this is one of those sentences that I am misunderstanding, but Christians believe that God USED clay or dust to make MAN...if they follow the words of the Bible literally.

Genesis 2:7:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (KJV)

If we read the complete story of creation, then life came to be in many different ways under the phrase "God created."

Are you confusing the origin of the universe with the origin of life? This question is unanswerable, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

No, but if life began either created or not, it began in the universe. This question cannot be ignored. If life began by itself, was the universe always there or did it start by itself with no First Cause, and if it did, what was there prior to the universe? However, I will stick to life.

The many times I have compared the educations of literalists and evolutionists, I was mistaken as to comparing theists and atheists. To sum up my point, theist literalists are less educated then theist evolutionists. 99% of the time, the literalist is not educated in the evidence for evolution. There will always be the odd ball that knows it all but still ignores.

How do you draw that conclusion? Is the assumption made because if the literalists had as much education as the evolutionists, he or she would believe macroevolution to be true? I am guessing that this would not be a necessarily logical conclusion.

The assumption can be made that if I knew what you knew about life and women, then I would draw the same conclusions as you have. And technically, the reverse would be just as true. If you knew what I knew about life and women, then you would believe as I do. So, we can apply this here. Simply because both have been taught the same things does not mean that they will draw the same conclusions. And just because someone does not draw the conclusion that you think is the correct one does not mean that the person is less educated or is ignoring the evidence.

One of the leading Six Day Creationists is Kurt Wise, PhD, and paleontologist. For years, he was mentored by none other than Dr. Stephen Gould. But he has drawn different conclusions, and he has come up with "scientific" theories of how the world was created based on his interpretation of the same evidences that Gould has seen. Is he less educated? Is he an exception? Based on your definition, yes.

Theism and atheism are both valid opinions. My argument is with the science. If you ignore the fact of evolution you are blinded by religion. I make the distinction between religion and theism here. You seem to continually assume I am attacking theism. I cannot! Theism is an opinion, just as is my atheism. I am discussing the science. Clay to flesh vs primordial soup.

I respect your opinion, but I also respectfully disagree. Ignoring evolution is different than disagreeing with it. Again, you confuse the "fact" of microevolution with the theory explaining how this type of evolution can be extrapolated into concluding that all creatures came from a one celled organism. Many, many scientists do NOT call that a fact...even those who believe it to be the best explanation available.

While I agree that theism and atheism are both opinions, only one can be true. As easy as it is to say that they are both "valid" opinions, only one can be true, and only one can be valid.

And unless I am misunderstanding, I think what you mean to say is God vs. primordial soup. In other words, we can say a First Cause vs. No Cause.

James, you have also suggested that I would buy into saying that mental retardation is less evolved, or that I am a white supremist or something whenever I suggested the possibility of humanzee.

I am sorry. After I reread that, it does appear to imply that, and that is not what I should have implied nor did I mean. I certainly do not think you are racist. However, such a critter is only speculation. Since apes and humans have different number of chromosomes, this would create a problem. And while the genetic material is very similar, the differences are still in the millions of genes.

You suggested that humans and chimps were very different because we have a different number of chromosomes. Or that a potato could be considered closer because of the same number of chromosomes. This is completely ridiculous.

Is it? Why...because it LOOKS so different?

People with Down's Syndrome have a different number of chromosomes then people without. This does NOT mean that they are far different than the rest of us. They are humans. Even though chimps have a different number, they are very, very similar to humans genetically. I'll give you your 96% though much of that difference is junk DNA.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, humans with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes, and apes have 48 chromosomes. Based on that number alone, people with Down's Syndrome are right in the middle...if chromosomes mean anything.

It is not "my 96%," it is the latest scientific findings. Facts do change, remember? Okay, now that we have determined that genetic DNA is what determines what is closest to us, does that mean close percentages to us also indicate that we somehow are closely related to them?

Remember the nematode? While it looks nothing like us, it has 75% of our DNA. And the fruit fly has 60% of our DNA. And the dog? It is around 80% of similarity to humans.

Perhaps we consider the ape close to humans more on how we both look than on how close the genetic material and number of chromosomes are. If tomorrow they discovered that an elephant had a closer percentage of similarity in genetic material than does the apes, would we begin thinking that we evolved from the same ancestor, or would we say that it is not possible because we do not LOOK similar?

The question is...does this similarity mean that we all came from the same critter (which is answered yes if one assumes that macroevolution is true), or were we created by the same Creator (which is answered yes if one assumes that there is a God)?

This thread is not for the debate over whether or not god exists. That is not science. This is about disputes in science between theists and atheists. Theist Literalists vs Theist/Atheist EvolutionistsAbiogenesis vs people that think life always existed

While it is easy to say that God does not enter into the discussion, He does. If you want it to be a discussion about evolution versus creation, then that IS a misunderstanding on my part. As far as I know, the only "dispute" in scientific theory that rouses both the passion of theists and atheists is the macroevolution theory. And the reason...because for the most part, the assumption is that God is not needed. So back to the discussion we go...does God exist?

March 27, 2008

Did I say that you were abrasive? Perhaps you read the wrong post.

You did not. You did complain explicitly about me refering to your "idiotic semantic argument" - which is all the more surprising as you started building an argument on a logical fallacy. It is a bit similar to the following:

1) The opposite of black is white.

2) This particular object is not black.

Conclusion) Thus this object is white.

Of course the conclusion is not necessarily true at all. In fact, depending on what exactly is being scrutinzed (for instance reflection / absorption of light), the conclusion may reflect a bit of truth. However, it should never be confused with the truth.

It seems that you have been making a number of assumptions about me. As one who makes a note of stating that assumptions are not good, you seemed to have made quite a few about me. I can truthfully say that I have not nor do I consider anyone who disagrees with me a "retard."

So, why insult those who have a different opinion? To clarify

And this all happened without an Intelligent Designer?

Do YOU believe in magic? THIS is called "critical thinking?"

That is just an outright underhanded insult - doubting the intelligence of those who disagree with you (just as certain portrayals of God and Jesus are highly offensive to believers, conflating magic and science is quite an insult to those who are of the atheist persuasion).

Feel free to go back through my posts and see that my position is that I attempt to learn from those who disagree with me.

I am well aware of your posting history (much more than you are of mine, no doubt). But that would also detract from the discussion at hand.

No, it does not leave me with much to explain. As is plain, my position is that God exists and He reveals His Purposes in the Bible. He can speak for Himself quite well.

That is one for biblical studies, not for an argument on gravity, or the origins of the universe. So, why is God dependent on people's interpretation? A belief, which cannot be factual [in the sense I explain below; I of course have no reason to doubt the factual existence of a particular belief]?

Imagine if someone were to deduce from the Bible that God is a clown (you'd be surprised how many weird interpretations of God have been made), why should it or should not it be included in scientific theory?

If you say it should be included then anything goes. If you say it should not be included, but just your version, then you also need to prove where others are outright wrong in their interpretation. Plus of course the "assumption" of God needs to add explanatory power to the theory. Something which is lacking in ID, as it posits a cause which cannot be verified, and thus does not explain.

Say you hold a particular Catholic view on the matter, which is at odds with a Mormon view. What makes your beliefs more likely to be correct than their beliefs? The whole thing in the end will turn out to be a debate on scripture instead of a scientific debate on the issue under scrutiny.

Of course, this does not hold true for theological sciences, but that is not the science under discussion.

I guess the question would also arise why do you exist (or do you for that matter), or why do I exist? And simply because we don't know the answer does not mean that we do NOT exist.

Correct. Yet, if we do not have the answer, that does not mean that any random belief or observation points to the answer. Just as the existence or non-existence (in itself) of God does not provide an answer. If you add "God willed that you existed" you have already made a second assumption, which is wholly dependent on the first. Furthermore, it does not clarify that much, so you need to go on and make assumption #3, #4 and so on. Not really a scientific way of answering things.

A religious way, yes, but that is not the discussion at hand. I am not claiming that the religious interpretation is necessarily false (just as a religious or scientific interpretation is not necessarily true).

The scientific answer would go back to your parents sexual history (which would also happen in the religious explanation), and all the way back to evolution, et cetera.

But since you mention gravity, again, asking why it exists and having no answer does not then follow to mean that gravity does NOT exist. So, these questions may be interesting from a philosophical standpoint, but they mean nothing when it comes to being evidence for or against the existence of God...or anything for that matter.

Yet you insist that evolution points to the existence of a deity, as we cannot fully explain evolution yet. As we cannot fully explain gravity, your position should logically be similar, yet it is not. Why?

And interestingly enough, while "scientific theory" wants to EXCLUDE God, many are using scientific theory to DISPROVE God's existence. This cannot be possible when He is not even being tested or included in the theories. So, to say that "we have proved God does not exist scientifically, yet no, you cannot include God as an Intelligent Designer" is not logical.

Yes it is. See Ockham's razor. You cannot disprove God's existence, as you cannot come up with a fair test to prove his existence. Yet, you cannot prove God's existence either, for exactly the same reason. I would never argue that one can prove the existence or non-existence of God in any way.

It simply boils down on whether you want to have a theory with an assumption that does squat to explain the phenomena being studied. Funnily enough, you do not mention the need for God in the example of gravity I gave.

This makes no sense. Of course, simply because one can do an easier task does not mean he or she cannot do a more difficult task, but since this was related to "God created" versus "Chemical created," I can say that "Chemicals created" is much more magical IMO than "God created."

Both are beliefs. And we cannot establish the truth content of beliefs, if we do not know what the truth is. I personally think the first is more likely to be true than the second. You hold a different view. Yet, neither of us can claim that their position is, based on our current knowledge, factually correct.

And the Principle of Simplicity (or Occams razor) states that the simpler hypothesis is usually the correct one. You earlier used this as an argument against superfluous assumptions...now you decry the use of simplicity as an argument. Go figure.

Sorry, but you understand the principle incorrectly. I hope to clarify matters with the following: Imagine someone makes the assumption that all Americans are fat. A very simple assumption. A more complex one: Of the Americans who visit fast-food chains more than 3 times a week, 80% develops obesity. It is clear which assumption is more simple.

You would point out that the first assumption (upon your reading of Ockham) would be more likely to be correct. In all likelihood (also based on research on eating patterns etc), the second assumption has a higher chance of being more or less correct.

I believe that the earth is round, because photographs and calculations show it to be so.

Yes, but if you believe the world is flat, no matter how hard you believe it, it does not mean the earth will change its form just to accomodate your beliefs.

So, a belief "CANNOT lay claim to to factuality?" So, all of your beliefs have no supporting facts?

The belief itself not. The world (as it objectively exists) ultimately decides whether your belief is factually correct or not. The only thing factual abot a belief, in itself is its factual existence. See above for further clarification.

I think those are facts. I think many or most of the beliefs that we all have are supported by many facts.

Surprisingly, if you would go in psychological research, even core values are not supported by many facts and reasons.

To give a simple example, if you believe a brand of cornflakes is the best brand in terms of nutrition, it might simply be because of the advertisements on TV. If you would actually compare the dozens of brands you may find your belief was actually wrong.

Or corporeal and temporal existence more or less ensures we necessarily have dozens of false beliefs, prejudices and such. You can't spend a week just figuring out which brand of cornflakes is best.

Interestingly enough you may run into people who have exactly the same beliefs about a different brand of cornflakes. So logically speaking either you or the others must have a false belief in the quality of the cornflakes; yet neither of you will probably experience it as such. This is of course most marked in the political arena. Millions of Americans have different beliefs about the various candidates. Yet all of them think they are correct. Logically speaking that of course must be false. But that does not say a thing about the existence of these beliefs in these people.

The definition of a belief is: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/belief

Yes, but if you are convinced the earth is flat, that does not mean you do not believe the earth is flat.

Even worse, most beliefs are simply not evidence based. If you ask three random people about their beliefs on McCain, chances are you will get one or two people saying he is a lousy candidate. And a third saying he is a good candidate. All three people can cite quite a bit of evidence for their beliefs, yet they will be quite likely to persist in their beliefs, even though at least someone must be (objectively speaking) wrong. Either he is a good candidate or he is not, but he cannot be both at the same time.

This is a nonsensical argument as one with your intelligence undoubtedly knows. Knowing why something happens or how something happens are certainly different than knowing if it happened or exists. Stating that "God gave us gravity" does not indicate how gravity works or how it effects space travel. These are separate issues.

I agree there. But, and that is the but of note: we know gravity exists, we roughly know how it works, and we know it is a property of mass to be attracted to each other. But as with evolution the why is a big mystery.

A proponent of ID should consider their position on the matter of gravity carefully.

March 27, 2008

First, you did an impressive job with your response. Seriously. And thank you for taking the time to respond.

You did not. You did complain explicitly about me refering to your "idiotic semantic argument" - which is all the more surprising as you started building an argument on a logical fallacy. It is a bit similar to the following:
1) The opposite of black is white.2) This particular object is not black.
Conclusion) Thus this object is white.

I noted the tenor of your semantics used when describing my idiotic semantic argument. So be it. Let us not get waylaid with semantics.

However, your comparison lacks as a good one. You use color when we know there are multitudes of colors. If someone stated that the color of the object was the opposite of black, we would then logically think that it was white. And statistically speaking, the majority of the time we would have made the right conclusion.

When we refer to chance, we know that the opposite IS planned, and getting back to what the comment regarded...it was because natural selection was stated as the opposite of chance. Hence my statement that the opposite of chance is planned. This is not a logical fallacy.

So, why insult those who have a different opinion?
That is just an outright underhanded insult - doubting the intelligence of those who disagree with you (just as certain
portrayals of God and Jesus are highly offensive to believers, conflating magic and science is quite an insult to those who are of the atheist persuasion).

I can see how you would see it as insulting...even if it was not directed at you. However, it was directed at shadowofman, and it was more of a tongue in cheek reference to his calling "God created" simply magic in other posts. Hence, my follow up a few posts later with this comment. In other words, he thinks I believe in magic, yet this seems magical to me...so IMO he believes in magic.

If he considers it an underhanded insult to his intelligence, then I will apologize to him. However, I think from other

threads which we have interacted, I think he knows that I do not doubt his intelligence at all. Rather I have been impressed while also disagreeing with his conclusions.

I am well aware of your posting history (much more than you are of mine, no doubt). But that would also detract from the discussion at hand.

I am honored that you would take the time. Seriously. Hopefully, I do not always appear insulting to you. If so, then feel free to PM me and I will personally apologize. Actually don't be surprised if you receive a PM from me anyhow. Yes, I am aware of your posts and opinions.

A belief, which cannot be factual [in the sense I explain below; I of course have no reason to doubt the factual existence of a particular belief]?

Rather than go through the continued discussion of beliefs, I do agree that beliefs can be either factual or non-factually

based. Beliefs can be connected to a fact or they can be simply a belief based on emotions or feelings. Numerous example abound. Many times though it is the conclusions drawn from the facts that are faulty...not the "fact" that the beliefs rest on no facts.

Imagine if someone were to deduce from the Bible that God is a clown (you'd be surprised how many weird interpretations of God have been made), why should it or should not it be included in scientific theory?

The question is not what type of God created the word, but how did He do it? The debate is not about which God created the world, but did He? The question is should the option of an Intelligent Designer be part of our investigations?

And the concern with "new science" is that by excluding the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, we then limit the options for how life began.

If you say it should be included then anything goes. If you say it should not be included, but just your version, then you also need to prove where others are outright wrong in their interpretation. Plus of course the "assumption" of God needs to add explanatory power to the theory. Something which is lacking in ID, as it posits a cause which cannot be verified, and thus does not explain.

No, I don't say anyone's version of God is correct or incorrect for the "assumption" that life was created by God. As you have rightly stated, this would move this into the realm of theology. However, as stated many times, stating that science can solve how life began on earth and do so by eliminating the possibility of an Intelligent Designer sets up a theory that cannot be complete.

Yet you insist that evolution points to the existence of a deity, as we cannot fully explain evolution yet. As we cannot fully explain gravity, your position should logically be similar, yet it is not. Why?

First, I don't state that evolution points to a Deity. I say that the existence of life points to an Intelligent Designer. I say that the complexity of life points to more than accidental selection.

And yes, when we see how the laws of gravity and the rest are just as is needed for life to survive and thrive on this planet, then I see that we are more than an accident. And I do see the Hand of God in every detail...even when we can explain how each works.

That would be my belief as I see the facts and evidences.

Yes it is. See Ockham's razor. You cannot disprove God's existence, as you cannot come up with a fair test to prove his existence. Yet, you cannot prove God's existence either, for exactly the same reason. I would never argue that one can prove the existence or non-existence of God in any way.

That is my point exactly. On one hand science excludes God and then says, "We have proved God does not exist because we have come up with a theory that can show how life evolved without Him," yet they cannot come up with a way to include a God in their theories. I am not disagreeing that this is something that is simple or even possible. The point being...if I am told that God is not an option, then obviously my conclusions will not include Him.

So, you say He cannot be proved by science or disproved by science. So, He CAN be part of the way life developed here on earth?

Sorry, but you understand the principle incorrectly. I hope to clarify matters with the following: Imagine someone makes the assumption that all Americans are fat. A very simple assumption. A more complex one: Of the Americans who visit fast-food chains more than 3 times a week, 80% develops obesity. It is clear which assumption is
more simple.

If I understand the principle correctly, you are comparing apples to oranges. The first assumption is one with a "bigger umbrella." It states that Americans are fat and gives no reasons. The second assumption narrows it down by adding additional assumptions to it. While the first one is more simpler, it is also the better one, because it does not narrow down your scope of research. The second assumption narrows down the testing that will be done by focusing on fast food restaurants as the reason rather than possibly focusing on the fact that Americans spend hours and hours in front of their televisions (or computer typing posts on LoveShack...like we do).

Thus, a faulty conclusion can be reached because the focus is on McDonalds instead of the lack of exercise. Or for that matter the actual conclusions should include both.

So, when science says that "we have all of the answers," but they are reducing their choices, essentially, the same thing is being done.

Surprisingly, if you would go in psychological research, even core values are not supported by many facts and reasons.

I am not going to argue this line of reasoning as stated above. You are right that many beliefs are supported with no facts, but this (as you undoubtedly would agree) does not mean that all beliefs are not supported by facts. And simply because you do not agree with the conclusions made does not mean that the person believes something without facts.

I agree there. But, and that is the but of note: we know gravity exists, we roughly know how it works, and we know it is a property of mass to be attracted to each other. But as with evolution the why is a big mystery.
A proponent of ID should consider their position on the matter of gravity carefully.

I think the general opinion of those who believe "God created" would be that while we eventually can explain how gravity (or any other law) works, this does not mean that these laws were not set into motion by an Intelligent Designer. Just because I can explain how my computer works does not mean that it developed by itself with no builder or designer. No, with proper understanding, I am even more impressed with the intelligence of that Designer.

March 27, 2008

And thank you for taking the time to respond.

You are welcome.

My example was not the best.

When we refer to chance, we know that the opposite IS planned, and getting back to what the comment regarded...it was because natural selection was stated as the opposite of chance. Hence my statement that the opposite of chance is planned. This is not a logical fallacy.

Let us define a chance:

p = chance of a fact occuring,

then the chance of the fact not occuring is (1-p).

p and (1-p) are both chances. The opposite of a chance is a fact (whether something has occured or has not occured), or a certainty if you want. Thus the opposites are the same in their opposite. . This fact can be selection, the yoyo becoming a hit in 2009, and what not. But it loses its conditional character.

The creation of a fact may require planning (on a human level, if we assume divine planning, you can skip the next few paragraphs) but that is not necessary. Some of these causes are more likely (p=0.9 JamesM boots up his computer p=0.09 a relative or colleague boots up his computer, p=0.009 that his computer gets stolen and the criminal boots up his machine, p=0.001 that someone accidentally bumps into the power button).

But we have lost the conditional character - i.e. we know for a fact that the computer is booting up, but we do not know the cause. Furthermore, if we only know of the fact that computer booted up, we do not know what the cause was (which is one of the reasons why our knowledge in archeology and evolution is limited). We can make an assumption but to distill an intention of JamesM, his relatives or colleagues or the criminal who may have stolen your computer is a wholly different matter. Perhaps you had to finish a job. Perhaps you wanted to revisit the thread. Perhaps you wanted to check out concerts in your home town. Perhaps he had to pretend to his boss to be working (I don't know, I just have to list some plausible explanations).

We know that dinosaurs are extinct. Of course every species has a chance p of surviving, and (1-p) of becoming extinct. And we know for a fact that (1-p) has become true. But the fact itself, does not explain why (1-p) has become true, and not (p). Whatever the cause for the extinction of dinosaurs, the fact of their extinction does not explain why; and neither does the chance.

We cannot attribute it to planning, unless we can prove that the dinosaurs were highly intelligent and decided on a mass-suicide pact. Somehow that does not seem to plausible.

It might be a "chance" event (and if you are not a theist any event is a chance event, per definition), such as a meteorite strike, and it might be a perfectly natural event (e.g. lowering of oxygen levels in air, because the oceans could not handle all the CH4, CO2 etc), anymore.

Now, you may see a proof of planning (God willed that the meteorite was created, and struck the planet; God willed that the oceans would be unable to handle all the CH4, CO2) etc. Which is a fine religious sentiment on the matter. But from a scientific point of view, whether God willed this or that, it does not explain a thing more. To avoid duplicity, see later in the post for the consequences.

The question is not what type of God created the word, but how did He do it? The debate is not about which God created the world, but did He? The question is should the option of an Intelligent Designer be part of our investigations?

And the concern with "new science" is that by excluding the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, we then limit the options for how life began.

Perhaps. But as you repeatedly indicated (and I am not disagreeing there) we cannot discover anything about God's existence or non-existence in the pursuit of science. Thus you are, at best, at risk of having to prove your assumptions about God to be true, which is of course impossible, in terms of a scientific discourse (unless of course we are talking theology).

So you are left with assumptions you cannot prove or disprove. So why are they necessary, and what do they add of scientific value to the theory? Now, in a religious theory they are perfectly valid - and they do add a lot of meaning. But that is not at stake.

First, I don't state that evolution points to a Deity. I say that the existence of life points to an Intelligent Designer. I say that the complexity of life points to more than accidental selection.

If you believe in the chemical version of evolution, you ultimately arrive at a point where non-life acquires essential properties of life, through evolution, however that may have occured. In Intelligent Design the basic premisse of chemical evolution is replaced by a Creator who created the animal kingdom and humanity, but also with the process of evolution working since then. Perhaps I described your views a bit too shorthand, but I doubt I completely misunderstood you.

Not all 'p's are equal, with quite a few factors raising and lowering the chance of survival (genetic diversity, population, adaptability to climate changes, vulnerability to predators, etc).

That is my point exactly. On one hand science excludes God and then says, "We have proved God does not exist because we have come up with a theory that can show how life evolved without Him," yet they cannot come up with a way to include a God in their theories.

The bolded part is utterly a false statement. If it stated: "We have prove God may not exist because we have come up with a theory that can show how life evolved without Him", that statement would from a scientific point of view be correct, as you cannot prove the existence of God by means of science. But then again it would also be an oxymoron for exactly that reason.

I am not disagreeing that this is something that is simple or even possible. The point being...if I am told that God is not an option, then obviously my conclusions will not include Him.

Not necessarily at all. In a scientific discourse, yes. But: Just as your religious discourse is not dependent on the advances in science. Whether or not it is theoretically possible to turn water in wine should not dictate whether you are allowed to believe that Jesus did so.

If someone develops a scientific method of turning water in wine there should not be religious objections to the invention itself. If religious people have issues with the moral behavior (gluttony, drunkenness, etc.) they should be free to express them.

They are free to start an abolitionist campaign, or promote alternative life-styles and what not. They can even use science to point out some of the evils of gluttony and drunkenness. Use science to develop methods to combat these evils (prevention programmes, religious support groups and what not). Just about the only thing they cannot do is use science to prove that God willed this or that, unless we are looking at the science of theology - which is of course not primarily concerned with issues of physics and evolution theory, but with salvation; and theology has good points about the importance of virtue.

So, you say He cannot be proved by science or disproved by science. So, He CAN be part of the way life developed here on earth?

Theoretically, yes. But there is no way to prove it. You are (from a scientific point of view) free to assume he was the cause of life on earth. However when it is established that x, or y caused life to be created on earth, then there are two possibilities:

1) x is God. But one cannot establish the existence of God by means of science. Furthermore to find Him as a cause would result in a contradiction, as it implies that He is involved and can proven to exist. But imagine it does happen. If He can be proven to exist He is more than just a First Cause, in the physical world, and thus interferes in the physical world. I will not dwell on the whole set of epistemological problems this creates, but they would be enormous.

2) x is not God, you are from a scientific point of view not free to assume he was the cause of life on earth. But then you can assume he was the cause for x or y. And so on. Even if humanity knew everything about evolution, we would not have one shred of evidence for or against the existence of God.

The first assumption is one with a "bigger umbrella." It states that Americans are fat and gives no reasons.

True, but it is the simple assumption from a non-American. The quality of the assumption may be poor, but it is an assumption nonetheless, and a simple one to boot. All 300 million Americans are overweight.

The second assumption narrows it down by adding additional assumptions to it.

It does not make additional assumptions. Let me reword the second:

80% of Americans who visit at least 3 times a week in a fast food restaurant develop obesity. There is no reason, just a correlation (between visiting a fast food restaurant and developing obesity). The assumption is that of those Americans who visit a fast food restaurant 3 times a week (say that is 50 million people), 80% develop obesity. I bolded the group that is under scrutiny.

The difference between the two assumptions is that one assumes all 300 million Americans are overweight, while the second assumes 40 million are developing obesity.

While the first one is more simpler, it is also the better one, because it does not narrow down your scope of research.

Not true. The assumption that all Americans are overweight is grossly distorted - unless you would want all of America to starve themselves to an anorexic death.

The second assumption narrows down the testing that will be done by focusing on fast food restaurants as the reason rather than possibly focusing on the fact that Americans spend hours and hours in front of their televisions (or computer typing posts on LoveShack...like we do).

The assumption that regularly visiting a fast food restaurant may have something to do with developing obesity is more fruitful. Of course it would be easy to say it is the potato-couch lifestyle that is the cause of obesity, but that would not address the issue. For instance, assumption two only assumes there is a correlation between the two. Can we perhaps establish a causal effect relationship? If so, then we can ... etc.

Thus, a faulty conclusion can be reached because the focus is on McDonalds instead of the lack of exercise. Or for that matter the actual conclusions should include both.

And individual differences and a few other factors that (may) play a role. Some people can eat loads of fastfood without any apparent effects on their body shape. I am the first to admit that a lot of science these days is quite shoddy.

I am not going to argue this line of reasoning as stated above. You are right that many beliefs are supported with no facts, but this (as you undoubtedly would agree) does not mean that all beliefs are not supported by facts. And simply because you do not agree with the conclusions made does not mean that the person believes something without facts.

We agree there. But that does not mean your beliefs (or mine for that matter) are factually correct either.

Now assume that I believe in the second assumption. And want to research the causes. Assume for a fact that 50 million Americans visit fast food restaurants at least 3 times a week.

As long as I do not do, or refer to, research on the occurence of overweight in Americans, any claim I make in a scientific article about the "big" problem and "high occurence" of overweight is not properly backed up in a scientific way. I can throw in some numbers, but if unsupported, those are assumptions I cannot defend.

If I publish an article on that matter, many people may be persuaded by my arguments, and come to believe them. So many people's beliefs may have been altered just because of some fancy writing, with little or no basis in reality.

If someone does some population research, they may find that my numbers are off in a substantial way. If it is say 60 million Americans who are overweight, I am presented with 2 problems.

1) my figure is off by 20 million. Not a big deal in itself.

2) apparently visiting fast food restaurants may well be correlated with overweight, but at least 10 million Americans (20 million if the figure of 80% of is accurate, up to 60 million if visiting fast food restaurants actually ensures the visitor does not become overweight) develop obesity despite not visiting these restaurants.

Just because I did not bother to check a basic assumption, my whole theory may be utterly worthless. Lesson to be learned: always check your assumptions before you expand on them. It might seem simple, but there are numerous occassions when scientists neglect to do just that.

It would be even worse if a lot of people expanded on my work, essentially assuming that I was correct, and that my assumptions would hold out. But if my assumptions are never challenged (which is what is impossible with the "assumption of God"), the whole theory is fruitless, and simply ceases to add to our knowledge. Unless you want to posit that false knowledge of which we do not know it is false, is an asset, but I doubt you would.

I think the general opinion of those who believe "God created" would be that while we eventually can explain how gravity (or any other law) works, this does not mean that these laws were not set into motion by an Intelligent Designer. Just because I can explain how my computer works does not mean that it developed by itself with no builder or designer. No, with proper understanding, I am even more impressed with the intelligence of that Designer.

And that is the proper religious mindset. But religion has no place in scientific discourse, just as theoretical physics should not have a place in a religious discussion on how Jesus turned water in wine.

Edited March 27, 2008 by InsanityImpaired

March 28, 2008

You are correct in the strictest sense of the word. However, theists believe that life had a First Cause while those who do not believe in a God say that life began without a Cause.

So we can find some common ground. My argument is however not the cause of the creation but rather the method. Speaking in your court, did god use a creative natural process observable by us and known as evolution, as he has used natural events like earthquakes to destroy? Or does he, with the power of his mind, form clay into flesh, as he has been know to turn flesh into salt? Or is it both? In this game of belief and scientific debate, we are to hedge bets as to the probabilities. And all evidence points to an observable natural process like evolution or natural disaster.

No, Christians do not believe LIFE was created from clay or dust. And I am sure that this is one of those sentences that I am misunderstanding, but Christians believe that God USED clay or dust to make MAN...if they follow the words of the Bible literally.

And man is life. What I am hearing here is "No, the answer is not X, the answer is X!" I am trying to understand this perspective. So Christians believe that however he created LIFE, MAN was created from clay and powers of his will. But still protest against an evolutionary process as an answer to the creation of other LIFE. What are your specific beliefs James? I cannot argue what hypothetical people's beliefs.

As far as I can gather from this, it seems you think

1. that life was created, according to "kind" by an unknown method

2. man was also created seperately and by a specific method still very mystical but involving clay, dust and "breath"

2. that life can "microevolve" in order to better adapt to environment

3. that while life can change it cannot change too much or "macroevolve" (I am most curious of this. Is it because there has not been sufficient time to do so?)

I also wonder if it is too much of a leap for you to assume that the rest of life was also created using the same process of clay, dust, and "breath" that created man. We are all composed of the same elements and genetic materials.

And unless I am misunderstanding, I think what you mean to say is God vs. primordial soup. In other words, we can say a First Cause vs. No Cause.

No! I am saying clay vs soup. Cause vs no cause is not science and I can only offer my opinion. That is not the purpose of this thread. I'm calling on evolution vs created according to "kind". What was the natural history? Anyone that says, created according to "kind" is hedging a bet on a line in a book and ignoring MOUNTAINS of evidence that supports evolution. Like the shaman that continues to exercise demons from the sick because of his mentors words. He is almost certainly wrong.

Is the assumption made because if the literalists had as much education as the evolutionists, he or she would believe macroevolution to be true? I am guessing that this would not be a necessarily logical conclusion.

Not 100% of individuals with this education, but an overwhelmingly vast majority. Your example of knowledge of women is not a good one because women are an utterly impossible enigma. How about:

If a shaman believing in demonic possession as the cause of illness were to get an education in microbiology, he would be very likely to start believing that illness is caused by microbes. There will always be an odd Kurt Wise, even in this shaman example. Maybe he is not uneducated. And he has every right to draw a different conclusion. But he is still almost certainly wrong.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, humans with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes, and apes have 48 chromosomes. Based on that number alone, people with Down's Syndrome are right in the middle...if chromosomes mean anything.

They don't. Don't pretend like that was my argument. You made the claim that chimps and humans were so different because of the different number of chromosomes. I proved that even the same species can have a different number of chromosomes, and therefore the number of chromosomes is irrelevant.

Remember the nematode? While it looks nothing like us, it has 75% of our DNA. And the fruit fly has 60% of our DNA. And the dog? It is around 80% of similarity to humans.

Not surprising at all. All three of your examples are in the animal kingdom. Just evidence that we all share a common ancestor. Phenotype has nothing to do with it. The flaw of taxonomy is that for centuries, all we had was the phenotype. Now that genomes are being decoded, we are seeing the real relations between species. Combined with fossil evidence we are quite sure of what we are seeing. Unless a creator is tricking us.

Perhaps we consider the ape close to humans more on how we both look than on how close the genetic material and number of chromosomes are. If tomorrow they discovered that an elephant had a closer percentage of similarity in genetic material than does the apes, would we begin thinking that we evolved from the same ancestor, or would we say that it is not possible because we do not LOOK similar?

First of all we do share a common ancestor with elephants. If the genetics of humans and elephants were closer percentage-wise, along with mitochondrial markers, etc, then we would have to conclude that we are closer to elephants than apes. And we would then be astounded that the fossil record, extraordinarily shows no sign of this. We would be completely blindsided!

Odds are, some biologists would continue to be skeptical, insisting that the genomes were misread, or that until fossil evidence of this is found we shouldn't trust the DNA. But DNA is king. Phenotypical evidence is good, but DNA destroys it.

The question is...does this similarity mean that we all came from the same critter (which is answered yes if one assumes that macroevolution is true), or were we created by the same Creator (which is answered yes if one assumes that there is a God)?

Why do you fail to include those that believe in "macroevolution" and god? The answer is that we almost certainly came from a common ancestor, unless a creator wanted to make us think we did.

With all the power in the universe, he could have arranged DNA in any possible way, or used other molecules besides DNA in combination with DNA.

But we have phenotypes and fossil records of phenotypes that clearly show progression from simple to complex, and in very specific regions. It matches astoundingly well with our knowledge of paleo-geography, and now our observations in genotype.

March 29, 2008

What a lot of arguing and insulting! I feel like I am back at university, listening to the boys trying to out-brain each other. No enigma gets solved that way, you just dig yourself into your little trench and rot there.

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that a lot of scripture is quite compatible with scientific theory. Life being sparked from clay, for example. According to some evolutionary theories, it was a combination of water, earth and electricity (a well placed lightning strike, perhaps, on some patch of mud?) that sparked life in the first place. Maybe our ancestors were more intuitive that some of us, using poetic language to describe what might one day be a scientific truth.

And the story of genesis, 6 days. I always interpreted that as an analogy to evolution, not to be taken literally. 6 days, 6 million years, in universe time, there isn't a lot of difference between them.

Many Biblical (or other religions sacred texts) stories are parables. Jesus (supposedly) spoke in them all the time. A parable is not a non-fiction account, but a truth wrapped in an analogous and instructive story.

I do not understand why both sides, scientific and mysterious, are not extremely compatible, enhance each other, prove each other.

Do you want some modicum of truth or do you want to be right?

March 29, 2008

On the other hand, maybe the enigma doesn't want to be solved. That could pose a problem.

March 29, 2008

JamesM is a sharp guy, you guys won't be able to trap him.

Mountains of evidence. I guess evolution is also responsibe for the formation of mountains, and other geological phenominon. Evolution is responsible for planetary orbits. Evolution gives us light. Evolution explains the expansion of the universe.

Few things are as embarassing like exposing yourself in public, getting caught kissing a mannequin, or calling chemical and nuclear reactions evolution. Some people are just plain shameless. Maybe it is just an example of an evolutionary dead end.

Some people like to talk about chance. I can cover the bottom of a box with pebbles of two different colors such that both colors are seperate and on opposite sides. If I shake the box, the pebbles with mix up. I can take a functional car, and shake it up in a container. Eventually, the only thing that will come out is shrappnel. If I shake up an evolutionist in a container, what do you think will come out? This sort of thing happens all the time at the small scale, and I have a hard time believing that this pulverizing action created life and sustains it. I know this phenominon causes mutations, cancer, and death. Maybe you guys can tell me how life resists it.

I can tell you that anything made out of this stuff is not made to last.

I do believe the search for God is left to us at the individual, and personal level. You can't find something if you don't search for it, and there are no shortcuts. If God is willing to create everything then, at the very least, you guys can put a little more effort into it.

BTW Avogadro's number is not a dimensionless constant.

March 29, 2008

I do not understand why both sides, scientific and mysterious, are not extremely compatible, enhance each other, prove each other.

Perhaps from a religious sense. But science cannot draw on anecdotal evidence, or idiosyncratic evidence. Science has no choice but to reject such evidence. And sometimes, religious people say science must be wrong, as it is contradicted by Scripture.

BTW Avogadro's number is not a dimensionless constant.

As I was referring to the value number of Avogadro as God had willed it there was no need to add in the "mol ^-1". Or could God have willed that no such constant (with such dimension) existed?

March 29, 2008

Perhaps from a religious sense. But science cannot draw on anecdotal evidence, or idiosyncratic evidence. Science has no choice but to reject such evidence. And sometimes, religious people say science must be wrong, as it is contradicted by Scripture.

So those people are hiding in their trench. Easy to ignore, with their heads below ground level.

As I was referring to the value number of Avogadro as God had willed it there was no need to add in the "mol ^-1". Or could God have willed that no such constant (with such dimension) existed?

Got to do some research. Will go google "number value of Avogadro" immediately. Although, if their is an omnipotent (irrascible) God, it could alter the code anytime it wanted.

Theist and Atheist disputes about science

Recommended Posts

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

directx

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

FleshNBones

Link to post

Share on other sites

InsanityImpaired

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

InsanityImpaired

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

InsanityImpaired

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamesM

Link to post

Share on other sites

InsanityImpaired

Link to post

Share on other sites

shadowofman

Link to post

Share on other sites

annieo

Link to post

Share on other sites

annieo

Link to post

Share on other sites

FleshNBones

Link to post

Share on other sites

InsanityImpaired

Link to post

Share on other sites

annieo

Link to post

Share on other sites

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...