Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

[flip]

The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and natural selection. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg.[12][13] In this light, both the egg and the chicken evolved simultaneously from birds that were not chickens and did not lay chicken eggs but gradually became more and more like chickens over time.

However, a mutation in one individual is not normally considered a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

Heh, I find this interesting as hell.

[flip]

This almost mirrors the creation account.

It also agrees with the Emaculate Conception, as some kind of intervention is needed, mutation has to happen at conception and it creates a new species as the end result. The promise of becoming made in God's image again.

[Ferno]

My observations so far:

1). People who have been taught evolution from childhood believe it wholesale.

2). People who have been taught evolution from childhood have been discouraged to actually prove it out by means of peer pressure and "wholesale acceptance".

nope. wrong again. and again.

there is no "belief" involved because belief is an acceptance of something without any evidence backing it up.

evolution on the other hand, does have a myraid of evidence to back it up. When a species of any organism runs into a disturbance in its' habitat, its' food sources or its' climate, changes happen. these are known as mutations. some work, some don't and those that do work are passed onto the next generation. No one needs a "belief" for this, they can see it happen in front of their own eyes.

you can put it to the test yourself if you have the right setup, and everything would hold up.

[flip]

Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception

Please do adhere to the rules of evolution laid out above.

[Sergeant Thorne]

... you can put it to the test yourself if you have the right setup, and everything would hold up.

And you know this... how? (oh snap, a belief!)

Flip's statement is utterly accurate, in my opinion. The fact that you believe evolution to be provable fails to dispute it.

[Tunnelcat]

there is no "belief" involved because belief is an acceptance of something without any evidence backing it up.

That's why it called Faith. A person who lives by faith alone has to ignore any and all observable facts in order to explain something they don't understand or comprehend.

[flip]

Observable facts:
Biological responses to psychological stimuli
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception
A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases.

TC as Topgun stated earlier just making claims will not suffice here and your arguments must stay within the parameter of observable fact. 3 of which I just stated again. Weird thing is, we are all agreeing now, you guys just don't seem to know it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

there is no "belief" involved because belief is an acceptance of something without any evidence backing it up.

That's why it called Faith. A person who lives by faith alone has to ignore any and all observable facts in order to explain something they don't understand or comprehend.

A total bastardization of "Faith", which is based first in observable fact and insists on a certain continuity between that which is seen and that which is not readily perceivable... but which observable facts are these?

[Jeff250]

If I appear to be be an ass, I'm not, it's apathy :p.

I want to take a moment to remind everyone of their responsibilities in debating in the E&C.

Take debating in the E&C seriously. Don't be apathetic. It takes ten seconds to type up a half thought out idea; it can take well over ten minutes, sometimes even an hour, a largely disproportionate amount of time, to properly refute it.

The debate style in the E&C is not like having a conversation with your friends in real life. We don't exchange spontaneously thought up words back and forth in real time. We exchange posts one or twice a day. Consequently, posts are expected to be well thought out.

In general, if you are trying to convey an idea and most people are having trouble understanding it, then the problem is more likely to be with your conveyance than with everyone who is not understanding it.

In the E&C, we consider calling people illiterate uncool. So is making generalizations about your opponent, like that they only believe what they believe because they are X.

Don't troll. If you are trolled, then either 1) don't respond to the trolling or 2) tactfully call them out on it and/or redirect them to respond to the content of your post. When in doubt of how to appropriately do the latter, do the former. In the heat of the moment, it might seem better to respond to trolling with more trolling, but think about how silly other people look when they troll each other back and forth.

[flip]

I agree. It's become tiresome after some time.

[Jeff250]

HUH hardly. there is evolution. Macro not Micro

Grendel is right. Unqualified, the word "evolution" refers to both macro- and micro-evolution, thus including the origin of species. (It's not a coincidence that the seminal work in the theory of evolution is Origin of Species.) It might make sense to distinguish between macro- and micro-evolution in a debate, but then you have to specifically refer to them as such. You can't redefine a word like "evolution" that everyone has been using for a very long time.

Ha Ha Ha, that “The hypothesis of the origin of consciousness” made me laugh out loud.

That’s funny. Science doesn’t even know what consciousness is; let alone where it came from.

I agree that science doesn't have a good explanation of consciousness. I don't think it's silly though to begin hypothesizing about it. Any good theory will come from some hypothesis, and that's all that paper seems to claim to be. I think that eventually science will have a good theory too, but just not yet. I would be surprised if this were the one thing in the universe that science couldn't replace a supernatural explanation with a natural one.

[flip]

I think it's pretty supernatural that the bible explains it so clearly and this a long time before your science. Maybe it's that both are the truth but my witnesses were closer to the event than yours and beat you there by 2000 or more years.

EDIT:The most well thought out idea should be able to be said in one sentence so as to be absolute.

[Jeff250]

EDIT:The most well thought out idea should be able to be said in one sentence so as to be absolute.

Occasionally an idea is so simple that you can adequately express it in one sentence, but if your most recent post is any indication, then you're erring dramatically on the side of sparsity. I'm interested in what you think the Bible's explanation of consciousness is and why you think we should prefer it to any possible scientific one, but you still have yet to tell us! I assure you that to sufficiently explain and defend your position to us will take more than one sentence. Why not spend some time fleshing out your position?

[flip]

Thank you! Well, we have covered a lot of ground while I tried very hard to keep it specific, but I will carry on from the point we are at. Are you asking specifically about Pavlov's experiments or the laws of evolution or proper etiquette in forum discussions or NM, it's the bibles explanation of consciousness. All I'm saying at this point, and believe me I'm just trying to keep up, is that the scientific findings, I say findings as in observable fact, also still line-up with the biblical account. These findings being superficial in nature also, because as you have said, your theories have yet to even offer more than rudimentary theory pertaining to consciousness as where mine has for 1000's of years. As of yet, there is no conflict.

[Jeff250]

What is your theory of consciousness (or what is your understanding of the Bible's theory of consciousness)?

[Top Gun]

Dear lord, my brain is breaking. This conversation can't be real.

I have at least as much as you and the fact that I know the MOMENT I realize something. You have to be thinking to realize something, critical thinking, not just pre-conditioned reactions that animals exhibit. On that basis, I have to think that awareness is instant, just like waking up from a sleep

So all you have is your own personal internal concept of consciousness. Not, y'know, any scientific study or evidence or modeling or anything remotely reproducible and comprehensive. Fantastic.

Evolutionists seem to be conditioned to look at structures and appearances instead of actual operation.

Shocking news: underlying structures affect operation! It's like we're actually thinking these things out! And lol, it's "conditioning" time again.

Ha Ha Ha, that “The hypothesis of the origin of consciousness” made me laugh out loud.

That’s funny. Science doesn’t even know what consciousness is; let alone where it came from.

Consciousness kind of defines itself, and per Ferno's link, it's working on the mechanics.

When science can tell me what “matter” is, I’ll place complete faith in it, but for now, I’m going to use my own insight to try to figure out such things.

Welcome to the year 1911. Enjoy your stay.

It also agrees with the Emaculate Conception, as some kind of intervention is needed, mutation has to happen at conception and it creates a new species as the end result. The promise of becoming made in God's image again.

That's not what the Immaculate Conception doctrine states, and it also isn't what's being referred to with the chicken thing.

... you can put it to the test yourself if you have the right setup, and everything would hold up.

And you know this... how? (oh snap, a belief!)

Because people have done it. Because it happens every day. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are natural selection in action. Selective crop/herd breeding is artificially-induced evolution, and humans have been doing it for millennia, long before they even knew that DNA existed.

I think it's pretty supernatural that the bible explains it so clearly and this a long time before your science. Maybe it's that both are the truth but my witnesses were closer to the event than yours and beat you there by 2000 or more years.

...what.

EDIT:The most well thought out idea should be able to be said in one sentence so as to be absolute.

No, the most well-thought-out ideas often require far more than one sentence. Y'know, because they're well thought out.

I don't mean this in any sort of trolling sense, but I need to be perfectly blunt here: a few of you guys don't have a grasp on the scientific process at all, nor on any of the subjects we're discussing here. I don't blame you guys for this...if anything, it's an indication of just how shitty our educational system has been for so long, and why we're so fucked as a country. That aside, if you're going to go into a topic like this and start making declarative statements...you need to do the research. Especially if these are subjects you haven't been exposed to before. Because if you don't, then you come across as a fool, and the people reading you will probably not take much of anything you say seriously in the future.

I would love to help you get informed, lord knows I would, but when the conversation consists of post after post of disconnected one-liners and baseless declarations...that's nearly impossible.

[flip]

Lol you guys are ridiculous and continually do the same things you accuse of others of. I'm with Spidey here. I havn't been indoctrinated to think a hodgepodge of speculation falsely called science is fact and glad of it. I'll die with my own convictions and leave the conditioning to Pavlov.

EDIT: For my brother's and those with a hearing ear:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

[vision]

...still waiting on that 2000 year old definition of consciousness. I was really intrigued by the possibility of a biblical definition since I've never heard one existed (well, I never came across one when I read the bible).


And I guess there does seem to bit of science-phobia here.

[Jeff250]

Flip, I'm still interested in it too.

I don't mean this in any sort of trolling sense,

But it was pretty trollish, and that's not cool.

[Top Gun]

That wasn't meant in any sort of insulting matter. I mean...it's a basic fact that things are getting misrepresented in here. And I'd love to help set the record straight, but if I'm not even being met halfway, it can't happen.

[flip]

TopGun, I'm not trying to convince you my beliefs are true, I'm trying to show you where our beliefs agree. I'll try to put something together by this evening but if it's not read as carefully as it's put together I'm done. I've made some pretty good points so far, but since they don't fit exactly into others belief systems it's dismissed before even pondered. I've said we are agreeing just as I've said that the basic laws set forth in the bible are also the same ones the theory of evolution is coming up with. I did not say the same conclusions, but the same laws.

[Foil]

Haven't been around much lately (life happens, perhaps I'll post about it soon), but reading through this thread, I'm honestly disappointed in the direction this thread has taken.

I don't care whose fault it is. The kind of dialogue I'm reading (particularly page 3 of this thread) doesn't belong in E&C. We expect better.

Allow me to echo Jeff250's statements above:

Take debating in the E&C seriously. Don't be apathetic. It takes ten seconds to type up a half thought out idea; it can take well over ten minutes, sometimes even an hour, a largely disproportionate amount of time, to properly refute it.

The debate style in the E&C is not like having a conversation with your friends in real life. We don't exchange spontaneously thought up words back and forth in real time. We exchange posts one or twice a day. Consequently, posts are expected to be well thought out.

In general, if you are trying to convey an idea and most people are having trouble understanding it, then the problem is more likely to be with your conveyance than with everyone who is not understanding it.

In the E&C, we consider calling people illiterate uncool. So is making generalizations about your opponent, like that they only believe what they believe because they are X.

Don't troll. If you are trolled, then either 1) don't respond to the trolling or 2) tactfully call them out on it and/or redirect them to respond to the content of your post. When in doubt of how to appropriately do the latter, do the former. In the heat of the moment, it might seem better to respond to trolling with more trolling, but think about how silly other people look when they troll each other back and forth.

===================

Now, regarding the only topic-variant which has been consistent in this thread:

Q. Are we pre-conditioned toward certain beliefs about origins, based on our upbringing?

A. Yes, of course we are. On both/all sides of the debate. But it's not a deterministic effect.

Flip, you made statements about "people who have been taught evolution from childhood". I'd like you and everyone else here to also consider the pre-conditioning of "people who have been taught creationism from childhood":

As someone who has been around both extremes of the debate, here is my experience:

• People taught evolution from childhood:
  
  • Most will accept what they are taught without question or further self-initiated research.
  • A minority will look deeper into the topic scientifically and philosophically. Of those:
    
    • Most will conclude that evolutionary mechanics are valid and continuing to develop.
    • Many will integrate their view about a creator/designer with evolutionary mechanics.
    • A few will conclude that evolutionary mechanics are not sufficient or invalid, and reject it in favor of another idea about origins (e.g. creationism).
• People taught creationism from childhood:
  
  • Most will accept what they are taught without question or further self-initiated research.
  • A minority will look deeper into the topic scientifically and philosophically. Of those:
    
    • Most will conclude that creationist evidence is valid and continuing to develop.
    • Many will integrate their view of change mechanics with creationist perspective.
    • A few will conclude that creationism is questionable or invalid, and reject it in favor of another idea about origins (e.g. evolution).

It goes both ways, and there are people here in the E&C from every category above.

Again, keep the dialogue in here professional.

[flip]

Yeah agreed, I'm out.

[snoopy]

Maybe, or maybe that God would create a universe just like this one instead. It's his choice, right?

Yes. It's kinda nice that He created something that He considered good... and created us such that we'd consider it good as well. Sin came and marred things up, which is why things aren't always good anymore.... which isn't how God really created the world to be. If you want we can get in to the man's responsibility/God's sovereignty discussion... but the things that we consider bad or evil weren't around until Adam and Eve sinned.

For what it's worth, *I* don't propose a universal standard of right and wrong, but a lot of others do... [1], [2], [3], etc. Ultimately, they all have the same weakness that your theory does--you end up with some justification that you can't back up and that only postpones the problem. I don't think that we should be able to ground all of ethics in reason because I don't think it's entirely rational.

I suppose the same could be claimed for *any* standard of right and wrong, right? I think that we all have to live with things that are mysterious when it comes to philosophy and beliefs... so I'm at least glad that you're willing to cede that it isn't going to all be perfectly answered.

I don't know what popular pseudo-atheism is, but instinctively I'd expect the opinion of the crowds to be more relevant in an ethical decision than the contents of a register in another dimension.

In the immediate, evidence seems to be in your favor. I'm arguing that in the larger scheme of things you're wrong.... but God's not making a habit of striking people with lightning (ever see the bad seed?), so you'd have to take my position on faith. You hopefully do recognize that going with the crowd means that you will inevitably be at the mercy of the crowd.... but then maybe in the here and now we're all at the mercy of the crowd with only a few (relatively unattractive) options to truly break away from it.

[Tunnelcat]

there is no "belief" involved because belief is an acceptance of something without any evidence backing it up.

That's why it called Faith. A person who lives by faith alone has to ignore any and all observable facts in order to explain something they don't understand or comprehend.

A total bastardization of "Faith", which is based first in observable fact and insists on a certain continuity between that which is seen and that which is not readily perceivable... but which observable facts are these?

Faith: The firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

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

I stand by my statement. There is no physical proof or scientific observations that there is a God at the present. The historical Bible is not proof either. One has to go on faith that what the Bible says is true. I'm not knocking that either.

[Sergeant Thorne]

There is no physical proof or scientific observations that there is a God at the present.

I don't know what you're talking about. The whole of creation, and the intricate inter-workings and balance of it is proof. If that makes less sense than unobserved, significant steps of random evolution then it's only because that is the popular belief and thinking of our day. Moreover there has been proof of a spiritual aspect to life, and of non-physical beings. There have been healings, there have been lives significantly changed, and the Bible has prophecy that has been historically proven to be prophetic down to some very specific details, not to mention the witness of the continuity of the message of scripture across many different authors. So the "historic Bible" is proof. There's plenty of proof, even if you're not confronted with all (most) of it in your day-to-day life. It should not be left out that if the Bible is true, and there is a God, then the very fact that you are not confronted with these proofs on a day-to-day basis, or much at all, is deliberate and malicious.

Faith: The firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

That quote does not disprove my statement of what faith is. What that quote is is a crude summation of one definition of faith. Jesus spoke in various places of things that were done for the purpose of giving his disciples reason to believe. I submit that my definition is much more accurate of true faith, not just something that people believe because they were told or brought up to believe it. "Blind" faith would be a much more appropriate qualifier for what you're talking about.

[Ferno]

That's why it called Faith. A person who lives by faith alone has to ignore any and all observable facts in order to explain something they don't understand or comprehend.

Why are we saying the exact same thing? I mean, really...

[Jeff250]

Maybe, or maybe that God would create a universe just like this one instead. It's his choice, right?

Yes. It's kinda nice that He created something that He considered good... and created us such that we'd consider it good as well. Sin came and marred things up, which is why things aren't always good anymore.... which isn't how God really created the world to be. If you want we can get in to the man's responsibility/God's sovereignty discussion... but the things that we consider bad or evil weren't around until Adam and Eve sinned.

But your intuition should work even when God's character doesn't match up with peoples' character. Imagine an "evil" God. By "evil", I mean evil by our standards, but as long as he's self-consistent, then he's technically good. He might create people whose characters were consistent with his. But he might also create people whose characters were like ours, perhaps *because* he was "evil," since they would be ethically forced to do "evil" things against their conscience in order to do God's will. Shouldn't these people be able to object on some basis that their morality was superior?

I suppose the same could be claimed for *any* standard of right and wrong, right? I think that we all have to live with things that are mysterious when it comes to philosophy and beliefs... so I'm at least glad that you're willing to cede that it isn't going to all be perfectly answered.

But what I don't cede is that whether bringing God into the picture conceptually helps any. God is just another actor whose ethical opinion could be anything. Conceptually, it's just as dangerous as exclusively trusting people's opinion. He might have some practical advantages, like being omniscient, but if he's a dick to begin with, then that might not help much.

the Bible has prophecy that has been historically proven to be prophetic down to some very specific details

We've had a thread about this before. Near the end, Lothar notably said:

When it comes to Biblical prophecy, I think the key principle to remember is that it's usually neither fortunetelling nor proof for unbelievers; it's instead a way to attach teaching to a specific event for believers.

Unless you think you can add something to the thread, I don't think that Biblical prophecy should be very compelling evidence for non-Christians.

[Ferno]

Lol you guys are ridiculous and continually do the same things you accuse of others of. I'm with Spidey here. I havn't been indoctrinated to think a hodgepodge of speculation falsely called science is fact and glad of it. I'll die with my own convictions and leave the conditioning to Pavlov.

Have you used any medications? have you had a child or two? have you had a vaccine? Do you know anyone with diabetes?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you've benefited either directly or indirectly from this "hodgepodge of speculation falsely called science"

[flip]

Your an idiot Ferno.

[Ferno]

again: have you had any medications? have you had any surgery in your lifetime? do you have kids? Do you know anyone with diabetes? do you know anyone with any vision aids?

Instead of posting "you are an idiot", you could try answering me honestly. by the way.. the word is "You're".

[flip]

I'm sorry, mentally challenged.

[flip]

Dude, I'm not gonna answer yes,yes,yes,yes questions from you. You wanna talk? How about you get honest and get your head out of your ass?

[Ferno]

regardless of wether or not you believe in science is not for me to try and change. but the fact remains, is if you have had anything to do with a hospital, doctors, paramedics or specialists you have received the benefits of something you don't believe in. something that is testable and holds up to scrutiny.

example: what is happening when water boils? Science answers that in a form that is measurable (EG: temperature). Faith tries to answer that by saying "a wizard did it."

In a nutshell, science is the one asking questions, and faith is one way of trying to answer questions.

[flip]

Very weak and superficial argument so far. Your gonna have to do better than that.

[Ferno]

Why? why should I? You're not being honest here, you resort to flaming and you've been acting like a child half the time.

[flip]

bull★■◆●, everything you say is inflammatory and rhetorical. You should go back and gauge your replies against everyone else's replies here. I don't take you serious until your replies are more thought.

[Foil]

[Mod-hat]

Enough.

Flip, you're way out of line. If you have a valid reply, make it. Personal/character shots like "idiot" / "mentally-challenged" don't belong in E&C.

Ferno, quit taking the bait.

[/Mod-hat]

-------------

Now can we get back on-topic?

The discussion Jeff250 linked is a good one. Thoughts?

[flip]

Here the whole time I thought I was the one being trolled. Sorry to offend your sensitive nature Foil.

[ Post made via Android ]

[snoopy]

But your intuition should work even when God's character doesn't match up with peoples' character. Imagine an "evil" God. By "evil", I mean evil by our standards, but as long as he's self-consistent, then he's technically good. He might create people whose characters were consistent with his. But he might also create people whose characters were like ours, perhaps *because* he was "evil," since they would be ethically forced to do "evil" things against their conscience in order to do God's will. Shouldn't these people be able to object on some basis that their morality was superior?

Hrm. For one, I don't equate self-consistent with good. We're in agreement that "good" and "evil" must be defined according to some standard.... so in your hypothetical, man says god is evil, by man's standard. I think the implication is that the hypothetical god knows that he is evil, and thus creates people who are better than him. It's an interesting idea, but I see it as humanizing god, creating a god that's missing a lot of the attributes of the Biblical God.

If you allow me to assume that God considers Himself the definition of what is good, then we get to a matter of differing standards by which ethics are defined. The people are welcome to object to God's morality, but my argument is that neither they nor their standard have the authority to claim any jurisdiction beyond their own little sphere... especially that they can't claim to have authority to make conclusive statements about their creator's morality. Furthermore, logic indicates that any standard by which morality is defined should only be applied within the sphere within which the standard has [EDIT] legitimate [/EDIT] influence - so your definition should only apply to you, a culture's definition should only apply to the culture, the creators definition should apply to the created.

But what I don't cede is that whether bringing God into the picture conceptually helps any. God is just another actor whose ethical opinion could be anything. Conceptually, it's just as dangerous as exclusively trusting people's opinion. He might have some practical advantages, like being omniscient, but if he's a dick to begin with, then that might not help much.

Again, I think that influence/authority is our point of difference. If God is who He claims to be, and will do what He claims that He will do, then His ethical opinion has supreme importance to the entire universe. Your opinion of His ethical opinion doesn't have bearing on Him, but His opinion of your ethical opinion has massive consequences to you according to the Bible.

the Bible has prophecy that has been historically proven to be prophetic down to some very specific details

We've had a thread about this before. Near the end, Lothar notably said:

When it comes to Biblical prophecy, I think the key principle to remember is that it's usually neither fortunetelling nor proof for unbelievers; it's instead a way to attach teaching to a specific event for believers.

Unless you think you can add something to the thread, I don't think that Biblical prophecy should be very compelling evidence for non-Christians.

I think that there is something to be said for the historical validity of the Bible. You may not agree with the meaning attached to historical events described in the Bible, but I'm not aware of any legitimate threats to the premise of the Bible's historical accuracy, so it merits attention at least on a historical level.