DescentBB

I may have mentioned it earlier....not to quibble.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:Borrowing from the whole intelligent design argument: the question is: if you're bounded by the size/age of the universe that we can scientifically measure (I.E. exclude faith-based assertions that something extends to infinity) do you really have enough mutation occurrences to statistically justify the diversity and complexity of the species that we find? ID proponents would say no, not even close. The best counter-arguments I've seen (and mind you I may be wrong) amount to either hand waving, or extending some variable beyond what we can scientifically measure with a "trust us, we'll verify that later."

the answer is clearly yes, and if ID proponents choose to remain ignorant, that is their choice. Just keep their ignorance out of public school science education.

That's easy for you to assert... but I haven't seen a supporting argument that doesn't resort to un-measurable extension of some variable... care to show me one?

can you give an example of 'unmeasurable variable' which has to be 'extended' beyond some realistic comprehension? Because, as I current;y read your words, I can't think of one that requires such things for ultimate proof, nor does the formation of any viable theory require anything of the sort.

snoopy wrote:Borrowing from the whole intelligent design argument: the question is: if you're bounded by the size/age of the universe that we can scientifically measure (I.E. exclude faith-based assertions that something extends to infinity) do you really have enough mutation occurrences to statistically justify the diversity and complexity of the species that we find? ID proponents would say no, not even close. The best counter-arguments I've seen (and mind you I may be wrong) amount to either hand waving, or extending some variable beyond what we can scientifically measure with a "trust us, we'll verify that later."

I don't think that the anthropic principle is a convincing explanation for life on earth. If evolution of species really is that improbable, then all the anthropic principle would explain is why we live on a planet where man evolved. It wouldn't explain the diversity of other species that we see today, and so we would expect to live on a planet with close to the bare minimum of species required for man to have evolved.

Of course, I think that the solution to this problem is that evolution isn't actually that improbable instead of that we were designed.

Slick:

I'll give a personal example of how I see it: I'm a bit of an ocean/reef junkie. If you read literature about reef building corals & reefs in general, there's an amazing symbiosis that happens on the reef. The corals depend on zooxanthella to feed them (by being so inefficient that they expel on the order of 95% of the energy that they produce) and in exchange host them. The corals also depend in the algae-grazing fish to prevent algae from overtaking them, and in exchange give them hiding places. All of this happens in an environment where the corals have to race to produce structure faster than erosion, and where slight changes in water temperature, clarity, and chemical composition can mean mass death.

I read literature on it and I read about how amazing it was for all of this to have co-evolved into the state that we have today, and how it's so sensitive that corals die if someone sneezes in Kansas.... and I ask myself how people can be so firm in their conviction that all of this could have happened by chance. Ultimately I see that coral reefs are an awe-striking ecosystem which are fascinating. And, ultimately, whatever forces brought reefs into existence are also awe-striking and worthy of worship.

Yea, but that also begs the question…why make them so fragile…why not make them hearty instead.

Spidey wrote:Yea, but that also begs the question…why make them so fragile…why not make them hearty instead.

I have personal experience with the line of thinking, too.

As an engineer I design things which other people have to build and maintain. I get feedback from them all the time saying "you should have made it easier to build/maintain." Sometimes their suggestions are ideas that I just didn't think of... or mistakes that I made....

But, sometimes I have very good reasons for designing it the way that I did - and when I tell them about all of the considerations that went into the design (besides just ease of build) - they realize that there were parts of the equation that they hadn't considered. Sometimes it also just ends up being a matter of "I chose to do it that way." - which is different than the way they would have done it.

The point (and my answer) is that not only are we working with a limited understanding of the (physical) factors involved, but we're also dealing with the creation of a sentient being who was creating beauty and art... so artistic/preference factors are also involved. Consider that we're told both that earthly function wasn't the primary goal (pleasure of the creator was) and the creation has been corrupted.

Spidey wrote:Yea, but that also begs the question…why make them so fragile…why not make them hearty instead.

likely the only option given the evolutionary forces upon them. Reefs are located in changeable environments, and 'hearty' organisms tend also to be 'non-adaptive' organisms. Just a pure guess. To actually think that some benevolent creator designed them as a living art project really does reach into Fairy-Tale land. Seriously.

Yea snoopy, this is pretty much why I have given up the creation vs. science debate…every time I make a logical argument, it is always countered with the old “god works in mysterious ways” or the “who are you to challenge” argument.

I’m just going to say, if I were all powerful and wanted to create some artwork, I would make it bulletproof and everlasting…but see, that’s just me, and of course your idea of what a god would do and mine can never be the same.

The fundamental problem I have with Snoopy's line of thinking there is how...unfulfilling it is from an intellectual standpoint. If you look at something like that coral reef example, where dozens of species have developed a complex symbiosis that has enabled that amazing ecosystem to function, and your response to that is, "I can't see how that could have developed, so God must have made it!"...you're essentially precluding any curiosity or investigation. By putting everything so directly in a higher power's hands, what you're implying is that there's no sense trying to look into it any further. Isn't it a far healthier attitude to instead say, "Wow, this looks amazing...now let's see if we can figure out how it works!"? That way lies the pursuit of knowledge and the thrill of discovery, and if you ask me, that's exactly what we're meant to do as human beings.

Top Gun wrote:The fundamental problem I have with Snoopy's line of thinking there is how...unfulfilling it is from an intellectual standpoint. If you look at something like that coral reef example, where dozens of species have developed a complex symbiosis that has enabled that amazing ecosystem to function, and your response to that is, "I can't see how that could have developed, so God must have made it!"...you're essentially precluding any curiosity or investigation. By putting everything so directly in a higher power's hands, what you're implying is that there's no sense trying to look into it any further. Isn't it a far healthier attitude to instead say, "Wow, this looks amazing...now let's see if we can figure out how it works!"? That way lies the pursuit of knowledge and the thrill of discovery, and if you ask me, that's exactly what we're meant to do as human beings.

....See and I think I hold "God must have made it" and "Wow, this looks amazing...now let's see if we can figure out how it works!" together without trouble. My curiosity and investigation generally leads me to "wow this is even more amazing and fascinating than I ever believed - so the God that made it must be more amazing than I ever thought." Curiosity and investigation becomes a form of worship of God, rather than an attempt to assert our independence from Him. (essentially worship of self or nature) You're really expressing a frustration with intellectual apathy, which I see as a human condition - affecting people of all faiths and walks... it's generally a way that we avoid having to face the questions that challenge us & our views... and it frustrates me just as much as you. By the way, it affects both of us, too. I think all of the history of "don't bother figuring it out, God made it that way" was just the stick of convenience that people used to browbeat their opinions into others. These days the stick of convenience is changing, but people's desire to forcefully assert their views on others remains.


Spidey: I hear your point, but I think it's a logical fallacy. If you say that God has to behave the way you would in order to be real, you're making a straw man. I see beauty in the fragility... not necessarily practicality, but beauty yes.

No I’m not making the argument that god can only exist if he did things as I would, in fact it’s you that is making the argument that the world is the way it is because god made it so.

It is what it is because god made it that way, if coral were indestructible…you would be saying god planned it “that” way, and you would be seeing the beauty in that.

Spidey wrote:No I’m not making the argument that god can only exist if he did things as I would, in fact it’s you that is making the argument that the world is the way it is because god made it so.

It is what it is because god made it that way, if coral were indestructible…you would be saying god planned it “that” way, and you would be seeing the beauty in that.

Truth.

Top Gun wrote:That way lies the pursuit of knowledge and the thrill of discovery, and if you ask me, that's exactly what we're meant to do as human beings.

Surely people will want to make the perfect man . There are countless times that will be regenerated teeth like a shark , and limbs , as in crustaceans , will be strong as an ant , and in general, he can live without food , and even a few weeks without a head , like cockroaches . It's frightening to imagine this creature . It will be someone else , but not people. Also, for example , if we can reduce a person's metabolism to prolong his life up to 300 years , as the turtles , we can assume that such a person would lose much responsiveness of the nervous system and will not be able to have an orgasm by thirty minutes , like a pig. Just such a person can not move as fast as a wild boar!

I think a lot of people, in their attempts to accuse God, forget that He is not the God of this world.

Disagree . The Creator is the creator of this world , which means that it is part of this world. I even have little doubt that the man is a copy of God , adapted to life in certain conditions. But, of course , God is far more perfect creature than man. It is well known that the human brain has a huge potential for development. But today, most people do not use their intellectual capabilities of the brain even at 10%. I also suspect that God is able to live on our planet and look like a simple man. Just because I've talked with some smart people , and I was excited about the possibilities of their mind. It is impossible to learn , it 's innate abilities .

I was mistaken. I thought you were christian Sigma.

flip wrote:I was mistaken. I thought you were christian Sigma.

I baptized Christian. I observe Christian traditions. But I do not go to church to pray, because we need. I am an atheist in my personal choice. In my opinion, the Bible - a book for relaxation when depression. Excellent help. But I can not accept religion because I pop said I should totally take for granted what is written in the Bible. I do not agree in many aspects. In my opinion, Religion - a typical example of the manipulation of people's minds.

Can't disagree with you there, although the problem is not the Bible, but like you said, people wanting to use it to control others. Someone who is sincere in their search and follows the Cardinal Rules of not calling anyone else Father, not calling anyone else Teacher and to never go outside of it will have no problem finding the tampering. All the problems that exist is not because the Bible lacks integrity, it is because people have been trying to make sense of stuff that does not belong. For the longest, all we had was the KJV and I know people to this day who refuse to read any other translation. Pity for them I guess. They are more concerned with their traditions than they are a search for the truth.

flip wrote:For the longest, all we had was the KJV and I know people to this day who refuse to read any other translation. Pity for them I guess. They are more concerned with their traditions than they are a search for the truth.

The biggest fault with the KJV is the archaic language. Even that isn't all negative, being more precise than modern English, with a little bit of training to understand it. The NKJV fixed that with the addition of only a few problems. There are glaring errors in most of the others as a result of either tampering in the source manuscripts or liberal translations methods. The bottom line is that from a Christian perspective translations have not gotten better since the KJV--they've gotten worse. I'm not opposed to a new translation of the Bible, just don't let the heretics or liberals do the translating is all I ask.

Continue your search for truth. I'll have you reading King James yet!

Lol, my friend, I read strictly the KJV for at least 25 years Here's the problem:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.

That addition from the KJV completely makes people miss the meaning of that verse. It was put in their to force an interpretation that is in fact, error.

What this is talking about is God's testimony about His Son. The Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh as prophesied by the prophet Joel and fulfilled at Jesus' baptism. There are 3 witnesses to God's testimony about His Son. The water of the word, the blood of His Son and God Himself. When we accept that testimony, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus sends the Son's Spirit into our hearts and we receive adoption. It is through God's Spirit we are granted repentance and through the Son's we are sanctified and become children.

Because of that addition, and since the KJV was the only one for so long, it has led people to miss the importance of the rest. This is talking about God testimony about His Son and the 3 witnesses to that testimony. It has made people think that God is divided into 3 individuals or has multiple personalities, all from trying to make sense of something that does not belong. The whole world has broken the Cardinal Rules. Not to call anyone on Earth Father, not to call anyone Teacher, and to not go beyond what is written. Well, almost all

I feel like arguing with Ham on this is like arguing with Lord Kelvin's ghost about the possibility of heavier-than-air flying machines. Lord Kelvin's ghost can make the most compelling arguments about how air travel is impossible, and we can spend pages explaining why he is wrong in principle, but ultimately Lord Kelvin's ghost has the enormous burden of explaining how I got back from Seattle and what those mechanical birds are in the sky. Similarly, Ham can argue about how a theory of evolution is impossible because studying the past is so hard, and we can spend pages explaining why he is wrong in principle, but ultimately Ham has the enormous burden of explaining how the theory of evolution makes so many risky but true predictions. And unless he can explain that, his effort is doomed.

Jeff250 wrote:I feel like arguing with Ham on this is like arguing with Lord Kelvin's ghost about the possibility of heavier-than-air flying machines. Lord Kelvin's ghost can make the most compelling arguments about how air travel is impossible, and we can spend pages explaining why he is wrong in principle, but ultimately Lord Kelvin's ghost has the enormous burden of explaining how I got back from Seattle and what those mechanical birds are in the sky. Similarly, Ham can argue about how a theory of evolution is impossible because studying the past is so hard, and we can spend pages explaining why he is wrong in principle, but ultimately Ham has the enormous burden of explaining how the theory of evolution makes so many risky but true predictions. And unless he can explain that, his effort is doomed.

Here's how I'd extend your analogy to the topic of evolutionary origins: It's like you're arguing with Lord Kelvin's ghost that because heavier-than-air flying machines exist and it's theoretically possible, we all must be where we are because we flew there from Mars. If Kelvin's ghost questions the Mars part you keep pointing to the airplanes and saying "but see - the airplanes are there! You can't deny them!"

Science has a mechanism for dealing with failed theories... and they quickly get forgotten. I think it's a generous to act like the theory of evolution is some kind of a great seer.... the principles of evolution can and have spawned a very large range of predictions... and biased scientists in their biased experiments have been working very hard for a very long time to prove that evolutionary origins are true. It's very convenient to forget about all of the failed theories and latch onto the ones that remain plausible.

Before you guys jump all over me again about how I can't deny all of these breakthroughs that support the mechanics of evolution... my argument isn't against the mechanics of evolution.... my argument is that there's no way to separate human nature and human philosophy from studies of our history... and no matter how scientifically honest people try to be about, they can't get away from their own bias. Furthermore, I don't see all that much of an attempt at being intellectually honest about it these days... but people seem to somehow convince themselves that their tightly held beliefs about purely naturalistic origins are somehow "proven" by science.... the only reason they are supported by science is because science has defined it that way a-priori.

Bingo. Well put.

You know, seeing people's reactions to this debate (not speaking in reference to this BB) has been a revelation to me in just how intellectually shallow the majority of people are, and I was very disturbed by it. That was one of my reasons for starting this topic. Point of fact: we are seeing a generation come up that largely uses their faith in science to deny the existence of their own bias! If people didn't have such strong faith in their own intellectual ability, they would have to confront the ugly truth. No matter how big of a sports fan you are, it doesn't amount to game time.

Just as an aside, I wonder if it has ever occurred to any of you to wonder what it would mean if the creationists have it right, and the world is only 6000-7000 years old. You've got to understand that I live in a society that since my youth has been bombarding me with the notion that things have been around essentially forever, so even for me it's something where I have to work to get my head around all of the ramifications. Science fans like to make the argument that this view would cripple learning and discovery in America. The fact is that if it's true it would do quite the opposite (obviously), and would necessitate a significant reinterpretation of a lot of "evidence". If you really weigh it out mathematically/logically, this argument is wanting based on the uncertainty involved in their findings/predictions alone, unless I'm very mistaken. To be certain in the face of uncertainty is the true sin in science.

I assert that the basis for keeping the idea of special creation and a young earth out of schools in favor of naturalism and a very old universe could very well amount to nothing more than strong personal biases ultimately finding expression through many little inconsistencies behind the unassailable name of unbiased science.

the reason for keeping creationism and ESPECIALLY the idea of a young Earth out of schools is that neither is close to provable, and the latter is demonstrably untrue. I cannot, for the life of me, understand where teaching sheer falsehood to children is anything past an anti-intellectual ideal. Odd, how anti-intellectualism takes root under certain conditions: Fascist Spain, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, to take recent examples. And now, in the US, the so-called 'conservative' movement seems to embrace anti-intellectualism(young Earth, denial of climate change/human effects on environment, economic intellectuals, etc). Sorry, but I'll fight that mindset for the good of my society whenever it rears it's head.

Thanks for the illustration, slick. By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

The Earth is 6000-7000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe.

The same logical fallacy that plagues Catholics concerning Communion is the same that plagues young-earth creationists. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, meaning they take the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to the literalist sense and so do young earth creationists concerning the literal 7 days. The Catholics do not understand that His body was broken so that Christ's Spirit could be poured out, and young earth creationists make the same logical fallacy concerning a 'day.' Read John 6:66. Literal interpretations have always been the great divider.

We could be at the center of the universe, probably not, but we could be.

See, although I tend to disagree with snoopy, I do get his point about bias. It is always said that science can’t prove or disprove the existence of god, well why is that? It is my opinion that science has already decided that god does not exist, and therefore doesn’t have any motive to design the proper experiments.

Science gives a lot of philosophizing on whether god exists or not, and always comes up with the same conclusion…I have often wondered about using the kinds of resources that are spent on say…the LHC to see if god exists or not, could provide results…but of course that will never happen.

Because it would be a waste of money, and time….right?

Krom wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

The Earth is 6000-7000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe.

On mine, it is impossible to call it lie. It only direct reflection of ignorance on the basis of a human egocentrism.
The real lie is when the person knows that he says lies, and nevertheless imposes this lie to other people as the truth, in their interests.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Thanks for the illustration, slick. By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

that the Earth is 8000 years or less old, or that man did not evolve from lower primates, for starters. The evidence putting the lie to both is overwhelming, incontrovertable and been re-tested beyond any doubt.

snoopy wrote:Before you guys jump all over me again about how I can't deny all of these breakthroughs that support the mechanics of evolution... my argument isn't against the mechanics of evolution.... my argument is that there's no way to separate human nature and human philosophy from studies of our history... and no matter how scientifically honest people try to be about, they can't get away from their own bias. Furthermore, I don't see all that much of an attempt at being intellectually honest about it these days... but people seem to somehow convince themselves that their tightly held beliefs about purely naturalistic origins are somehow "proven" by science.... the only reason they are supported by science is because science has defined it that way a-priori.

There is no naturalistic assumption in science. What you're mistaking for a weakness in science is actually a weakness of your supernatural beliefs. Most supernatural beliefs started out easily testable but they were falsified and then modified and then falsified until they were ultimately reduced to something too weak to be tested. Take the original idea that God created the world 6000 years ago (easily testable but easily falsified). Now it's been reduced to the idea that maybe God just guided a few mutations here and there (not testable). The original idea that prayer can heal illnesses like HIV (easily testable but never demonstrated) has been reduced to maybe prayer can buy you a little more time before HIV kills you. We should be suspicious of that! Theists have more to explain here than scientists do as to why their beliefs are no longer testable!

If you actually have a theory with better predictive power than evolution to explain the diversity of life on this planet, then quit holding out! Otherwise, how can you accuse scientists of bias when we already have an excellent working theory and when there is no working alternative?

Eh, I like how you do things Slick. The 8000 year old Earth is debunked by physical evidence, your lower primate assertion applies to Snoopy's argument. Still gotta find those 223 missing genes first and a direct link before you get all willy-nilly on us. Your doing the same thing you accuse Thorne of.

flip wrote:The same logical fallacy that plagues Catholics concerning Communion is the same that plagues young-earth creationists. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, meaning they take the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to the literalist sense and so do young earth creationists concerning the literal 7 days. The Catholics do not understand that His body was broken so that Christ's Spirit could be poured out, and young earth creationists make the same logical fallacy concerning a 'day.' Read John 6:66. Literal interpretations have always been the great divider.

Slow down there. Those are not equatable. It was clearly demonstrated what eating his flesh and drinking his blood meant. The Catholics are not taking it literally, they are taking it mystically. Remember only a Catholic "priest" has the "power" to trans-substantiate. I don't see that in scripture. I don't see a separate priesthood in the scripture either, but I digress.

By the way when I asked 'what is "sheer falsehood"', I was asking for a definition not an example. I guess that was ambiguous.

Jeff wrote:There is no naturalistic assumption in science.

You really need to distinguish between science as an ideal and science as a practice or field, because there certainly are naturalistic assumptions in the field, even if they are arguably not inherent in the scientific method...

Krom wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

The Earth is 6000-7000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe.

Well, it reads good, but the three don't actually go together.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Thanks for the illustration, slick. By the way, what is "sheer falsehood"?

that the Earth is 8000 years or less old, or that man did not evolve from lower primates, for starters. The evidence putting the lie to both is overwhelming, incontrovertable and been re-tested beyond any doubt.

Well slickster, that just isn't so outside of your head.

They are equitable in the sense that both young-earth creationists and catholics with their transubstantiation are in error by trying to make something literal, that has much deeper meaning instead. What exactly do you think should have been wrote in Genesis. In the beginning, there was a huge molecular cloud....................C'mon. It is plainly said in several different places that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God. Jesus said that it is not for us to know dates or times, but we 'should' at least be able to discern seasons. Paul said that God is not served by human hands at all, but has hidden Himself so that men would seek for Him. So, yes, young-earth creationists are doing exactly the same thing. Trying to make a doctrine out of one verse without weighing it against all the others.

And Thorne, if it was so clearly presented what that meant, you would understand that Jesus gave up His body, so that the Father could send His Spirit to those who believed His testimony about the Son. You would understand the mystery of marriage.