The Word Evolutionists

What would you define as a "scientist"?
And what percentage of all scientists would you guess do "believe" in evolution?

But about 40% of scientists believe in some sort of creator so there doesn't seem to be any problem there.The problem is that you want to say HOW a creator works. You can't or, at least, you have it very, very wrong. However the universe began and however it was made to be as it is, it does, with hard work, reveal it's secrets. Those who believe in a creator believe that He wants us to work at finding out how he performed the creation and shaping of everything. He certainly gave us the capability and He has left lots and lots of clues.If He exists He must be very disappointed in those, like you, who can't read the clues.

You're still confused aren't you? If there is a creator then all things are from Him, all processes are His processes. "Natural" is just the part of what He has created that we can see and understand. This is the religious view of the majority of Christians and, apparently, the view of a great many scientists.The laws of physics are His, the nature of chemistry is His and the process that allows life to florish even while the environment changes is His. This is a very competant God indeed. Your God, on the other hand, is a little God one of simple ideas, small magic tricks that even a simpleton can understand.No wonder the theologians shudder at the ideas of the literalists. The literalists try to bottle God up into something they can comprehend without having to work at it. The theologians of many religions see a much greater work, one much harder for us to comprehend and from that greatness see a greater God than your little one.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-19-2004 02:32 AMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-19-2004 02:33 AM

How do my beliefs affect anything? What I told you aren't the beliefs of one person. They are the view of the majority of Christians.

Would I agree? That depends on which "god" we are talking about. Dawkins is a bit too strident for my tastes even if I agree with his conclusions.However, it is important we be clear about what this "god" thing is. The little god of the genesis literalists is ruled out by facts at hand.The larger God of the majority of Christians may be unnecessary as an explanation of life. That God may or may not be unnecessary as a "precursor" as we don't know enough to be too conclusive on that yet (though I think there is lots pointing that way). That larger God may not even be "necessary" as the source of the big bang. But so what? God is taken on faith, isn't he? That's what my minister friend and other devote Chrisitians tell me. He doesn't have to be "necessary" to the science, does he?Dawkins and I are not people of faith. We may be more or less sensitive to the bad effects of faith and not sensitive enough to the good things it brings. What our personal views are shouldn't matter particularly to you.If we espouse those personal views on TV then you and I would hope that there is time for opposing views to be promolgated too. Of course, channel hoping on Sunday morning will show you that there is plenty of such time.However, let's look at Dawkin's argument shall we? All he apparently said was God was "unnecessary". As God is supernatural and Dawkin's only can see and experiment with the natural,well, of course he will conclude God is "unnecessary". If that is the whole argument it will mean squat to someone of faith. As we have repeated here many a time science doesn't disprove some forms of a god. As others have noted it is the creationists that insist that they know the mind of God and that their ideas are right and that the sciences are antithical to God. Well, to thier simple, little god, yea. Not to the God of the majority of Christians however.As you note Dawkins may be picking on one particular sort of god as an easy target. Guess who helps him in that.

To some degree, I agree with you. Dawkins may be talking about the most unsophisticated of the faithful and painting them all with the same brush. I think that is wrong. There are atheists with all sorts of opinions. Some are what I called "dawkinists" in another thread.I will use insulting terms for some peoples beliefs too. Some, IMO, deserve it. Someone here recently commented that God intervened so his recent injury wasn't so severe or somesuch. I'm afraid that many faithful would find this even funnier than I do. However, I'd rather not be tagged as a dawkinist as I am much more respectful of the beliefs of those who aren't so obviously silly.

I wonder if there is a difference between how we veiw things. I never had any faith. It isn't a viewpoint I might understand as well as you.There is no hint in what you post that your views are colored differently than mine but I wonder. Do we end up in very much the same place even though starting from very different ones?

I think we all agree that life came after a time of non-life. What we disagree on is how it came about.There is good reason to accept that there was a time on earth with no life. Now there is. Do you agree?

Actually on further thinking I may have misread your post that I responed to.There are two issues, one having nothing to do with materialism or not.That is was there every a time when there was no life? Read your Bible. What does it say?But that isn't exactly what you were talking about in the post where you talked about "life from non-life. It isn't life after nonlife (which I'm sure we all agree on). Some think life came about without devine intervention so we might say life arose from non-living matter (life from non life). Others might insist that there was devine work afoot. What then occurs to me is to ask if God is "alive". He isn't in any way that any living thing we know of is, that's for sure. Unless you think he eats and shits.In fact, go back to the Bible again. Did humans not come from dust? Isn't that life from non-life??The question isn't if life came after and from non-life but how it happened. Isn't it?

Please show me how I would measure the "information" you are talking about. The only place it can be is in the genome, right?In addition, I think you have suggested elsewhere that this "information" that you are talking about can decrease. Describe a genetic change that would count as a decrease in "information".Note, it does no good to talk about adding or losing legs or somesuch. Each of those changes in phenotype are due to a change in the genes, right? You do understand that, correct? Since the information that is passed from generation to generation is in the genes tell us what a loss of information would be.Once you've made it clear what this "information" thing you are talking about it then we'll see about it increaseing or not.If you don't know what it is, don't bring it up again. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 12:58 AM

As requested please define "information". Why is "sxyxvawtu" less information than "superman". It is not at all clear to me that information has been lost. It just looks like different information to me.Your whole post is a series of assertions about "information" which you have not yet defined and "specified complexity" which you have yet to define also. In the definition used in information theory you do have more information (but not twice as much). What is your definition? In what way is it different from that used in information theory? How do I calculate the information content of your newspapers or more pertently, your genome? Could you give some examples of where you've been given "evolutionary imagination" instead of real examples?If you are given examples of useful proteins appearing would you admit to being in error about evolution not being able to add "information"?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 11:02 AM

I beg your pardon. You mean he's ignoring what he's already been told? He's actually being dishonest in this discussion?

My goodness but you do read selectively. I did say you had more information based on the information theoretic definition. You have yet to supply a definition yourself. Until you do I am forced to use the only one I am aware of. In the case of the newspapers two copies has a small increase in information content.And the information content of sxyxvawtu" is at least as great as "superman" (in fact it may be greater but that is a nitpicky detail)

Yes I know that. What you don't know is what information is.For now I can only go with the definition of information that I know. Shannon information which has a defined method for calculating it. So I can determine if there is more or less information by doing the calculations.And using the same 26 letters, without adding any new ones I can construct "newspapers" with lots and lots of information.If you say I have to add letters then you are saying that
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ has exactly as much information as a complete 30 volume encyclopedia. It doesn't have any new letters does it? Is that actually what you are saying?Since you haven't given any other definition of "information" I don't have any choice but to use the one I know. Until you define the terms you are using or accept the commonly used definitions you simply can't talk about anything.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 02:44 AM