Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 106 of 145 (469388)
06-05-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Wumpini
06-05-2008 5:28 AM


Re: Evidence
Wumpini writes:
"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce.
Wumpini, your signature quote is bogus. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with finding out "the truth."
”HM

The most in comprehensible thing about nature is that it is comprehensible. ”A. Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 5:28 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 12:32 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 107 of 145 (469398)
06-05-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 11:53 AM


Truth?
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with finding out "the truth."
I don't think I agree. At the risk of going well off topic (in which case a new thread might be appropriate) - What is the aim of science in your view if not to describe and understand the "truths" of reality and nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 11:53 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 12:50 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 109 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 1:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 108 of 145 (469400)
06-05-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
06-05-2008 12:32 PM


A new theory of evolution
While this topic is located under Social and Religious Issues and Faith and Belief, the debate between the two sides rages on.
IF we could lend an ear to a new theory of evolution that encompasses both sides of the debate, we would still have a ground for considerable debate, but we would also have impetus towards additional research and consideration of additional findings.
Social and Religious Issues are not evaluated by those people who find religion to be void of a modern standard of excellence. Excellence today involves reading, observation, analysis, and formal experimentation. No formal experimentation is occurring because there is still no formal reading of the written material that is available.
When I went to college with a major in psychology, I would have loved to read about experiments being done with developing the human potential which is often associated with accomplishing the miraculous. However, my university failed me because I could not find a professor versed enough in the modern literature to even present the written material to me in an understandable manner.
For this reason, I had to drop out of college, join the staff of The Theosophical Society in America just to get an education. Once I had paved my way into this study, an additional organization (even more recently founded) called my attention to its material. Now I can present very relevant information from my reading and studying within these two organizations, but I do not have the voice that I need within established academic publishing circles with which to make the announcement that I have to make.
I want everyone here to take a back seat to my needs, because I don't think that they are any different from the needs of society and the needs of other students like myself. I just want to be able to study what material we have to date.
The seven race theory of evolution suggests that higher kingdoms of nature exist and that they are concerned with the human kingdom because they once were human and just as we enjoy studying and understanding what nature offers us, they also enjoy the process of mentally puzzling out what humans do.
A higher kingdom would be SIGNIFICANTLY advanced beyond the human intellect, as far above humans as humans are above dinosaurs in abilities. This higher kingdom - the one directly positioned in line in front of the human - is also at play here on earth, because it is their declared purpose to ascend the human beings on an evolutionary journey of descent into form, followed by ascent out of form.
If they are able to perform feats (as exhibited by Jesus Christ), then someday when we all are 6th race humans we will have the same abilities plus more. A 6th race human is described as half human and half (higher kingdom) girasas. I can't even get this word in the dictionary. Can you help me to accomplish a dream of mine?
Try not to think of the pain that it will cause you, but think of it as formalizing a little understood process into a much needed open forum of concern and debate. We can still debate how we would like to achieve the goals ahead of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 12:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2008 1:07 PM brendatucker has replied
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 3:51 PM brendatucker has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 109 of 145 (469401)
06-05-2008 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
06-05-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Truth?
Straggler writes:
At the risk of going well off topic (in which case a new thread might be appropriate) - What is the aim of science in your view if not to describe and understand the "truths" of reality and nature?
Straggler, I'll respond this way and leave it there: Science operates on testable theories and empirical evidence. Faith operates on unquestionable interpretations of "the truths," which are neither testable nor produce empirical evidence.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 12:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 06-05-2008 1:38 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 115 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 3:01 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 145 (469403)
06-05-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 12:50 PM


Re: A new theory of evolution
Maybe Tom Cruise would be interested.
To me it sounds like a lot on nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 12:50 PM brendatucker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 1:25 PM Coyote has replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 111 of 145 (469406)
06-05-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
06-05-2008 1:07 PM


Re: A new theory of evolution
No one asked you to major in this field of study, but it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that it is here.
We want to use science, but it is very difficult to trace the influence of the descent of a girasas into a human if we don't have a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2008 1:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2008 1:39 PM brendatucker has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 112 of 145 (469409)
06-05-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 1:01 PM


Re: Truth?
Faith operates on unquestionable interpretations of "the truths," which are neither testable nor produce empirical evidence.
Then they are not "truths" but beliefs.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 1:01 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 2:04 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 145 (469410)
06-05-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 1:25 PM


Re: A new theory of evolution
No one asked you to major in this field of study, but it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that it is here.
I did acknowledge that field of study. I suggested that it is nonsense.
Perhaps you can convince me otherwise?
If you wish to try, start with evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 1:25 PM brendatucker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 4:38 PM Coyote has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 114 of 145 (469415)
06-05-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by bluescat48
06-05-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Truth?
bluescat48 writes:
Hoot Mon writes:
Faith operates on unquestionable interpretations of "the truths," which are neither testable nor produce empirical evidence.
Then they are not "truths" but beliefs.
I agree with you. “Truths” are the concern of true believers. The rest of us have to settle for facts. However, I still use the word “true” casually, such as, “It is true that I earn less that $100,000 a year.” But I certainly do not use it this way: “It is true that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.” One is a fact, the other is not.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 06-05-2008 1:38 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 115 of 145 (469428)
06-05-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 1:01 PM


Re: Truth?
Straggler, I'll respond this way and leave it there: Science operates on testable theories and empirical evidence. Faith operates on unquestionable interpretations of "the truths," which are neither testable nor produce empirical evidence.
Fair enough. When put like that I have no disagreement with you anyway.
However I do think there is an objective reality (a "truth" if you will) that science seeks to discover to the best of our limited and subjective ability. But I agree that science is not about finding truths in the way that religion purports to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 1:01 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 116 of 145 (469432)
06-05-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
06-04-2008 7:08 PM


Re: Chance
Straggler writes:
No. It is not as simple a that. The particles discovered have always relatated to the forces observed and help explain those observations. The more we discover the less we seem to know in many ways but the less we seem to need to know in certain other ways. Various seemingly disparate physical phenomenon have been unified such that the principles that found our knowledge have become ever more powerful whilst ever less numerous.
Is it not true that the deeper that you dig into the natural world the more complex everything seems to become? (The atom, the cell, the universe, the earth, etc.)
You seem to have ignored the specific example I detailed.
No. I did not.
Are you saying each and every one of us is individually and intentionally designed?
No.
Does God manage the dynamic of every sperm?
No.
Is God directly responsible for every genetic defect, every mutation, every deformity of every individual?
No.
Are you saying that the exact combination of people inhabiting this planet today, as you read this, was planned and intended by God?
No.
That each of our parents had no choice in their actions regarding the set of events that led to each one of us?
No.
That we ourselves have no choice regarding the ones we will love and the people we will produce as a result?
No.
That is quite a claim. Do you really believe that?
I believe my claim. Let us look at what my claim was.
Or the illusion that you speak of could be a reality. Not the natural processes that led to each of us being here individually on this earth, but the intention that resulted in the origin of all that we see. It seems to be incorrect to assume that because something appears to be by natural process and chance today that it has always been the case.
If you read carefully, you will see that I distinguish between:
The “natural processes that led to each of us being here individually”
AND
The “intention that resulted in the ORIGIN of all that we see.”
My point is that the natural processes that we observe today do not negate the possibility of Creation. You can have Creation, and then natural processes from there forward.
The paragraph was not dealing directly with the argument that you were making that the “seemingly impossible can become reality through natural means.” It is true that any chain of events after a certain length of time will in itself become a probability that is “seemingly impossible.” However that does not change the fact that something that is “seemingly impossible” is pretty much not going to happen as a single event.
Wumpini writes:
Is that a conclusion of science, or your perception? Because my perception would be that if man has been roaming this earth for hundreds of thousands of years, then he should have come a lot farther than he has so far.
Straggler writes:
Actually it is broadly the conclusion of science. Why would you expect mans perception to have exceeded that which is required of it if limited to life on this planet?
I really do not understand this question. I was not talking about where I thought man’s perception would be at any time. I was speaking of my own perception. My perception is that man would have been more advanced if he had been on earth for hundreds of thousands of years. I base this perception upon the advancement that man has made only a few thousand years of recorded history. Why did it take man hundreds of thousands of years to communicate in written language? It is only my perception.
Wumpini you are obviously not a fool. Surely you can see that an explanation for everything is an explanation of nothing at all? An answer that answers all questions actually answers no questions at all.
We can look at the natural processes that are in existence today. We can derive explanations from those natural processes. We can develop theories, we can advance science, we can cure diseases, we can build spaceships, etc. We can accomplish whatever the natural world will allow us to accomplish with the knowledge that we have obtained. God is not keeping anyone from doing that. Whether God created the world or not, does not change what exists today. Whether man was created by God or not, does not change the natural processes that are taking place today. Men can work in the field of science whether they believe in God or not. That does not change the natural world that exists today; it only changes their perception of what exists.
What do you perceive Straggler?
Are we here because a number of chance circumstances have taken place from before the beginning of time back into an infinity that we cannot even comprehend? Is all this interrelatedness that we see on the earth, and the complexity that we see in life by chance? Is this earth a mass of atoms that formed into a complex (As scientists recently have said) living organism by chance, or is it a spaceship or dwelling place for us to live on for only a limited period of time until the reason for that time has ended?
These are all questions that we must ask ourselves. How we answer could have eternal consequences. We each have a choice as to what we will believe.
The Bible tells us in PS 14:1 that,“The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2008 7:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 4:34 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 4:59 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 117 of 145 (469434)
06-05-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 12:50 PM


Re: A new theory of evolution
The seven race theory of evolution suggests that higher kingdoms of nature exist and that they are concerned with the human kingdom because they once were human and just as we enjoy studying and understanding what nature offers us, they also enjoy the process of mentally puzzling out what humans do.
A higher kingdom would be SIGNIFICANTLY advanced beyond the human intellect, as far above humans as humans are above dinosaurs in abilities. This higher kingdom - the one directly positioned in line in front of the human - is also at play here on earth, because it is their declared purpose to ascend the human beings on an evolutionary journey of descent into form, followed by ascent out of form.
Are you a scientologist of some sort?
I have see that you have tried to initiate discussion regarding your rather unusual ideas a few times in various threads. So far without much reaction.
Why don't you start a new topic in the 'Proposed New Topics' forum and see if anyone is intertested in discussing these ideas with you in more depth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 12:50 PM brendatucker has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 118 of 145 (469438)
06-05-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 7:28 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hi, Wumpini.
Wumpini writes:
Do you believe that this is what scientists are trying to do? They are trying to determine how God Created everything. That is sure not the impression that I get from this website.
Of course not. But consider this: perhaps what you are calling “God” (or at least “the power of God”) is the same as what they are calling “the laws of physics.” They are trying to understand how “the laws of physics”/”the power of God” works.
[qs=Wumpini]Unfortunately, if you are referring to the God of the Bible, then you are contradicting Jesus Christ who claimed to be God. Jesus is stated to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3). And, Jesus quotes Genesis and says that God, in the beginning made them male and female (Matt 19:9). If you believe that God used the “Theory of Evolution” as proposed by science, then you are saying that God started with a one cell something in the beginning.[qs] This assumes that “the beginning” could only be the beginning of reality, when it could just as easily refer to the beginning of the Christian religion, or the beginning of humans, for that matter. Biblical literalism doesn’t require you to take the most extreme interpretation every time.
Wumpini writes:
The only possible way, in my mind, to reconcile the “Theory of Evolution” as stated by scientists to the Biblical account of creation is to say God Created them male and female, and then they evolved.
With this statement, you’ve assumed that “creation” has to refer to an instantaneous “big poof” event, and cannot refer to a gradual, long-term process such as presented by evolution. I see nothing in the genesis account that definitively rules out the possibility that evolution was the mechanism of Creation. Also, I am not married to semantics, especially not the semantics of the Bible: some people are not gifted in choosing words, and some of these people were called by God to be prophets.
Wumpini writes:
In this situation, what would you see as the mechanism? Would it be the supernatural power? Now compare that to God and Creation using His own power. I think God is the mechanism.
I would say the mechanism is the supernatural power that the mechanic used. I would not say it was the mechanic. What you seem to believe is that “God” is synonymous with “the power that God has.” He cannot be both the agent and the mechanism: He can’t grab Himself out of His toolbox and use Himself to loosen a bolt. Neither did the mechanic in your example grab himself out of his toolbox and use himself to fix his car. The “mechanism” (or “power” or “tool,” whatever) is different from the entity wielding it.
So, you can say the mechanism is a supernatural, unexplanable “power,” but this is different from saying that the mechanism is the person who wields this “power.” The mechanism of creation is the “power” that God wields, and I believe that “power” to be natural selection (in the case of life being “created” from pre-existing forms of life).
Also note here that a God who can spontaneously---without any tool or mechanism but His own will---cause things to happen, is not a God of order, but a God of chaos. I do not believe that God can just act in any way He wishes. Consider this: is God good? Does He have to be good? Does He have the power to do evil? If He can switch to evil for no reason, He could just as easily have lied about the whole Bible, and you can’t really be certain it’s true. If He cannot switch to evil, He is governed or restricted by something. This would mean that there are rules that even He has to follow, which makes His power conditional. If His power is conditional, than it is being governed by something other than Him. Thus, a God of order is not the mechanism for His own work.
Wumpini writes:
Bluejay writes:
Fair enough. But, you have to remain consistent in your usage. You don’t get to take the theory of evolution, and your theory of Creation, and say they are equal and equivalent entities just because we’re not on a science thread. There is a difference between them, and just because we’re not exposed to the rigormarole of science doesn’t mean you can flip back and forth.
I don’t understand your point. My theory is supernatural, and God is the mechanism. You say the theory is not scientific. However, it is still a theory. I spent days on another thread trying to get some of these words worked out so that I could communicate. It appears it was a waste of time.
It’s really quite simple: if I’m using a word in a certain context or with a certain definition, your rebuttal must address the definition I’m using. Otherwise, the rebuttal is invalid, because it doesn’t even address what I actually said, it only addresses a point of semantic confusion that isn’t really relevant to the argument anyway.
I can address this with the word “faith” in your last couple of messages to me on this thread:
Wumpini, msg 38, writes:
We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith.
In the above quote, you have said “faith is belief” without any equivocation.
Wumpini, msg 71, writes:
You cannot have faith without evidence unless you are insane. That would be totally irrational. You can have faith without objective evidence.
I don’t really understand what this quote means. Are you saying that it is possible for faith to exist without evidence? Or are you saying that faith is rational? (I also have a problem with your usage of the word “evidence” here, but let’s not get into that).
Wumpini, msg 71, writes:
I do not believe that anyone can have complete and perfect knowledge about anything. Therefore, there is always an element of faith.
With this statement, you are equating faith with uncertainty. You are also agreeing that knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive. Yet, your definition of faith (i.e. “belief”) would not require knowledge and faith to be mutually exclusive. Either you believe faith is just belief, or you believe that faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive: you can’t have it both ways. Perhaps you just overlooked this semantic error, or maybe you’re deliberately trying to confuse me. But I think it’s more likely that you really do see faith as “belief without evidence,” but you’re attacking that definition because it sounds derogatory.
Wumpini writes:
I would not use magic or magical to describe the power of God.
Yet, all the definitions you provided for the word “magic” basically said “a supernatural power,” and none of them said anything that could not be applied to the power of God.
Wumpini writes:
That nagging feeling could be the conscious that God gave you trying to tell you something.
You’re right: it could be. It could also be a lot of other things. I used to be on Zoloft for bipolar disorder and social anxieties, so I think it’s a little inappropriate to suggest that what I feel comes from God: I have felt a lot of rather disturbing things. So, which do you think is the safer assumption:
(1) my feelings come from God and should be listened to and acted on
(2) my feelings are due to a psychological dysfunction, and should not be trusted without external, corroborative evidence?
Further, how can you be sure that your feelings are any more reliable than mine?
Wumpini writes:
If you want to side with people who believe there is no God then remember that science only deals with the natural world.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you, and you’ve been largely rejecting it. There is a lot to be learned from the natural world, and what it is trying to teach us in relation to life is evolution. Whether or not God was involved, science will never know, because the natural world is unable to tell us that.
Wumpini writes:
However, don’t ever believe that science has all of the answers.
Just a thought exercise here: if I (or anyone) thought science had all the answers, why would I (or anyone) still be doing it?
Wumpini writes:
The only answer they can give is that we came from nothing, and we will end up nothing, and outside of what we can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste there is nothing.
Wrong. Science can only say, “outside of what we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste there is nothing that we can comment on.” Get that through your head: science doesn’t say that what it can’t test doesn’t exist, it only says that what it can’t test it can’t test, and it can’t incorporate what it can’t test in its tests of things that it can test.
Wumpini writes:
What if you side with an atheist against a believer and it causes them to lose their faith?
Let me put a scenario in front of you. Let’s say you have a son, and this son goes to a Christian school, where his teacher teaches him that birds build their nests in trees so that their young can be closer to God at the time of their birth, and that this is good evidence that God is real---after all, why would the birds want to be closer to something that isn’t real? Let’s say this little teaching causes your son to believe in Jesus, where he did not believe before. What would you do?
a.) Let him think whatever he wanted to, as long as it helped his faith in God.
b.) Explain to him that this is not evidence of God, and try to show him better evidence.
If you chose (a), and he were later to find out that ducks, chickens, quails and ostriches lay their eggs on the ground, what would you then do? Would you side with him and defend his silly notion that birds’ choice of nesting sites is related to their desire to be near God? Or, would you say, “that really was a stupid argument from the beginning”?
Basically, with the EvC debate, I regularly face this very question: is it more important to preserve people’s faith, or to tell them the truth? Every creationist I have ever met or conversed with on this site has provided nothing more than PRATTs as “evidence” for creationism, cannot answer the arguments brought against creationism with anything more than “you can’t prove it’s not true,” or “it seems hard to believe,” and generally doesn’t even understand what the theory they’re disagreeing with says in the first place. Do you expect me to support arguments like that, just because it helps people’s faith? If so, I sincerely believe that you are the one who should be on pills, and not me.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:28 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 6:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 119 of 145 (469441)
06-05-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by dwise1
06-04-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Chance
dwise writes:
It is customary and expected that when one offers a quote, one cites the source of that quote. Whom are you actually quoting there? Another middle-school textbook (or even the same one)?
No. I actually got bored with that book. It did have a lot of good pictures though.
Sorry about not giving you the link though for the quotes.
Evolution and Natural Selection
The Process of Speciation
They came from University of Michigan lecture notes that I have been reading. They may not be any more reliable than my textbook, I do not know. I figured they were pretty good because RAZD gave me the link.
And please note that the first quote does not say that evolution is "by chance", but rather the opposite. Natural selection is not random, but rather somewhat deterministic. Even the random part, the increase of genetic variation, is by natural processes, "governed by the laws of genetics" as your mysterious source says. The same with the second quote.
Natural processes, not "by chance".
You are really trying to confuse me. Is anything by chance? Why do other scientists say it is by chance and you do not? I have been reading more of those links that RAZD gave me and it seems that at least the process of genetic drift is one that is based upon chance?
quote:
In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals.
Genetic drift - Understanding Evolution
quote:
In population genetics, genetic drift (or more precisely allelic drift) is the evolutionary process of change in the allele frequencies (or gene frequencies) of a population from one generation to the next due to the phenomena of probability in which purely chance events determine which alleles (variants of a gene) within a reproductive population will be carried forward while others disappear.
Genetic drift - Wikipedia
Am I misreading this, or does it say “purely chance events?”
Who says that learning as much about the universe as we can requires denying the existence of God? Of any god? Or even require that we consider the existence of any gods? What do the gods have to do with learning about how the universe works?
I am sure not saying that you should deny the existence of God.
God may have a lot to do with learning how the universe works. That is one reason that I started this thread. I wanted to see how scientists that believed in God viewed God's role in the universe.
Which is precisely the attitude that you keep displaying: that scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God.
I do not think scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God. I believe many scientists are attempting to deny the existence of God.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 9:30 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2008 9:29 PM Wumpini has replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 120 of 145 (469444)
06-05-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wumpini
06-05-2008 3:17 PM


Theories
But, Straggler, this is the perfect board. I can claim that I am a scientist on par with Darwin because I know of a theory of evolution that you are unfamiliar with. Why are you unfamiliar with the books and how and when they were written? Because they have been thrown out of polite academic circles due to their radical nature. Just as you are attempting to throw me out due to ignorance.
If you knew these ideas already, I wouldn't have to take so much of the discussions time going over them in a thorough manner. Aren't you the one who should leave or start your own?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 3:17 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2008 5:03 PM brendatucker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024