|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of an atheist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dr Adequate writes: But you have, I wager, never heard anyone say anything remotely like that about the formation of atoms. Evolution is one thing. Nucleosynthesis is another. They are different things.
I'll use any word that you think is correct. Atoms are made of their component parts that had to combine at some point. Is that be design or not? It's one or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
woodsy writes: In any case, you have left out the "we don't know just now" option.
It may be an option but it isn't an answer. This world either exists because of external developer or it doesn't. To say that we can't know doesn't change the fact that one of those two positions is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
bluescat48 writes: You brought out the point yourself when yo say "I believe." The evolutionist accepts natural selection & random chance, they do not believe this. the difference is one of falsifiability. The reason it is a false dichotomy is that you are saying either it is A or it is B with no other alternatives, ie: if you can't prove it is A then it must be B. Yes I believe that there is an external intelligence that has brought everything into existence. That is correct or it is wrong. Two choices. I can't prove I'm right but you can't prove I'm wrong. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
John 10:10 writes: This is my testimony in a nutshell. I am not suggesting that we can't and don't experience a God that we have relationship with and that works with us in this life. I do however think that the historical study of Jesus and His times is important. Remember that His ministry was addressed to 1st century Jews and we should hear what he has to say with that in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: It was still a very significant event - thousands of people worshipping the new messiah; the officials of Judaism clearly extremely worried by the new phenomenon. Yet not a word about it in any contemporary record. The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not a new phenomenon. I'm sure it would pale in comparison to Herod returning to the city. In the case of Jesus the whole story of His entry became a non-issue within 2 days when He was executed. They weren't printing the Jerusalem Post at that time.
Bikerman writes: He is appearing constantly hither and thither and the idea that the apostles could hush this up is a non-starter - the whole point is to publicise it, hence the appearance to the 500. It is clearly a yarn and I'm astonished that you think it holds any water...
To the best of my knowledge there were at least 16 messianic movements during the 200 year period prior to the Bar Kokhba rebellion. The vast majority of information we have on any of those movements was based on battles that were fought. That was considered newsworthy. There is far more information on the actual messianic movement led by Jesus than the rest of them combined. I don't know how much of the literature from that time has survived but I doubt that it's a very high percentage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: Nobody intelligent calls evolution 'random' - only ignorant people and creationists (if you believe the two are distinct). The only random part is the mutation of the gene(s).I have already demonstrated in another thread how a process with a random element can produce highly ordered and highly complex outcomes, using just a couple of simple rules. In fact I showed that such a system could produce an infinitely complex pattern - a fractal called Sierpinski's triangle. Producing different species from a similar set of simple rules and including 1 random element is no big thing - the only part which is still unknown to any extent is the starting point - abiogenesis (which creationists wilfully conflate with evolution even though the two are distinct. Evolution kicks in when abiogenesis has done its work). There are many proposed mechanisms for that first 'life' to appear. Good candidates (IMHO) are the clay hypothesis; the panspermia hypothesis; the deep sea volcanic vent hypothesis and the old 'soup' hypothesis (Miller et al). Any of these could account for abiogenesis - the trick is narrowing down the evidence and working out which is the most likely. I did have a misconception on the use of random chance as it applies to evolution. Thanks. However that does not answer the question of is evolution a guided process or not. If I say that the fact that we don't know how abiogenesis came about means that God did it you would rightly accuse me of bringing in a "god of the gaps" argument. I suggest that your points add up to a "science of the gaps" argument. We don't know the answer so you just insert the thought that there is a naturalistic answer to the question, it is just that science hasn't figured it out yet. Even if one of your theories is proven is still does not disprove a designer. No matter how much we find about how something is done, it tells us nothing about how it became possible in the first place. Was it by design or not, and if by design was there a designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: It is simply inevitable given the underlying physical laws. ahh...but who designed those laws.
Bikerman writes: Now you will probably say 'ahh...but who designed those laws?'. Rats! Still it does beg the question. There is an order to the universe that does suggest intelligence.
Bikerman writes: We don't need to regress further than the designer and ask who designed the designer, BECAUSE THE DESIGNER IS INFINITE. I agree that this answer is a simplistic cop-out. It is more accurate and honest to say that we don't know the answer and that it a faith issue. However I will add this. I love reading about the nature of time. My understanding is that time most simply put is the way that we experience change. Time is the only way that we know of to experience change and we have no idea of what other way there might be that change can be experienced. I've used this snippet from an interview with Penrose on this forum before but maybe it will help you to understand what I'm getting at.
quote: This however is all conjecture and there is no definitive answer to your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
crashfrog writes: "God of the gaps" is a corny argument because of the direction of its trend - God is invoked to explain something science can't, science does, the gap is closed and God is crowded out. The scope of behavior God is required to personally administer becomes smaller and increasingly trivial, to the point where God's sole function in the universe is collapsing quantum superpositions humans haven't gotten around to personally observing yet. I know I sound like a broken record but all that science can do is to observe and experiment with things the way they are. It doesn't deal with the philosophical or theological questions.
crashfrog writes: Science, on the other hand, can fairly reliably be assumed to eventually fill gaps in our knowledge because it has been, for 200 years or more. Scientific knowledge in most fields is doubling over a period of 3-4 years, at this point; it's absurd to think it won't increase in the future. Of course, there's little reason to wonder about how we're going to explain something. In the reading that I've done it does occur to me that every time science makes a new discovery it brings up more unanswered questions. As I said earlier, I am in awe of the minds of those that are on the leading edge scientifically. (I wish I could even have the trailing edge in sight. )
crashfrog writes: The useful thing to do is get to work finding the explanation. I think that we all agree on that. I would also suggest that Christian scientists are just as devoted to that as are atheistic scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: Penrose is talking about a speculative hypothesis on quantum consciousness. I know it well because I have read most of what he has to say on the matter. It is entirely irrelevant to the points in question - his hypothesis is simply that consciousness requires more than an algorithmic device and is dependent on quantum superposition within 'micro tubules' in the brain.What that has to do with the historicity of Jesus escapes me.... When you asked the question of who created God I agreed that there is no answer, however, any answer to that question, if there is one, would have to involve our concept of time or the way that we experience change. By the way, don't think that I don't know that I am in way over my head in any discussion on physics that we might have. I don't qualify as the rankest amateur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: No King of the Jews entering Jerusalem or claiming to be son of God in Josephus then, but a mention of many others...Remember Jesus is different from other messianic movements - he is SEEN by hundreds of witnesses, after being crucified. That makes this a whole different level of story - the biggest story you can imagine. No mention of a resurrection. Isn't that strange? You would think it worthy of at least a couple of lines.Of course there is a reasonable consensus that this is not what was written and that it was later added to/edited by Christian sources. Even more strange, then, that there is no mention of that central dogma of the Christians.... I own "Josephus - The Complete Works" as transcribed by William Whiston, in 1732 from the Greek. The following is from Josephus- The Antiquities of the Jews Chap 18
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
crashfrog writes: Because those questions are intellectual masturbation with no material effect on life. Where they do have material effect, they become open to scientific investigation. I don't see that. Say for exampleassume for a minute that I am correct and that evolution is a designed and guided process. How would a biologist determine the difference between that and one that is not designed or guided. Scientific study is agnostic.
crashfrog writes: Asking new questions doesn't mean you know less, it means you know more. The more we learn about cancer, for instance, the harder it seems to cure; but the answer to that isn't less hospitals, it's more schools. Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore.
crashfrog writes: Unlike religious revelation, scientific knowledge is accessible and free to all. Even at this very forum there are scientific minds desperate to try to teach you something about science. Why not ask them some questions? I've read numerous good books. (I even own Penrose's "The Road to Reality" of which the vast majority goes over my head but I find his theories fascinating. I've enjoyed reading Greene, Hawking, Schroeder, McGrath, Sagan and others. I have asked questions about science a number of times on this forum and I often read through threads where others have asked or answered questions I had in mid. There are some very clever people on this forum and our friend Bikerman here certainly fits into that category. As an enthusiastic Christian however I sometimes can't resist threads like this. Interesting that Bikerman is having to argue the existence of Jesus with you while at the same time argue against what He did with Me.
crashfrog writes: Well, that's certainly true in my experience, but there are some prominent exceptions such as Francis Collins, who believes that scientists should not even attempt to scientifically address questions like the origin of moral behavior. For many Christianity is an obstacle to the full pursuit of scientific knowledge, and they pull back for fear of overturning a cherished dogma. I've read Collins and yes he does believe that a moral law, or the Chinese Tao that Lewis writes about exists as something that is beyond the physical. That doesn't mean that he is opposed to science trying to find natural explanations. I would agree with him, but from my point of view if a natural explanation for how morality evolved was found, it still wouldn't answer the question of whether or not it was designed by an external designer. It would only describe how it was done, if indeed the external designer actually existed.
crashfrog writes: Ultimately science and religion can no more be reconciled than marriage and infidelity. With the limited understanding I have of both fields I can't see that there should be any real need to reconcile them. I find them complimentary just as they are. Science answers questions concerning the physical and religion attempts to answer questions that are beyond the physical, with the belief that it actually exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: Yes, the bits about the resurrection are widely accepted to be later forgery by Tektonics.The evidence is quite compelling - this passage is mentioned in two later documents - including Origen's Against Celcus: There seems to be a good case made by both sides. The version I am using was a translation from the Greek as I mentioned. (Whiston)
Josephus on Jesus Josephus did write on Jesus though and also on His brother James. The court is out on whether or not he wrote about the crucifixion, but we can't definitively say that he didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
crashfrog writes: Evolution is a guided process, and the guide is environment. Species are guided to become adapted to their environment or become extinct. When i Use the term deigned it is on the assumption that there is a designer. I get your point though.
GDR writes: Absolutely, but it just seems to me that with the establishment of relativity and QM as solid theories that it opened up a multitude of new horizons to explore.crashfrog writes: Yes. Do you think that's an opening or closing of "the gaps"? I think it's closing some gaps and opening up new ones. That doesn't mean though that science won't at some point, if it hasn't already, close those gaps which may well up more new ones, which may at some point be closed which may open....... It's to do with science though and not religion.
crashfrog writes: Awesome! Why not get to the real meat, then, and read a few textbooks? To be frank the text books include calculus and I have never even had the most basic course on the subject. All my education after high school, (which was a good long time ago), was aviation related.
crashfrog writes: He thinks its impossible. Tell me - thinking that such research couldn't possibly produce knowledge, do you think he's likely to approve funding for such research in his role as director of the NIH? I think that you are making an assumption that is wrong. If I were in his shoes, (and after reading him I think he would think the same way), I would be keen to see what could be discovered. If a natural explanation was found, my response would be an excited - so that's how God did it. That was his response to the study of evolution and genetics.
crashfrog writes: If you say, but I can't understand someone who thinks science is just something to do in the lab, between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm. I can't understand the mindset of someone who insists on a rigorous standard of evidence to arrive at conclusions at work, and then comes home and says "I'm going to insist on much less rigor in my knowledge, now." The idea of having a rigorous standard of evidence, in science, is to protect scientists against false ideas, spurious data, and even purposeful deceit and manipulation. Someone who is considering adopting a less rigorous standard for the evidence they're prepared to accept needs to think long and hard about what they're opening themselves up to. What could a scientist possibly have to gain by consciously deciding to become easier to fool outside of business hours?
Let's forget religion for a minute. Let's compare science and philosophy. Science requires one standard of evidence and philosophy another. Will Durant wrote: "the sciences are the windows through which philosophy views the world". I assume that there are people trained both in the scientific field as well as in philosophy. There is no reason to assume he/she as a scientist can't work to a rigorous standard of scientific evidence while at the same time working to a rigorous standard of philosophical evidence as a philosopher. You might argue that only empirical or scientific evidence exists but that in itself isn't scientific because it can't be scientifically proven. I think that what holds true in this argument for philosophy also holds true for theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
hooah212002 writes: Until you have evidence for either the design process or the designer, why would you assume the nature of such a force? Why would you assume such a force exists? Saying it "looks" designed is not sufficient. That still seems an awful lot like the god of the gaps. Thus far, every unknown discovery in science has ended up with a natural explanation. Every time design was inferred (Galileo, Newton for example), new knowledge was acquired and the designer was relegated to the natural force pile. The designer has never been relegated to the natural force pile. I'm sure that some people have had to adjust their thinking, but as a Christian I've done that many times in my life. I'd say that most of my views have evolved and changed since the time I became a Christian in my 30's. I'm sure that they will continue to evolve. Let's say that scientists can come up with a natural explanation for how abiogenesis occurred. It would be fascinating but it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of there being a designer. It can just as easily be an explanation for how the designer did it.
hooah212002 writes: This is a problem, why? Isn't it "neat" or "fun" to learn about the world we live in? What fun would it be to know all of the ins and outs and workings of the universe? I certainly didn't mean to suggest it was a problem. I completely agree with your statement.
hooah212002 writes: That is one of the most honest things a I have ever heard come out of a creationist's mouth (keyboard?). Kudos to you. Now, just keep religion out of science and all is well. Thank you but I'm not sure just how it is that you are using the term creationist. I think most of us on this board assume a creationist believes in a 6 day creation 6000 or so years ago. I don't fall into that category. I'm a creationist to the extent that I believe that God created this world and all that is in it, but I don't believe that the Bible is to be read like a science text. I agree that science and religion are 2 separate fields.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Bikerman writes: We can't definitively say anything about anything so that argument leads nowhere.
Agreed. The link that I posted though, did give both sides of the argument
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024