Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,925 Year: 4,182/9,624 Month: 1,053/974 Week: 12/368 Day: 12/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life began 25 years ago
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 52 (72943)
12-15-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by brdean
12-13-2003 8:30 PM


quote:
I do not feel to be an evolutionary robot that exists for a short time and then ceases to exist.
1) Just because you are uncomfortable with the notion that there may be nothing more than nature does not make it so that there is actually anything more than nature.
2) There is nothing at all in Evolutionary Theory which requires anyone to think as themselves as a robot, or that nature is all there is.
quote:
My existence is a product of something higher than chance, in other words.
Of course it is.
No life is a product of chance alone.
The Theory of Evolution postulates that chance, in the form of random genetic mutation, combined with natural selection, which is the very opposite of chance, is how species change over time.
Evolution, in other words, does not work by random chance alone. Why did you think it did?
quote:
Call it what you will, but I am not the only scientific type to believe in something higher, I am no Bible junky, just someone who feels it deep in his gut that there is a greater power which appropriates consciousness to all living beings.
Your belief is fine, but if you want to call yourself a "science type", I would suggest that you do some self-education WRT the basics of Biology and what the ToE actually states.
You have some major misconceptions.
Also, your "gut feelings" are irrelevant to the validity of scientific feelings.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by brdean, posted 12-13-2003 8:30 PM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by brdean, posted 12-15-2003 11:11 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 52 (72945)
12-15-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by brdean
12-13-2003 8:42 PM


quote:
but all scientists need to recognize that even though evolution is the best theory we have, it may be compltely wrong. And I hope that some are open to admit that should the data lead in that direction.
The thing is, the liklihood of the ToE being completely wrong after a century of being confirmed by probably billions of pieces of evidence is very, very, very low.
The ToE is arguably the most strongly-supported scientific theory in all of science. We have a better understanding of how Evolution works than we do of Gravity.
Our entire society could be mistaken about the Sun being the center of the solar system, that matter is made up of atoms, and that germs cause disease, too.
Do you consider the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Germ Theory of Disease to be doubtful or uncertain?
The Theory of Evolution has just as much, and in some cases, more and stronger evidence to support it than those other theories.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by brdean, posted 12-13-2003 8:42 PM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by brdean, posted 12-15-2003 12:31 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 52 (73483)
12-16-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by brdean
12-15-2003 11:11 AM


quote:
You tend to think I am scared of one day not existing, when that is not true.
Hey, you are the one who said that you don't care to think of yourself as a "robot" and ceasing to exist after your body dies.
quote:
How can fear exist if consciousness were to evaporate into nothingness? There is nothing to fear in that.
Yet, you prefer to not think that this might be the case. I assume you prefer to believe in something else because you are uncomfortable with "nothingness".
quote:
And please take note, the supernatural, which God is a part of if he exists, is also a part of nature.
Um, no, that is contradictory. Supernatural means "above nature", and used in in this way means "outside nature". If God is detectable by our senses, God is therefore natural, not supernatural.
quote:
I agree one hundred percent, but my argument rests on the atheistic evolutionary perspective, not a theistic one.
1) I'm not an Atheist.
2) My acceptance of the ToE has nothing at all with the rejection of theism.
quote:
An atheistic believer in evolution has a million reasons to justify why his body exists, but, correct me if I am wrong, absolutely none to explain his individuality among other beings.
Who cares? What does this have to do with the observence of a change of allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote:
I justify this as follows: Why do you not have a long tongue and live in a swamp with other frogs, instead of having taken up residence in a human body? Notice the difference between "you" and "your body" in the question. Every human being has a complex set of processes firing millions of times every second in their brains. What makes it that _your_ consciousness rules over these processes and resides there instead of in one of the other beings, and at this particular moment in time?
I don't think there is any difference at all between brain activity and consciousness. In other words, the brain produces consciousness. Do you have any evidence that consciousness exists independently from the neurobiology of the brain?
quote:
In your belief, if your mother had waited 31 days before deciding to have you, would _you_ exist?
No, I wouldn't, because that egg and sperm that combined to make me would not have met. What's so amazing about that?
quote:
You stand corrected, the very basis of evolution is the mutation of the reproductive genome, this requires an error in replication, and this error is a product of chance unless one is in a laboratory.
and SELECTION. SELECTION. You forgot to absorb what I explained about SELECTION.
Selection, as in selecting something, is not random, but selective.
quote:
Second, this was entirely off my point. Lets get back to it. My existence and my body are two completely different things. So are yours.
Really? You have evidence of this? Or do you simply assert it without evidence?
quote:
My body was _sure_ to be born as my mother had to have the baby come out. This was 100% sure even if my body was stillborn. A body exited my mother. But why _me_?
Because that particular sperm from your father and that particular egg from your mother happened to combine. It's simple, really.
quote:
Millions of babies are born all the time, each one an individual personality. Each one infused with the something that makes them alive and feeling.
That's called metabolism.
quote:
One step further, when someone dies, it is evident that something about the body is different. No one is interested in marrying and starting a family with a beautiful dead body. The spark of life must be there. That is what sets me apart from my body and you apart from yours. Your brain contains your memories, but _you_ are consciousness itself.
OK, take away someone's brain.
Now, show me their consciousness.
quote:
You are correct that gut feeling does not play a role in the conclusions science makes. Let me break it down and say it then, you may not believe in God because by first and foremost concluding arrogantly that he probably does not exist (or if you do leave some chance that he may exist, this statement doesn't apply to you).
Look, why do you care if I believe in God or not, and what does this belief have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote:
"Hey dad, I know you don't really exist, in fact I dislike the very thought that you may exist, but can I have my allowance now?" No, leave some chance that he may be a kinder God than you ever dreamed, leave some room in your science that he may very well have a place in the Universe, and try to find evidence in the way that God communicates it, and then you will have practical scientific experience of this God who eludes you so.
Science is a lot like plumbing.
Neither science nor plumbing consider God, yet they both work just fine without including God.
quote:
This has been my experience which I can in no way communicate to you because one cannot fathom the idea of God until one has learned to give him a try, see the evidence which most are too proud to try and see, and once you have this, learn to trust him, and eventually love him as you'd love your parents or greater.
Ok, that's a very nice sermon and example of circular reasoning, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote:
Look, man, I may have misconceptions about evolution, even though it was my greatest area of interest throughout high school and much of college (Virginia Tech tho we's just a bunch o country bumpkins aint we, uhhuh), but think about this: your stating that I have them implies you have none.
Hardly. It just means that I am pretty sure you do, as I have pointed out to you. I certainly have some misconceptions, and I never said I didn't. I would hope that someone wouold point them out to me.
quote:
This pride in knowing a little bit more than your average fellow implies that real knowledge eludes you. The more one knows, the more one realizes that one does not know. Einstein would have concurred.
And yet, you are perfectly willing to claim all sorts of things as true without evidence, and you are also willing to reject the evidence for Evolution seemingly based upon your religious preference that it not be reality.
Maybe you might apply your sage advice to yourself.
I am actually pretty sure that I know quite a bit more about this subject than the average person, but quite a lot less than many of my fellow posters here.
The truth is, there's lots that all of us don't know. However, I have confidence that I have a pretty firm understanding of how science is done and the evidence for evolution. I'm also pretty sure, and explained how, you do not have such a firm grasp of either subject. What you don't know about science and evolution is a lot.
quote:
I'll let bygones be bygones before this turns into Jerry Springer. Let's quit the accusatory tone of our discussions (me too) and get down to the science of it.
Hmm, I don't recall having any kind of "tone" at all.
quote:
Have many of you considered that God can be the most cool, accepting, and kind friend? That he has the best sense of humor, is the nicest of the nice, the biggest party-animal, the biggest woman chaser, the most honorable, the most fun, and that he likes his black and tan just a bit heavy on the Guinness?
God is the biggest woman chaser? Women chasing is a good, moral, godly thing to do? Why don't you ask some women how much they like women chasers?
So, God is male, then? And a fratboy?
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by brdean, posted 12-15-2003 11:11 AM brdean has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 52 (73499)
12-16-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by brdean
12-16-2003 12:26 PM


quote:
In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother. While it is seems at first glance a bit too highly specific, it makes perfect sense.
No, not evolved from your mother, just genetically different.
Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.
quote:
It does seem though that there is division in the camp over abiogenesis, as shown above. Obviously that one can't be settled today..
I just want to be completely clear here; Theories that deal with the origin of the first life on Earth have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. the ToE deals with life once it got here.
quote:
But, and this is no condemnation, you'll probably never get past the blacklist in science if you mention God at all. Just look how often in this thread people related what I said to "Genesis" and creationism like the Bible tells it. It is assumed though I never supported Biblical Genesis even once.
Science ignores God because using God as an explanation is, for all practical purposes, giving up on any explanation at all.
God can be used to explain everything, so explains nothing.
quote:
All I was saying is as follows:
1. Don't leave God out of the picture
If you want to do science, you will have to leave God out of the picture as an explanation for naturalistic phenomena. "Godidit" doesn't explain anything.
quote:
2. Don't put all your eggs in the evolutionary basket
So, you are saying that we should consider suspect a scientific theory that has never been shown to have any major flaws in over 100 years of research and billions of tests of the theory from every field of life and Geologic sciences?
Please explain exactly why we should deny billions of survived tests of the theory?
quote:
You may not agree, but my agrumentation was never intended to be in any way saying that God DID create the Universe, only that he may have, and that I have a tendency to believe that he played some part, though I do not know which and to what extent.
OK, but this is irrelevant to the fact of Evolution and the evidence that supports the theory.
quote:
You'll notice I have no dogma, I am open to all possibilities. What angers me is people who dogmatically proclaim scientific truth where there is still uncertainty, even if it is a very convincing bet.
Me too. These people do not understand that nothing in science is ever 100% proven. However, just as when Einstein's work refined and supplanted Newton's, apples didn't suspend themselves in mid air pending the outcome, the billions of tests that the ToE has survived over the last century are not made invalid because we do not have perfect knowledge.
quote:
The proof of the uncertainty is here: Would we even be having this discussion if there was no debate to be had? There is division among the population, and this means science has not proved itself adequately on the point.
Incorrect.
Most people who disbelieve evolution are uneducated in the matter and/or deny it on religious grounds.
In countries where fundamentalist Christians do not have the power over educational institutions and textbook approval boards like they do here, the Theory of Evolution is much better understood, and accepted by the general populace.
Scientific issues are not decided in the court of public opinion.
quote:
It may be adequate for you, but now I have the chance to say that your feelings are irrelevant in the matter.
Feeling have nothing to do with it. I have the same feelings about the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution as I have regarding the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter.
quote:
That evolution will have been proved beyond a doubt will be evidenced not before you see the hard-core Christians committing hara-kiri in the streets as their God "has left them".
Nothing is "proved beyond a doubt" in science. Otherwise, we would never be able to refine or incorporate new, previously unknown data.
However, that evolution happens is about as worthy of doubt as the fact that germs cause disease or that matter is made of atoms.
quote:
Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong?
No, but what do the women he's chasing think or feel about it?
quote:
What makes this bad for God to do so as well? You think he is going to use and mistreat his lovers? Maybe you have the idea of God as a boring old man who has trouble getting around heaven with his walking stick. Maybe you think he doesn't care.
Maybe God is incomprehensible to humans, and you are engaging in a great deal of anthropomorphising?
quote:
Evidence is there for me that God cares about me. I have no business relating to you the signs that God gave me to show me each time I questioned and was in need that he was there. Don't get mad that I can't give you my evidence in scientific terms and repeatable proofs, God is not our order-taker. And I retain this for myself not because I do not want to give it freely, but because it is a personal matter just as you do not share all of your personal experiences with your girlfriend with your buddies. She would be angry, most likely. I have found that when I told even to people close to me, these things that God showed me, that they no longer occurred for a time. Not to mention they thought it too fantastic. ("Oh, that can't be." Is it? "Is anything too wonderful for God?") It was like it was not meant for others to hear until they would learn to open their own hearts and pay attention to what is being shown. If that sounds cheezy to you then find your own way of doing it. God is not limited to how he can communicate with you, try and find a way if you have not already.
Look to books of spiritual wisdom from across the world, not for concrete answers, but for hints at how others have done it, then look inside yourself and find a way which fits you. My only vested interest in this is seeing the world a more loving and happy place. Dogmatism in religion or science has never provided such a thing.
That's all very nice, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?
------------------
--+--+--+--+--+--+--
quote:
1: God is capable of all on all levels
The explanations that use god are meaningless, because by explaining everything, they explain nothing.
quote:
2: Science is capable of all on the material platform only
If you mean, "science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena", they this is correct.
quote:
3: God rules the material platform as well as any other that may exist.
There is no material, naturalistic evidence which suggests any god or magic. That doesn't mean God does not exist, but that belief in God is through faith and not evidence.
quote:
4: Science, and all of its products, is therefore ruled by God.
See above.
quote:
5: Scietific facts are relative and subject to change.
No, scientific facts do not change.
A scientific fact is a fact, a piece of evidence.
Scientific theories change as we gather more and more facts, ang get better at interpreting the facts.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by brdean, posted 12-16-2003 12:26 PM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2003 9:47 PM nator has replied
 Message 36 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 9:29 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 52 (73865)
12-17-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Minnemooseus
12-16-2003 9:47 PM


OK, when you put it that way, I certainly agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2003 9:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 52 (73871)
12-17-2003 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by brdean
12-17-2003 9:29 AM


quote:
So are there then two populations of scientists, one which says there are phenomena which are "certain" and they mean it, and those who say there are phenomena which are "certain" but they really mean to say, for the ease of laguage, "pretty certain, but with a very small chance of being false?"
Philosophically, I would say that the vast majority of professional scientists fall into the second group.
In fact, I have never known a real scientist to express views similar to the first group. I have, however, heard many creationists express utter, unmoving certainty in their correctness.
quote:
No, my feelings which are now disproven by your being "not an atheist" go exactly against what I thought most evolutionists are--replacing God with evolution theory. This was, in fact, my misconception.
Thanks for saying so.
quote:
But now I am beginning to get the impression that it is just the lazy man who replaces God with evolution--the non-scientist.
Actually, I would tend to say that it's the lazy person who ignores or rejects science in favor of belief in the supernatural. It's much easier to believe what feels good and reassuring than to, well, not believe that.
quote:
90% of the people I have discussed evolution with were in fact atheists. It is interesting that several of you defending evolution haven't proclaimed atheism. And that turns my opinion a 180.
40% of scientists are theists, in case you were wondering.
quote:
Perhaps your scientific method for finding God needs some mending and a few adjustments? A scientist must admit he is wrong when he cannot find a solution, so perhaps change your method?
I don't uses the scientific method to find God.
However, I do think that you do anthropomorphise god in a way that makes god have what many human males would consider a fantasy sex and party-hearty life.
Gee, as a woman, the idea of God as an oversexed drunken fratboy is particulary distasteful. [/quote]But this change in allele frequencies in populations over time is all that can be discussed in what I write? If you want pure science talk, you's in the wrong place.[/quote]
So, do you then agree that the Theory of Evolution is valid?
After all, we are supposed to be discussing the evidence for Intelligent Design in this thread.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 9:29 AM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 7:52 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 52 (73891)
12-17-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by brdean
12-17-2003 7:52 PM


quote:
I would agree but add to that, it is the lazy person who just accepts anything they were fed, whether it be scientific or religious. 99.9% of the fanatic Christians in North America, were they born in Iran or Pakistan, would being shouting "Jihad! Jihad! Kill the Christians!"
Of course, the majority of Muslims in Iran and Pakistan are likely not Islamic fundamentalists wanting to kill Americans.
Christian extremists have been murdering people in the US for much longer than Islamic extremists.
However, you are correct that religious training is just that; training. Where you live is the single greatest determinant of what religion you will follow.
quote:
Yes I agree the Theory of Evolution is indeed a valid one.
Well, then I really don't have much to argue with you about. Thanks for the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by brdean, posted 12-17-2003 7:52 PM brdean has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by brdean, posted 12-18-2003 4:18 PM nator 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