|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supernatural information supplier | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Prigogine was a Physicist, not an Evolutionary Biologist. Eigen was a Chemist, not an Evolutionary Biologist. Kauffman is a Biologist, but looking briefly through his publication list there seems to be nothing to suggest that he advocates supernatural causes for the diversity of life on Earth. Crick is a Biochemist, is constantly misquoted by Creationists. He is an ardent Naturalist and fully supports evolution. HE muses about panspermia being the origin of life on Earth, but never advocates any supernatural agnecy. Dawkins? Are you seriously suggesting that DAWKINS thinks that the supernatural is responsible for anything? Gould is an Evolutionary Biologist who fully accepts that mutation and natural selection are responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. He suggests that the PACE of this process is not always gradual. He is misquoted VERY frequently by Creationists. Now, I have a suggestion for you. I suggest you stop going to Creationist websites to find these feeble dihonest misquotes to argue with, since they will always make you look as dishonest and feeble as the people constructing the websites. I also suggest that if you want to know what Gould, Dawkins, or any other Evolutionary Scientist thinks about Evolution, you might want to read a book or a paper written by them instead of a misleading quote taken out of context and found on a religiously biased propaganda website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What are you talking about? What other mechanism have scientists suggested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we 1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and 2) do not have the intelligence or resources to ever understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I also have a neutral mutation.
I have a mutation that caused my lower wisdom teeth to never form. Since wisdom teeth don't appear until the late teens/early twenties, if I had been having children since I reached reproductive maturity at age 13, any problems with my teeth would have been irrelevant as I would have already borne my offspring and passed on my genes long before they emerged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi Shraff.
Ofcourse - I am forced to choose 2, but I am not 1. However, if I can remember (I can't) - then I was arguing that to say the natural causes have no God behind them would be arrogant/dismissive. I know what you're thinking Ellie, "Occams razor" right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Couldn't agree more.
quote: Actually, a scientist who would propagate unverified information like that would be putting his or her entire career in serious jeopardy. Forget about "prestige, recognition, or tenure", he or she would be in real danger of becoming unhirable at any respected research university.
quote: I assume you mean The Common Synthesis? Anyway, what other scientific theory of biodiversity is there that has also survived repeated tests? Lamarkism is scientific but has been shown to be wrong through testing. I don't know of any other.
quote: Evidence, dshortt. Science proceeds from the evidence. Claims need to be supported by evidence. If scientists had evidence, they would publish it in professional peer-reviewed journals. If the evidence existed, there would be no choice but for scientists to accept it. Science proceeds from the evidence. Claims need to be supported by evidence that anyone, performing the same experiment, can replicate. Where is the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sure. I could then ask you, if you believe God is behind all natural causes, then which God is it? There are hundreds of thousands of gods conceived by humans, probably more. Maybe there is a separate god responsible for each and every one of the tiniest particles of matter? Also, if there is no discernable difference between natural causes and God-caused, then why invoke God at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
could then ask you, if you believe God is behind all natural causes, then which God is it? There are hundreds of thousands of gods conceived by humans, probably more. ...Also, if there is no discernable difference between natural causes and God-caused, then why invoke God at all? First of all - don't forget, Percy said that we first attributed the inexplicable to God supernatural. That is - us believers. And now - those things have been explained naturally. But does that mean we invoke God when we now mention him? Or does the natural mean that God is no longer allowed to be mentioned? The true and valid position that we take - is that God created all things. Nor do we limit him to any way in which he could do those things. So all I'm saying is that God isn't pushed out, though maybe he is in your mind. But rather - you should push him back if you want to remain objective. Because you full well know, that God can still work through natural causes. As with the Exodus. So if we are guilty of assuming God - then how are we invoking him? Is it not you who are removing him?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dshortt Inactive Member |
True, but adding functionality is not the same as adding information which it seems to me would entail the adding of code in the genome along with an increased functionality of the machinery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You originally said:
quote: Then I replied:
Function can also be taking away some body part or structure that makes the species more reproductively successful. Horses, for example, lost multiple toes in favor of one big one because it was more efficient on the plains they moved to compared to the forest they used to live in. There are still vestigial tarsal bones that articulate with the knee joint but just taper away to nothing. Then you now replied:
quote: ...which has nothing to do with your original claim. You seemed to be saying that the only way species could evolve was to add function, but this is not the case, as I showed. Removal of function can increse reproductive success.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It is true and valid only as a philosophy or belief. It is not true and valid as science.
quote: Sure you do, or, at least, many Creationists do.
quote: Show me evidence of this God. Don't have any? How can I "push out" of science that for which there is no evidence?
quote: I do wish to remain objective. Show me the emperical evidence of God and I will consider it.
quote: There is no evidence of the Exodus, AFAIK. Where is this evidence? God may work entirely through natural causes. Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, please. (nod to Hambre)
quote: Which god?
quote: If God working appears exactly the same as no God working, tell me again why I need to include god? It is not useful in any way to learning or discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Shraff writes: How can I "push out" of science that for which there is no evidence Science? I didn't mention science. I'm talking about what people have accepted in the past - and comparing it to now. Are you saying that science used to conclude God, pertaining to the previously inexplicable?....I was not talking about science when I said;
mike the wiz writes: First of all - don't forget, Percy said that we first attributed the inexplicable to God supernatural. That is - us believers. And now - those things have been explained naturally. But does that mean we invoke God when we now mention him? Or does the natural mean that God is no longer allowed to be mentioned? Now - I said "we" - as in people. We as people. I see you use the shield of science when necessary - in order to make it look like you're holding an objective position. But you have said that we have invoked God. Not so - we were before science, and we concluded God then. Are you saying that science means that God does not exist, and therefore - all natural things are accounted for without God, therefore science has found out that God doesn't exist?
Shraff writes: God may work entirely through natural causes. I agree. So this must mean that science doesn't remove God - nor is it objective to follow this position. Agree?
Shraff writes: Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, please. That's funny. Have you any evidence God caused those natural things? Recently we prayed for those who were sick - that God would heal them, as Christ did. Now Christ didn't cast out God - he cast out the enemy. I've explained the biblical position many times concerning this, ass Hambre's deaf ears.
Shraff writes: If God working appears exactly the same as no God working, tell me again why I need to include god You just have; " Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, ". Apparently you think God causes bad and evil things - but doesn't heal anyone. You call it spontaneous remission when someone is healed - and when someone gets a disease - you say God done it. Now we know God has worked if he says he is going to. If God says he will bring his people out of Egypt, or we precedingly ask for something in prayer - and it comes to pass. Then we know that either supernaturally/naturally - God has worked. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-27-2004 12:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Mike the Wiz sez,
quote: But then he sez, quote: regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Yes but I can't prove my position. Unless a good solid conditional implication is in order. .
How do you know that I pronounce "says" like "sez"? R u skitting me becoz I'm from Liverpool?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
If we exist then there is a God.
The contra-positive is that no God = no existence. Yay!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024