Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, jar, RAZD, vimesey (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,485 Year: 18,521/19,786 Month: 941/1,705 Week: 193/518 Day: 17/50 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 304 (391701)
03-26-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICdesign
03-26-2007 4:52 PM


Re: either way- you lose
As I stated, I am done debating.

Yet, here you are again!

The reason I quit
debating is because I quickly realized it is impossible
to win.

Indeed - it's impossible to successfully defend wrong ideas.

No matter what I come back with you would find
a way to keep putting your faith in Darwin

I don't put my faith in Darwin. He was just a scientist.

I have
reasons to not waist my life getting drunk and using drugs.

So do I - the reason is, I don't want to do those things, because the cons outweigh the pros.

A follower of Darwin is all about the survival of the fittest
has no moral standard because right and wrong is in the eye
of the beholder only ie;Moral relativism.

That's not really moral relativism, but moral systems aren't the topic of this thread. You'll have to take the word of a moral relativist that your description of MR is completely false.

If what Jesus Christ said is true and
you die in your sins- you will be completely seperated from
your maker for all of eternity and sent to a place HE called
the 'lake of fire.'

Sure enough, if you're right, I will. And if the Muslims are right we're both screwed.

I fail to see a long term up side.

If you're not motivated by a desire for truth, then no, there's no upside to atheism.

On the other hand, if you've made a commitment to evict nonsense and wishful thinking from your mind - two things that have never been any use to anyone - then atheism is the most natural conclusion, and the "up side" is that you aren't fooling yourself every minute of every day.

Like it or not I will be praying for all you members

Feel free to waste your time, as long as you're not wasting ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICdesign, posted 03-26-2007 4:52 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 272 of 304 (391715)
03-26-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by GDR
03-25-2007 5:56 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function.

Are you still seriously in doubt about the neurological basis of emotions?

As I said in a previous post, I'd be happy to participate in a thread on the subject if you would like to start one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-25-2007 5:56 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 273 of 304 (391720)
03-26-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by sidelined
03-26-2007 6:45 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:

Do you delude yourself into thinking that I am incapable of feeling that same sense of peace and that you, by believing it to be something originating in an ID'er to which you can offer no evidence, have some greater appreciation of the event?

I apologize as I seem to have left you with the opinion that you would feel less of a sense of peace than I would. The point I was trying to make is that we both feel the same sense of peace but that we would ascribe a different root cause for that emotion.

I assume that you would ascribe a totally natural reason for what you feel, whereas I believe that, although it registers neurologically, the reason is still something spiritual.

I hesitate to call myself a Theistic Evolutionist strictly for the reason that I don't have sufficient knowledge of biology to argue either for or against it. Frankly I just accept it as the little I have read, and the balance of the opinion of writers I respect, generally support the theory.

I'm going to quote Francis Collins who as head of the Human Genome Project does know a great deal about biology amongst other things.

Francis Collins writes:

There are many subtle variations of theistic evolution, but a typical version rest upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it.

I understand this is one man's opinion, but it is a man who has the scientific credentials that very few people have.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by sidelined, posted 03-26-2007 6:45 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 12:10 AM GDR has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 304 (391723)
03-27-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
03-26-2007 11:44 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
I understand this is one man's opinion, but it is a man who has the scientific credentials that very few people have.

Sure. Credentials, he has plenty. Evidence? I don't see that he has any. If his conclusion is only true because he assumes the premises that lead to it, then he's engaged in circular reasoning. He claims considerable knowledge that he couldn't possibly have (prior conditions to the universe, the freedom of variation of various physical constants, and of course the leap to the conclusion that all of the above supports the Biblical God rather than any other).

Most importantly, though, he doesn't claim supernatural intervention. Maybe you didn't notice that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-26-2007 11:44 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 12:31 AM crashfrog has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 275 of 304 (391725)
03-27-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:

Most importantly, though, he doesn't claim supernatural intervention. Maybe you didn't notice that?

I noticed it. Actually I'm fine either way.

If we can both be objective can you tell me what is wrong with this.

Evolutionary change is basically a series of genetic mutations that can eventually bring about microevolution and over a large enough period of time macroevoluion. Natural selection is one of the driving forces behind these genetic mutations. If random chance is also a factor causing these mutations then, assuming the supernatural does exist,(if you can suspend your disbelief for a minute), isn't it plausible that instead of random chance there could be supernatural intervention?

I comprehend natural selection but random chance doesn't seem to me to make much sense to me.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 12:10 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 1:04 AM GDR has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 304 (391728)
03-27-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by GDR
03-27-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
If random chance is also a factor causing these mutations then, assuming the supernatural does exist,(if you can suspend your disbelief for a minute), isn't it plausible that instead of random chance there could be supernatural intervention?

Wouldn't we be able to detect the intervention by means of its effects?

What you're suggesting is that God can "load the die", so that certain outcomes are preferential to others. But by the same token that you can detect a loaded die by it's deviation from the truly random output of a fair die, wouldn't we be able to detect God's intervention in supposedly random events by how non-random they wind up being?

Or, perhaps you take a different tack. Perhaps it's your idea that God can influence the outcome of supposedly random events, but he doesn't do it often enough to be detected by the wide suite of statistical tools statisticians have to detect departure from randomness. But that's akin to a Vegas gambler who claims to have the "amazing" power to make a die roll "6" whenever he wants, but he doesn't do it (on average) more than 1/6th of the time, and he never does it a bunch of times in a row to avoid being accused of cheating.

We wouldn't take that guy seriously. Between the explanation of amazing, undetectable powers that the gambler refuses to use and just the regular randomness of dice, it's pretty easy to determine which is the most reasonable.

Unless you're desperate for some kind of gap, any gap, into which to tuck your rapidly shrinking God.

Natural selection is one of the driving forces behind these genetic mutations.

It's not at all clear to me where these sorts of astounding misunderstandings come from. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation; it doesn't cause them, it's not the source of them. Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)

Random mutations are caused by the fact that DNA replicates in a physical, chemical system which is not perfect. This system introduces random errors - changes, really - into the replication product, so that the DNA copy is not exactly the same as the template.

I comprehend natural selection but random chance doesn't seem to me to make much sense to me.

Why? It's no more difficult to understand than the fact that, if you tried to copy this whole message down on to paper quickly, you'd find that you'd made a number of errors - spelling, grammar, etc - that didn't appear in the source. When you copy things over and over again - particularly if you're not making multiple copies of the original, but rather, copying each previous copy - it's not surprising to see that small changes will occur and accumulate.

Is it just that you aren't familiar with the chemical process by which DNA is replicated? It's actually surprisingly simple, but nonetheless, there are a number of steps where mutations can be introduced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 12:31 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:26 AM crashfrog has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 277 of 304 (391731)
03-27-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 1:04 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:

Unless you're desperate for some kind of gap, any gap, into which to tuck your rapidly shrinking God.

Without any divine intervention in the evolutionary process, I'm talking about a God who was able to design a process that designs itself, but more importantly has given us a physical home for a spiritual being with a moral code and the free will to choose.

crashfrog writes:

It's not at all clear to me where these sorts of astounding misunderstandings come from. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation; it doesn't cause them, it's not the source of them. Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)

Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)

Would this be correct?

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 1:04 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 8:09 AM GDR has responded
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:31 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 278 of 304 (391732)
03-27-2007 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by GDR
03-26-2007 4:07 PM


Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
GDR writes:

Atheism rejects philosophy [...]

Woodsy writes:

Philosophy comes in many different flavours, some of which are more useful than others. To which were you referring?

GDR writes:

Specifically any philosophy that disagrees with the Atheistic worldview.

Well, what are atheists supposed to do? Accept a philosophy that disagrees with their world view? "Hey guys, I am an atheist, but I'm cool with the idea that God exists."

Is it really worth mentioning that atheists reject disagreeing philosophies? Am I missing some profound insight here?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by GDR, posted 03-26-2007 4:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:45 AM Parasomnium has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 279 of 304 (391733)
03-27-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:

Is it really worth mentioning that atheists reject disagreeing philosophies? Am I missing some profound insight here?

Probably :)

That could have been put better but I was just making the point that YEC adherents reject any science that doesn't fit with the way they read the Bible. I also suggest that in the same way Atheists reject philosophy that doesn't agree with their world view, which would include anything that suggests that there is anything beyond the physical.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 2:39 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 3:01 AM GDR has responded
 Message 281 by Taz, posted 03-27-2007 3:14 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 280 of 304 (391738)
03-27-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by GDR
03-27-2007 2:45 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
GDR writes:

Probably :)

Hmmm. Do you mind if I refrain from asking you to enlighten me?

I [...] suggest that [...] Atheists reject philosophy that doesn't agree with their world view, which would include anything that suggests that there is anything beyond the physical.

If those atheist are science minded, they would be inclined to accept anything that goes against their world view, as long as convincing evidence is presented. Unlike YECs, atheists are capable of changing their minds. It's called 'progress'.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you can do away with the capitalization of the word 'atheist'. It's not a movement of some kind, with 'followers' and the like. It's just a mode of thinking.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:45 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:06 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 281 of 304 (391739)
03-27-2007 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by GDR
03-27-2007 2:45 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
GDR writes:

I also suggest that in the same way Atheists reject philosophy that doesn't agree with their world view, which would include anything that suggests that there is anything beyond the physical.


I don't think atheists rejects all things that are not physical. I certainly don't reject the idea that my mind exists. Computer softwares are also non-physical and i fully recognize their existence.

I think what you are really asking is why do I, as an atheist, accept the existence of some non-physical things, like minds and computer softwares, while rejecting the existence of other non-physical things, like gods, angels, and immaterial pink unicorns? That, the answer is simple. I have no reason to believe in the latter group. Occam's razor. If gravity is enough to explain a projectile's behavior, then there's no need to assume flying angels pushing the projectile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:45 AM GDR has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 282 of 304 (391752)
03-27-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
03-27-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
Would this be correct?

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.


No.

To be correct (though simplistic and incomplete) they should read:

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by random genetic mutations which are then selected for by the environment through the mechanism of natural selection.

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:26 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:25 AM nator has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 283 of 304 (391759)
03-27-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
Parasomnium writes:

If those atheist are science minded, they would be inclined to accept anything that goes against their world view, as long as convincing evidence is presented. Unlike YECs, atheists are capable of changing their minds. It's called 'progress'.

There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 3:01 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 10:33 AM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 284 of 304 (391764)
03-27-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by nator
03-27-2007 8:09 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by random genetic mutations which are then selected for by the environment through the mechanism of natural selection.

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies over time.

OK That's helpful. Thanks. I just noticed a thread on natural selection. I'll work my way through that as well as book I have on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 8:09 AM nator has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 304 (391765)
03-27-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
03-27-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Without any divine intervention in the evolutionary process, I'm talking about a God who was able to design a process that designs itself, but more importantly has given us a physical home for a spiritual being with a moral code and the free will to choose.

I'm curious how that works. What's the putative selection mechanism for being a spiritual being? Are all humans spiritual beings, or is it possible to have a mutation that renders a human non-spiritual? Could we find the spirit gene and disable it?

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.

Not really.

It's important to understand that evolution is the process where mutation and selection work together to give rise to diversity, new traits and body forms, and ultimately new species. Darwin's finches acquired their beak traits by mutation and selection. First, individuals mutated more advantageous beak traits; then, those individuals were selected because those traits were advantageous to their survival. Ultimately, the entire population of finches were the descendants of the individuals that originally mutated those traits.

Where do new species come from? New species arise when subpopulations are separated from the main population; over time genetic changes from selection, mutation, and even genetic drift accumulate to the point where the individuals in the subpopulation are no longer genetically compatible with the parent population, and a new species is recognized. While the process has much to do with mutation, it isn't strictly caused by mutation; it's caused by reproductive isolation between two populations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:26 AM GDR has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019