Existence of God

Joralex...I'm writing here to make sure you're aware that I've been waiting for you in your thread on the evolution of the eye. This is a big site, it's easy to lose track. If you click on your name on one of your posts, you'll get a lists of your most recent messages, and whether or not replies await.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-15-2003]

quote:

---

That's right, Dan - cut and paste quotations so as to make it appear as if there is logical inconsistency. Ugghhh!

---

Could you explain how your two statements are consistent? And please do not reply with an ad hominem.In one statment, you defend your beliefs by stating that large numbers of people including a prominent scientist agree with you. In the other statement, you state that the numbers of people who disagree with you is unimportant, and that the opinions of prominent scientists is irrelevant.Seems awfully contradictory. Please explain why it isn't.Also, you've left the discussion hanging over in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye, and I've posted reminders of what the hanging questions are. The discussion was on the verge of making progress on clarifying key points on both sides, so I'd love it if you'd reply over there.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-20-2003]

quote:

---

". I've arrived at the reasonable and supportable conclusion that there is no real substance to the allegations of Bible discrepancies.
"

---

And yet you've consistently ignored addressing Rei's posts on specific discrepancies. Much like you've ignored Rei's specific questions on your Evolution of the Eye thread.So allow me to present another discrepancy. I expect you to ignore me as well. Try suprising me.In 3 of the 4 Gospels, Christ is dead before Passover starts. In John, however, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, shortly after which Jesus dies.Dead in 3 Gospels, Alive in the 4th. Pretty tough discrepancy to explain away.(on a side note, my favorite response to this was someone who claimed that in the first three Gospels they were talking about the Jewish Passover, and in John it was the Christian Passover.)

quote:

---

For example, consider elaborate symbiotic relationships. These are very revealing of a purposeful design - the interconnection of a single creation - yet you choose to see them as an "evolved mechanism for survival". I can't help that you wish to see things a certain way.

---

In the recent past, you gave the eye and vision as such an example, in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye. You dropped all discussion of the example when pressed. Do you concede that the eye does not constitute evidence of design? If you concede, that's fine with me. If you don't concede, that thread is still waiting. I've posted several reminders of some of the hanging questions.If you feel that symbiotic relations are proof of design, please open a thread on the topic, since a detailed discusssion of symbiosis would be off topic in this forum.

quote:

---

" How does one convince a person that will stop at nothing to advance materialistic Naturalism? I believe that this isn't possible."

---

Surely you aren't talking about me? My questions were very specific, and had nothing to do with materialistic Naturalism. They were clarifications of *your* points, for the most part, and trying to see if you agreed or disagreed on whether specific systems complied with your argument or not.

quote:

---

"With what purpose?"

---

The purpose of the other discussion was to clarify whether or not certain systems complied with your argument or not. Whether your assertion that various systems all needed to appear at once is true. Whether specific examples proved your assertion wrong, or not. When pressed on these specific questions, you dropped the discussion.

quote:

---

"No empirical evidence would be "proof" of design (or of natural evolution). The matter is not about "proof", it is about rational justification and inferencing the best explanation."

---

Point well taken, I usually avoid the word "proof" like the plague.
If you want to open a topic on symbiotic relationships, and whether or not they are a problem for naturalistic explanations, please do so.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

quote:

---

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)?

---

Creationists are apparently unaware that the original papers on PE are filled with positive evidence for transitions, not just the negative evidence of empty gaps and missing links. It is in fact the fast pace and local nature of the rare species-to-species level transitions that provide such evidence.So PE was not, despite the common misperception of creationists, built entirely on the evidence of fossil "gaps"; rather, it is based on the pattern of change that is found: fine gradations occur quickly and locally, thus are rare (but still occasionally found).[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

So what is your natural example that is the equivalent of finding the first 50 prime numbers in a signal?You've tried the eye, and that discussion is still there, waiting for you, with specific concrete questions left dangling.You've brought up symbiotic relationships. Feel free to open such a topic, as well.

quote:

---

"Oh, I know, let's introduce a NATURAL mechanism that allows us to retain our materialistic-based theory, allows us to exclude the necessity of a God, and allows us to be 'rationally' justified in so doing. Yeah... that'll work."

---

PE is not a new mechanism; it is about the dynamics of evolution, and under what circumstances and at what pace it occurs.You seem to imply that you know about the positive evidence for PE (relatively fast and local change in the fossil record), but your reply makes no sense if you are aware of this. For example, you say:

quote:

---

So, because there isn't evidence then... that proves it!

---

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. PE is based on the EVIDENCE supplied by KNOWN TRANSITIONS in the fossil record. These transitions often occur quickly, geologically speaking, and are often highly localized.So, PE is based on EVIDENCE, not the lack of evidence as you've claimed.So when you say:

quote:

---

Don't make the mistake of assuming that all creationists are unaware of these matters.

---

You actually weren't referrring to yourself, apparently.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

quote:

---

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)

---

I don't know the history of Goldschmidt's motivations, but I do know a bit about Gould and Eldredge. P.E. was motivated to explain the pattern of the fossil record - that small-scale transitions are uncommonly found, (although transitions are easily traced at coarser levels of change), and stasis of form is common.PE is a refinement, not a replacement. Early evolutionary theory predicted the large scale patterns perfectly, but was not specific enough to predict the small scale patterns. PE is a specification, not an overthrow.So, the answer to your question is that your question rests on incorrect assumptions.PE is a modification, not a replacement. Theories change because they better explain the evidence. It's called "science".Also, there is nothing ad hoc about PE - it is motivated by the presence of fossils showing small-scale transitions. These transitions are geologically fast and localized.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-24-2003]

quote:

---

"The point wasn't how science advances through new discoveries/observations. The point is that evolution shall be retained rgardless of any discrepancy that may appear. "

---

That's what you want the point to be, but unfortunately for you the former is the point. I've explained how PE was motivated by evidence - that is, science advanced through new observations.

quote:

---

"(such as Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster notion - what else do you think Goldschmidt was doing?)."

---

I find your fixation on Goldschmidt a little weird. Why focus on Goldschmidt's ideas as representative of biology, when Goldschmidt's ideas were soundly rejected, sometimes even ridiculed?

quote:

---

Such actions are at the essence of irrefutability.

---

You need to brush up on your philosophy of science; you're clinging to a cartoon version of the principle of falsifiability. It has never been suggested that a highly successful theory with many successful predictions should be 100% rejected because of a single or a small number of anomalies. ALL science tries to fix minor problems in successful theories by making changes that can then be tested. As long as the modifications themselves are testable, you're fine. It's only when you introduce an an untestable assumption, such as an intelligent designer, that you run into trouble.

quote:

---

This is the point that people such as yourself either cannot see or refuse to see (because that would be the end of your game).

---

Or, in my case, don't care one way or the other. Evolution plays by the rules of science. If it steps on the toes of someones non-scientific beliefs, so be it. Not. My. Problem.For example - cult X believes the Earth is flat, based on their holy scripture, which they believe was written by their god, and thus is perfect.Does the space shuttle orbiting the Earth "challenge the soveriegnty" (to use your words)of their god? Yep. Do I care? Nope.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-25-2003]

quote:

---

Kudos to Joralex, for answering a question! Now, let us pray, he will cease to dodge issues about the eye.

​

I always answer - you just don't understand or don't like what you hear.
Sorry, I can't help that.

---

Joralex, you're far more self-deluded than I imagined if you think you've answered all the questions in the eye thread!!!What have I been telling you over and over again? - there are multiple specific unanswered questions you've ignored, both from me and Rei. Both Rei and I have reminded you of these.Would it help you if I started a new thread on "Questions Unanswered by Joralex re: the evolution of the eye"? Or can you find my reminder posts on that thread yourself?[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-27-2003]

I am uninterested in contacting you directly, when this forum exists for the express purpose of such a discussion. There is no personal information involved, so there is no benefit to discussing these issues privately.The questions are direct and simple. My questions are aimed at understanding and clarifying your argument, and whether specific systems are consistent with your claims. Many of them are "yes" or "no" questions, as far as I can tell.

I have bumped the Evolution of the Eye thread and re-posted the two questions I left hanging. Rei may want to post her hanging question(s) as well.Here's the post.

Your reply makes no sense in light of the questions I actually asked in the thread. Have you read them? They are indeed simple questions. They are not final answers to the debate, but finding common points of reference, or aimed at clarifying what points we do or do not agree on."Your honor, I rest my case" makes no sense. I want to discuss things with you. I've tried like hell to discuss things with you. You're the one running away."I rest my case", indeed."Scoffers" don't prevent you answering my questions. Just answer my questions!

I certainly agree to such terms if Joralex is game. In fact, I was coming here just with this suggestion when I saw that Dan C. had beat me to it.