Evolution discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

iwealth wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:... how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.
Did this desire influence your decision to believe in (a) God? Or did your belief in (a) God come first?
That is sort of a chicken and egg question. :)

But my answer is, belief in God came first for me (from as early as I can recall), the topic about understanding the mess and its answer came later, much later, after a few fits and starts and long dry period.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

moda0306 wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
rickb wrote:
Is evolution the right answer?  If it's wrong, the right answer certainly isn't "God did it".
And you absolutely positively know this how?  The right answer certainly could be "God did it" if God did indeed did do it.  It seems to me the answer "God did it" is a valid hypothesis that unbelievers should not rule out until they can  prove that God had no part in it (however one wishes to define "it").  In my humble opinion, deciding ahead of time to limit ones options by not objectively considering all possibilities is not in the best interests of science or religion.

... Mountaineer
It certainly could be a reasonable hypothesis to ascribe physical phenomenon that don't make sense to a super-natural being.  Of course, there's no evidence of it, and as soon as we find out that a form or reanalysis of science CAN provide the answer, we have to (yet again) abandon that hypothesis.

There are a near-infinite number of ways some supernatural being may or may not have decided to organize the universe and interact with man-kind.  What is frustrating isn't the assumption that MAYBE there is a God, but the assumption of all sorts of things about him, and the belief that "trying to figure out too much" about our world in objective, scientific manners is akin to to trying to "reject Christ" or something like that.
No need to assume anything about Him at all - He tells us everything we NEED to know about Him, just not all we WANT to know.  And, I'm not quite sure what you mean about your last sentence ... where did that come from?  Objective science seems to fit with my understanding of being fine.  It is when we try to make science a religion or religion a science that the problem comes a calling.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 »

Desert,

Before you stated this:
4.  Evolution was birthed by man's need to explain the wonder of ourselves and our surroundings in the absence of a designer.  It's the foundation of humanistic, materialistic thought.  There is a lot riding on it, and the huge secular "science" industry will do anything to support it and defend it, even in the face of huge problems or holes in the evidence.  But they must support it, because if it dies, there isn't much to take its place: we're then down to aliens or God.
A couple things here, even if we had solid evidence of a designer, it still would behoove science to figure out how we came about, in scientific terms, if possible... especially if the book that is considered the "Word of God" is extremely inconsistent and seemingly-ludicrous at times.  Further, you state it like the default statement of fact or reality that "we have a designer," yet this is an unproven assertion, and one that varies in detail over billions of people world-wide.  If something is unproven, or doesn't even have a well-laid-out theory behind it, then it is scientists job to make whatever objective use of it as they can, or discard it as just another statement of the infinite that are of no use.

Also, you're using the word "materialistic," which I'd assume you're using this definition:

"the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

If you observe some of the most crazy scientific discussions on what we don't know about the universe, they are quite humble about it.  In one of the documentaries on Netflix I mentioned, NdT gets to a point where he is basically admitting that there is a ton of mystery left to discover in how things work on a quantum level, and beyond.  What he does NOT do, is simply assume that this is where God & Heaven exist and turn his brain off, which, unfortunately, even Isaac Newton did, at the expense of his work.  NdT basically said that matter might not even actually exist... everything we think we know about energy and matter could be operating on completely different level.

And if this all turns out to be the heavens, short of some obviously-omnipotent being saying "stop here, you ware doing too much," why should science stop trying to discover?  Why SHOULD they try to listen to religious folks who have gotten SO much wrong and simply ask us to take what they say on faith.  Could you imagine how screwed up of a world we would be living in if we just "took everything on faith?" 

If there was a workable theory that aliens created the universe, scientists would LOVE to figure out the who/what/where/when/why of it all.  If there is a workable theory that God did it, they'll probably want to understand the plane of existence God exists on.  The problem is, they need actual EVIDENCE, and an actual WORKABLE THEORY on the matter.  They don't want to present this. They want the standard to be not only a belief in a God, but a belief in a God as described in certain subjectively-desirable parts of the Bible and followed-up with a given perspective by a given church, and anyone who doesn't work to Hear the Word of God via that church is "rejecting Christ," and trying to explain things that have already been "explained."

"Taking things on faith" would universally fail on epic proportions.  I can't believe that a God who refuses to reveal himself in anythings close to an obvious way to billions of people would want us to simply "take it on faith" when someone comes up to us and tells us what "the truth" is with no evidence.  That's how animals work.  Their "trust" mechanism is built on instinct and nothing else.  Humans have been given a unique gift of reasoning to combat our faulty emotional signals (when they are faulty... sometimes they are not), and if God exists, unless he's playing some sick game, I can't imagine he'd play the same game as all the other religious leaders who are (apparently) practicing the WRONG religion, and would say "just take it on faith."

"Oh, and the punishment for being wrong is eternal damnation in hell if you die."


It makes no reasonable sense, whatsoever.  Nothing that the skeptics like doodle, PS, and myself have read over pages and pages of religious discussion seems to have brought us closer to understanding how to find God (or have him find us).  Scientists would gladly accept the existence of God or aliens that brought about our existence, and if/when they see real evidence of it, I am confident enough of them will be intrigued to discover new frontiers.



Perhaps a lot of my skepticism over all of this is because I've seen it before.  My brother was more-or-less an atheist, but a very "spiritual" person (more-so in a nauseating way than a good way... sorry to speak ill of him).  He is/was a pretty smart guy.  He talked to me about how skeptical he was of anyone that thought they KNEW the details of the universe, but how CONVINCED he was when he left.  I was glued to him!  His implication was that they had given him the proof he needed to believe in Christianity.  He then went on and on trying to describe the nature of the sacrifice that Christ made.  For like an hour.  How He, as the Son of God, absorbed all of our sins through himself during Crucifixion, or something like this.  Admittedly, assuming that what he was saying was TRUE, Christ certainly did sacrifice on an unbelievable scale.  Even if he's not the son of God, he was a great man, and certainly suffered far more than anyone should at the hand of another.  But my brother didn't mention one bit of evidence.  Not one bit of proof, even though he had set the lack of proof/evidence up as the entire reason for wanting to share with me what he experienced.

After hearing all of this, I asked him, "so what did you actually learn about the EVIDENCE that any of this is actually true."  He then spent about 10 seconds referring to historical record within the Bible.  He really didn't care about evidence any more.  He just wanted to tell me how much Christ had sacrificed.  I was pretty blown away at his shift in perspective.  Perhaps he was really touched by God.  I, however, wasn't.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 »

Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: And you absolutely positively know this how?  The right answer certainly could be "God did it" if God did indeed did do it.  It seems to me the answer "God did it" is a valid hypothesis that unbelievers should not rule out until they can  prove that God had no part in it (however one wishes to define "it").  In my humble opinion, deciding ahead of time to limit ones options by not objectively considering all possibilities is not in the best interests of science or religion.

... Mountaineer
It certainly could be a reasonable hypothesis to ascribe physical phenomenon that don't make sense to a super-natural being.  Of course, there's no evidence of it, and as soon as we find out that a form or reanalysis of science CAN provide the answer, we have to (yet again) abandon that hypothesis.

There are a near-infinite number of ways some supernatural being may or may not have decided to organize the universe and interact with man-kind.  What is frustrating isn't the assumption that MAYBE there is a God, but the assumption of all sorts of things about him, and the belief that "trying to figure out too much" about our world in objective, scientific manners is akin to to trying to "reject Christ" or something like that.
No need to assume anything about Him at all - He tells us everything we NEED to know about Him, just not all we WANT to know.  And, I'm not quite sure what you mean about your last sentence ... where did that come from?  Objective science seems to fit with my understanding of being fine.  It is when we try to make science a religion or religion a science that the problem comes a calling.

... Mountaineer
That last part was referring more to Desert's post getting annoyed with the scientific community wanting to continue to break new boundaries of discovery and not just accepting The Bible as a statement of fact.

How does God tell us "what we need to know?"  Men wrote the Bible.  Not God.  Perhaps he did it through men, but perhaps he wrote the Koran through men.  Perhaps those books are just religious propaganda.  If there is a God, the one thing he DID make obvious to me is not his presence, but that REASON is a useful tool in dissecting the arguments of others... even, at times, the numerous religious arguments that we are approached with.  If you can ship me a Bible written by God's divine hand, I'll read it unlike I've ever read Bible passages before.  Until then, we absolutely do NOT have what we "need to know" about God.  Especially if, as many religions do, we are told we will spend an eternity in hell for being incorrect.

God does not present himself in any sort of objectively identifiable way to BILLIONS of people throughout the world that aren't recognizing Jesus as their savior (rather just a really good guy).  The rest of us, he still doesn't present himself in an objectively identifiable way, but instead through the subjectivity of faith and "him finding us."

If you want to argue that God gives us reasonable, objective, consistent awareness of His presence, I'd love to see your evidence and hear your argument.  If you would like to admit that it may simply be completely subjective, and your Faith in the Gospel and God's Word lies directly in your subjective experience with God, not some objective course of events that applies to all of us.  And if that's truly the difference between interpreting the Bible as "a book of some lies and some truth" and "The Word of God," then let's jut admit that you have had a subjective experience that is the root of all of your Faith, rather than "The Bible is objectively true and you should all believe it objectively true because it claims it is objectively true, and therefore it must be objectively true if it's objectively true."  The circular logic is mind-numbing.

Science and logic MAY be able to only take us so far, because our senses and analytical ability.  If we did have proven facts about God, Jesus, or the heavens, logic would still continue to work just fine.  As would science.  As these domains are interested in TRUTH, no matter how vague a form it can come in.  Trying to make religion completely immune to these tools, or, more importantly, the very reason we use these tools in the first place (faith rarely works, and there is a lot to figure out), is a cop-out.

For instance, if God is all-knowing AND all-powerful, it is logically inconsistent to claim that he "had to" sacrifice his son.  Now perhaps we use the word "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to use describe phenomena that we don't fully understand, but then we must, logically, part with the term "all-knowing," and perhaps file this in the box of things we DON'T know about any potential God.  But apparently that doesn't fly.  If words can't describe God accurately, then why use them and make assertions using those words?  How can a book written by men full of words "tell you everything you need to know?"
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Benko »

dualstow wrote: The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
What is social or cultural evolution?  What process are you stating is happening?
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Benko wrote:
dualstow wrote: The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
What is social or cultural evolution?  What process are you stating is happening?
One example would be education taking over where brain size had to plateau. Humans don't have so much instinct, thus a human child can't just spring up onto its feet like a foal. However, we have large brains for our body size. (That's not to say that size is everything. Birds navigate well with their tiny brains).

Our brains got bigger and bigger, but before Caesarean sections, skull sizes plateaued because, well, they had to come out of Mom. We're not evolving bigger brains, but we're constantly working on the software, be it math lessons, religion, youtube videos on how to make halvah. (And perhaps education leads to rewiring, real physical changes).

For humans, it's no longer survival of the fittest. At least not in the physical sense.

Extending this, we're constantly evolving our tools. Technology & culture. Glasses and contact lenses, not sharper eyesight. Computers, not necessarily better memories.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

Desert wrote: One more quick comment:  I know I'm just one of many in this thread, but I do want to say that I'd prefer to have this thread be more about evolution and less about religion.  I know the two can sometimes feel inseparable, but as much as possible, I'd love to focus in on how some of you have managed to come to a belief in evolution.  When I read or watch videos about evolution, I probably feel like some of you do when you're reading about religion.  It just seems too preposterous to be true; so many impossible holes to fill, so much contradiction, and no ability to test the theory in the present. 

So what are your favorite sources of evidence for evolution?
Me, me, me, it's all about me  ;) --->  I'm approaching round body, vestigial limbs and absolutely enormous brain territory; I can hardly hold my head upright, thanks be to God that my skull was able to expand to 5X the normal volume - size does matter.  And, my religious preferences are evolving over the years.    ;)  Sorry, I just could not resist.  ::) ::)

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Desert wrote: So what are your favorite sources of evidence for evolution?
Books: I know Dawkins can be abrasive, but I liked The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.
Carl Zimmer's book, Evolution, is less heavy duty and the companion PBS special of the same name is pretty digestible.

Other: For me, it started in science class at school and at home. The books above came much later. As I wrote last year -- and I think PS said he had a similar experience IIRC -- my parents are proud of their heritage but only practiced half-assed Judaism. If they had been gung ho atheists, I might have been one of those rebellious young'uns that turned to religion. But, their tiny bit of belief & practice was like an injection of a weak disease that my antibodies of reason could easily squash. It was an innoculation against religion, though not their intent.

Continuing with the same metaphor, I then had no immunization against evolutionary theory in school that I think young believers have. I soaked it up with an open mind. More than a decade and a half later, when I met a fellow American overseas, a creationist, I was shocked to hear him proclaim that the fossil record was mere "pig bones." He was formatted from birth as another old friend of mine would say. With Christianity. I think I kind of ruined Christianity for him that year, but he is still a monotheist. He's into the Bahai faith now. The main difference is that his parents look at me with suspicion. But I digress.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Desert wrote: And I realize neither of us is likely to be converted, but it would at the very least be a fun challenge, right?
Conversion: Not only unlikely, but practically impossible. Still, I've enjoyed reading some Bible passages. The friend mentioned above got me into C.S. Lewis' non-Narnia stuff, like The Screwtape Letters. And, I read bits of the Quran (it's cooler with a Q) in my teens.

I wouldn't mind giving this Keller book a try. Still, I don't know how the others here who accept evolution feel, but I have no agenda to "convert" you or Mountaineer, even if I thought I could. I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing, but I think it would be comfy to believe in a deity as long as it's a loving one. I cannot choose to believe any more than I can choose to like cilantro, so...I'm savoring my natural non-belief.

I also don't think religion always gets in the way of science. In Galileo's time it did, but nowadays if a believer gets into particle physics, more power to him. Or her. I knew some creatiionists that were very much into physics and math.
Last edited by dualstow on Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

Desert wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Desert wrote: One more quick comment:  I know I'm just one of many in this thread, but I do want to say that I'd prefer to have this thread be more about evolution and less about religion.  I know the two can sometimes feel inseparable, but as much as possible, I'd love to focus in on how some of you have managed to come to a belief in evolution.  When I read or watch videos about evolution, I probably feel like some of you do when you're reading about religion.  It just seems too preposterous to be true; so many impossible holes to fill, so much contradiction, and no ability to test the theory in the present. 

So what are your favorite sources of evidence for evolution?
Me, me, me, it's all about me  ;) --->  I'm approaching round body, vestigial limbs and absolutely enormous brain territory; I can hardly hold my head upright, thanks be to God that my skull was able to expand to 5X the normal volume - size does matter.  And, my religious preferences are evolving over the years.    ;)  Sorry, I just could not resist.  ::) ::)

... Mountaineer
"Vestigial limbs."  I like that! 

In a few generations we'll all be fat atheists with tiny little flippers useful only for shoveling excess calories into our horrid, dripping jowls.  Maybe a few of the lighter-boned descendants will have evolved short, pathetic wings capable of barely lifting their bloated grey torsos a few feet above the rest of us as they sqwawk hoarsely from deep within their grotesquely long, urban-camo'ed necks.  It'll be beautiful. 
Oh my!  I have not laughed this hard since I found out what Medium Tex was all about.  :o

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Sure, Desert, why not. I'd almost rather you read Chris Hitchens, but you can take your pick. You're more likely to enjoy The Blind Watchmaker.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Arguably is my favorite, but that's just a collection of essays about everything under the sun. To be on topic, I would say 'The Portable Atheist'.
I regret bringing him up, though, if it gets in the way of reading Dawkins. Watchmaker is very educational, while Hitchens' stuff is very persuasively logical.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

P.S. You could always watch Hitchens debate Rev Al Sharpton on youtube. He destroys.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

dualstow wrote: P.S. You could always watch Hitchens debate Rev Al Sharpton on youtube. He destroys.
My 11 year old granddaughter might be able to destroy Sharpton ... no offense to the Sharpton lovers.  ;)

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

This article has some interesting observations about the "big bang".

"But over the past decades, the big bang theory has proven to be quite pliable.

When it was first introduced, the “big bang”? was sometimes an object of ridicule. But over the past decades, it has proven to be quite pliable, morphing to adapt to each new problem. Are these changes true improvements, or just rescuing devices?"


Read the rest of the article here:

https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/b ... -a-theory/

There are several more "evolution" articles on the left side of the linked page for those who are interrested.

... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 »

Mountaineer wrote:
dualstow wrote: P.S. You could always watch Hitchens debate Rev Al Sharpton on youtube. He destroys.
My 11 year old granddaughter might be able to destroy Sharpton ... no offense to the Sharpton lovers.  ;)

... Mountaineer
I actually doubt anyone here would claim to have very strong positive feelings for sharpton. I don't hate him by any means, but find him to be horribly uninteresting and irrelevant to debates on anything, most of the time.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Mountaineer wrote:
dualstow wrote: P.S. You could always watch Hitchens debate Rev Al Sharpton on youtube. He destroys.
My 11 year old granddaughter might be able to destroy Sharpton ... no offense to the Sharpton lovers.  ;)
Never mind Sharpton's half of the debate. Hitchens destroys intransitively. He's a pleasure to listen to.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Desert wrote: Dualstow, I think I'll go with the Dawkins book, even though I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy the Hitchens book more.  It seems like Dawkins is the leading voice for evolution these days.  Correct me if I'm wrong...
He's up there. Watchmaker is not a new book, but I think it will be revered as a classic.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
dualstow wrote: P.S. You could always watch Hitchens debate Rev Al Sharpton on youtube. He destroys.
My 11 year old granddaughter might be able to destroy Sharpton ... no offense to the Sharpton lovers.  ;)
Never mind Sharpton's half of the debate. Hitchens destroys intransitively. He's a pleasure to listen to.
So is my granddaughter ... but I'm very biased.  ;D

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Jan Van »

Desert wrote:And that brings me to one factor that I think evolutionists miss or ignore:  If sheer numbers confer an advantage, then evolution could very well run in reverse.  People could get slower, fatter and more stupid. 
I don't think evolutionists ignore that. It might be because some people think about evolution as "survival of the fittest" which makes it sound like it will always be better stronger faster. But the concept is better defined as "natural selection", see What is Natural Selection? and What is Evolution? from Stated Clearly.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

If you wish to take about an hour to listen to some additional views on Dawkins, and are up for some Christian perspectives from learned people to expand your worldview, go to this link:

http://issuesetc.org/tag/richard-dawkins/

The third program, "Atheist Fundamentalism" discusses Dawkins.

The other two programs are also good if you have the time and inclination.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Jan Van »

Dr. Alister McGrath of Oxford [glow=red,2,300]Iniversity[/glow]?

According to Wikipedia he does accept evolution, to keep it within the context of this thread  :)
Last edited by Jan Van on Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer »

Jan Van wrote: Dr. Alister McGrath of Oxford [glow=red,2,300]Iniversity[/glow]?
;D ;D  I guess that is just another name for Di-versity or Uni-versity!  Too bad we Christians are not perfect spellers or proof readers like the "dark siders".  We are really good sinners, though.  ;D JK.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow »

Mountaineer wrote:   Too bad we Christians are not perfect spellers or proof readers like the "dark siders". 
Dark siders? What are we, Satanists?  :D Nah, we're just Dawks-siders.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Jan Van »

dualstow wrote:Dark siders? What are we, Satanists?
If we were, we would have a monument to sell you!  ;D
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
Post Reply