Evolution discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:13 am

Desert wrote: So somehow this ... would have to deliver benefits exceeding its costs.

But is that how nature works? Or does a mutation just have to confer an advantage over the critter's peers, in say avoiding prey, attracting mates, finding food.
In fact, 5% of an eye is an extremely complex system that would require (if one has faith in time and mutation) millions of years to form.
... Perhaps it started as just an opening.
It's just an arbitrary number. It may have been started by Stephen Jay Gould. Can't remember.

I think most scientists agree that it likely started with a light-sensitive patch of skin or other exterior tissue. Nothing complex.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:42 am

doodle wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Could someone give me an reasonable explanation for how two fish mutated at essentially the same time and in the same vast oceanic location to have lungs instead of gills, sprouted legs so they could crawl onto dry land and not drown, and then found each other, mated and produced more little fish-based things with lungs and legs to continue the process? 

And, a related followup question concerning DNA - if the mutated fish were able to reproduce fish-things that had lungs and legs, why don't we see evidence today of mutated humans mating and producing more mutated humans like them (e.g. a man and a woman, each a thalidomide product with deformed arms, do not seem to produce children with deformed arms ... at least I think that is correct.  Please pardon me if this is a poor example, I certainly do not profess expertise in biology.)?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second- ... h-defects/

... Mountaineer
And 4000 years ago your question would have been "can someone please explain how thunder and lightning exist?" I can't understand it and there is no perfect scientific evidence so therefore they must be created by the Gods. Just cause you cannot conceive of how something is possible doesn't mean it isn't. To a child, a magicians tricks look like true miracles and an especially amazing trick might even convince an adult that this person had superhuman powers.....however the truth is that they are quite simple once one is explained how it was done.
Does this mean you don't know how to answer my questions of Today?  Who knows what my question would have been 4000 years ago - except for the Creator whose truth is always there for us to hear.

...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.
Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Pet Hog » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:09 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Could someone give me an reasonable explanation for how two fish mutated at essentially the same time and in the same vast oceanic location to have lungs instead of gills, sprouted legs so they could crawl onto dry land and not drown, and then found each other, mated and produced more little fish-based things with lungs and legs to continue the process?
The reason why no one can explain your idea of evolution is that it is not how evolution works.  Nobody is claiming that evolution occurs through two fish suddenly mutating during their adult lives and then they meet and have mutant fish sex.  Instead, mutant fish are born with the mutation in their DNA.  A pregnant fish can give birth to thousands of eggs.  It is possible that a single fish birthed two mutants at the same time (twins?).  They had a sexual advantage over their siblings and peers and then mated to produce thousands of offspring that featured the advantageous mutation.  Over a few generations, the mutant fish consumed all the resources and the non-mutants died out, being unable to compete with their superior brethren.  Maybe the sexual advantage was that they could use their fins as legs and so they could crawl one inch up a riverbed and eat some food unavailable to their peers.  Maybe after thousands of generations a lucky supermutant fish could crawl two inches up the riverbed and, consequently, use that advantage to wipe out the genes from all his ancestors and father a new strain of fish that only lived on and near riverbanks.
Mountaineer wrote:And, a related followup question concerning DNA - if the mutated fish were able to reproduce fish-things that had lungs and legs, why don't we see evidence today of mutated humans mating and producing more mutated humans like them (e.g. a man and a woman, each a thalidomide product with deformed arms, do not seem to produce children with deformed arms ... at least I think that is correct.  Please pardon me if this is a poor example, I certainly do not profess expertise in biology.)?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second- ... h-defects/
Thalidomide was a drug taken by mothers to overcome morning sickness.  That means that the gestating fetus had normal, non-mutated DNA before it was exposed to the drug.  The deformation arose from the interaction of thalidomide with a protein in the fetus's body that is responsible for limb growth.  Any mutation of the limbs did not result from a mutation of the DNA.  Therefore, any child of a thalidomide victim would have normal DNA.

By the way, mutated humans do mate and produce mutated offspring all the time.  That's exactly the mechanism of evolution!
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:38 pm

Pet Hog wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Could someone give me an reasonable explanation for how two fish mutated at essentially the same time and in the same vast oceanic location to have lungs instead of gills, sprouted legs so they could crawl onto dry land and not drown, and then found each other, mated and produced more little fish-based things with lungs and legs to continue the process?
The reason why no one can explain your idea of evolution is that it is not how evolution works.  Nobody is claiming that evolution occurs through two fish suddenly mutating during their adult lives and then they meet and have mutant fish sex.  Instead, mutant fish are born with the mutation in their DNA.  A pregnant fish can give birth to thousands of eggs.  It is possible that a single fish birthed two mutants at the same time (twins?).  They had a sexual advantage over their siblings and peers and then mated to produce thousands of offspring that featured the advantageous mutation.  Over a few generations, the mutant fish consumed all the resources and the non-mutants died out, being unable to compete with their superior brethren.  Maybe the sexual advantage was that they could use their fins as legs and so they could crawl one inch up a riverbed and eat some food unavailable to their peers.  Maybe after thousands of generations a lucky supermutant fish could crawl two inches up the riverbed and, consequently, use that advantage to wipe out the genes from all his ancestors and father a new strain of fish that only lived on and near riverbanks.
Mountaineer wrote:And, a related followup question concerning DNA - if the mutated fish were able to reproduce fish-things that had lungs and legs, why don't we see evidence today of mutated humans mating and producing more mutated humans like them (e.g. a man and a woman, each a thalidomide product with deformed arms, do not seem to produce children with deformed arms ... at least I think that is correct.  Please pardon me if this is a poor example, I certainly do not profess expertise in biology.)?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second- ... h-defects/
Thalidomide was a drug taken by mothers to overcome morning sickness.  That means that the gestating fetus had normal, non-mutated DNA before it was exposed to the drug.  The deformation arose from the interaction of thalidomide with a protein in the fetus's body that is responsible for limb growth.  Any mutation of the limbs did not result from a mutation of the DNA.  Therefore, any child of a thalidomide victim would have normal DNA.

By the way, mutated humans do mate and produce mutated offspring all the time.  That's exactly the mechanism of evolution!
Pet Hog,

Thank you for the reply.  It is very interesting, a very interesting hypothesis.  The second subject dealing with thalidomide makes sense.  I can buy that one as I expect it is reproduceable in a controlled experiment (Yuck to ponder the ethics of that one!).  The first, as I said, very interesting hypothesis.  But to me, it does not seem nearly as likely as God's story to us on how it happened (the fishes taken in the context of the whole universe and everything in it and how that universe operates on a razor's edge).  Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:40 pm, 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.
Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Pet Hog » Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:39 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Thank you for the reply.  It is very interesting, a very interesting hypothesis.  The second subject dealing with thalidomide makes sense.  I can buy that one as I expect it is reproduceable in a controlled experiment (Yuck to ponder the ethics of that one!).  The first, as I said, very interesting hypothesis.  But to me, it does not seem nearly as likely as God's story to us on how it happened (the fishes taken in the context of the whole universe and everything in it and how that universe operates on a razor's edge).  Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
You are welcome.  I'm not a geneticist, but I believe my "very interesting hypothesis" is, in a nutshell, the theory of evolution, which, as far as I am aware, has not been disproved experimentally.

I have a question for you, Mountaineer -- and for anyone else who doesn't believe in evolution.  If you and I were brought back to life a million years from now, do you think we would we recognize every species of animal and plant on Earth, unchanged from how they look today?  Would there be any new species?  That is, will evolution occur in the future, even though it hasn't in the past?  I am presuming that God makes no interventions and that today's living creatures just keep on reproducing with their current DNA.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Benko » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:14 pm

Pet Hog wrote: You are welcome.  I'm not a geneticist, but I believe my "very interesting hypothesis" is, in a nutshell, the theory of evolution, which, as far as I am aware, has not been disproved experimentally.
Because there is no proof that it is wrong it must be true? 

Evolution explains a lot and to that degree "works".  But there are some whopping holes i.e. things that it seems very unlikely to be explainable by the same mechanism that explains the rest.  Anyone can be convinced of anything but that does not mean it is true.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:30 pm

Pet Hog wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Thank you for the reply.  It is very interesting, a very interesting hypothesis.  The second subject dealing with thalidomide makes sense.  I can buy that one as I expect it is reproduceable in a controlled experiment (Yuck to ponder the ethics of that one!).  The first, as I said, very interesting hypothesis.  But to me, it does not seem nearly as likely as God's story to us on how it happened (the fishes taken in the context of the whole universe and everything in it and how that universe operates on a razor's edge).  Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
You are welcome.  I'm not a geneticist, but I believe my "very interesting hypothesis" is, in a nutshell, the theory of evolution, which, as far as I am aware, has not been disproved experimentally.

I have a question for you, Mountaineer -- and for anyone else who doesn't believe in evolution.  If you and I were brought back to life a million years from now, do you think we would we recognize every species of animal and plant on Earth, unchanged from how they look today?  Would there be any new species?  That is, will evolution occur in the future, even though it hasn't in the past?  I am presuming that God makes no interventions and that today's living creatures just keep on reproducing with their current DNA.
My honest answer is "I haven't a clue".  As I said earlier, I do believe in micro evolution (e.g. we are taller as a species now than we were 700 or 800 years ago as indicated by the size of medieval armor).  And, we can observe how other plants and animals can change in a few decades.  But for "the theory of evolution" meaning we descended from apes and such, I do not believe it is even a theory - it is just an hypotheis.  I'm talking about the species jump stuff here ... like we evolved from protoplasmic slime.  I really do not think so.  To me, educated in science and engineering, that is way too much of accepting speculation outside the boundaries of established science and what we know to be true to be plausible.  You may wish to read the rather exhausting "Figuring Out Religion" thread to get a better understanding of my journey and my worldview.  I'm as happy to speculate about weird stuff as the next person, but when it comes to matters of ultimate importance, like where will I spend eternity and why do I believe that, I've got to go with the most probable answer, and the conscience, intelligence, and discernment ability that has been given to me by God.  Thanks for asking.

... 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.
Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Pet Hog » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:48 pm

Benko wrote: Because there is no proof that it is wrong it must be true? 

Evolution explains a lot and to that degree "works".  But there are some whopping holes i.e. things that it seems very unlikely to be explainable by the same mechanism that explains the rest.  Anyone can be convinced of anything but that does not mean it is true.
I'm not saying that evolution is true.  It is theory, just like any other scientific theory, and until it is proven false, it cannot be said to be untrue.  It's just the basis of the scientific method.

"Anyone can be convinced of anything but that does not mean it is true."  That's exactly why I'm not religious.
Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Pet Hog » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:19 pm

Desert wrote: My take on evolution is basically this:
1.  The basic concept makes little to no common sense.  Mutations are overwhelmingly negative, not positive, and the series of positive mutations required to produce even small improvements in a life form are extremely unlikely.
Quantum theory makes no common sense.  The theory of gravity makes no common sense.  The theory of relativity makes no common sense.  Unless a theory makes common sense, it cannot be true!
Desert wrote:2.  Evolution depends on the existence of reproducing life in the first place.  It's not sensible to believe that the level of complexity contained in a single-cell, reproducing organism somehow just happened from some sort of soup. 
Evolution does not explain the origin of life, or the big bang.  It is a separate theory.  Again, you argument is that it is not sensible.  I think it is a better theory than, "God did it -- and don't ask any further questions!"
Desert wrote:3.  Evolution depends on long time frames to do the heavy lifting.  The more preposterous the claim, the more zeroes behind the number of years it forces.  But time by itself does not produce complex designs.  In fact, entropy increases over time, and order decreases over time. 
The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, entropy increases over time.  The Earth is not a closed system because it has an external power source, the Sun.
Desert wrote: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.
I think there is more riding on religion than there is riding on science.  If a scientific theory is proved incorrect, it gets modified or forgotten.  I think we have a way to go before it comes down to aliens or God.  By the way, you made me laugh about the "huge secular science industry."  Federal science funding in the US is $70 billion.  The net spending of the Catholic Church (for example) in the US is estimated at $170 billion annually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_po ... ted_States
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook ... ch-america
Snoopy
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Snoopy » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:11 pm

No, you've once again proved God's existence! :)

doodle wrote:
Snoopy wrote: If all life has indeed evolved from some giant bag of particles, then logically, no rational thought is possible.

Therefore, because one is even able to state the proposition, "God does not exist", he thus proves God's existence.
Unicorns do not exist.....did I just prove their existence?
I just don't have time to get in a hurry.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:19 pm

Desert wrote: A bit more on Nagel:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/23 ... darwinism/

The evolution proponents are very concerned with anyone questioning their fragile belief system. 
Now evolutionary science, in its opposition to creationism, is staking out a similar position in the culture wars. In the absence of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins is emerging as the anti-pope of a New Atheism, whose orthodoxy inspires the brutal treatment of heretics, even as it lures adherents into a simplistic, unreflective, fanciful faith in its own methods.
Dawkins can be harsh for sure, but unreflective? Nah.
RIP Marcello Gandini
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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:37 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw

An interesting lecture by my man Tyson. This has been going on for centuries, and by insanely SMART people.  Once we don't understand something, "God did it."  Until we finally figure out that it is completely natural with a new well-tested theory.
Snoopy wrote: No, you've once again proved God's existence! :)

doodle wrote:
Snoopy wrote: If all life has indeed evolved from some giant bag of particles, then logically, no rational thought is possible.

Therefore, because one is even able to state the proposition, "God does not exist", he thus proves God's existence.
Unicorns do not exist.....did I just prove their existence?
Can you enlighten us with how making an argument is a proof of God's existence?
"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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:59 pm

moda0306 wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw

An interesting lecture by my man Tyson. This has been going on for centuries, and by insanely SMART people.  Once we don't understand something, "God did it."  Until we finally figure out that it is completely natural with a new well-tested theory.
Leaving god (skynet, Hal, etc way aside...)
So until the theory arrives which explains things it is OK to say we don't know/understand, right?
As opposed to being branded a denier for pointing this out.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:02 pm

Benko wrote:
moda0306 wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw

An interesting lecture by my man Tyson. This has been going on for centuries, and by insanely SMART people.  Once we don't understand something, "God did it."  Until we finally figure out that it is completely natural with a new well-tested theory.
Leaving god (skynet, Hal, etc way aside...)
So until the theory arrives which explains things it is OK to say we don't know/understand, right?
As opposed to being branded a denier for pointing this out.
Of course if there is no theory describing a phenomenon it is ok to say "we do not know."  What's dangerous is to assume "God did it" and quit trying to learn about it.
"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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:14 pm

Here's a short video of a guy breaking down supposed "irreducible complexity" of a flagellum. I would love him (or someone else) to break down other supposedly "irreducibly complex" things like eardrums and eyes. I'll see if there is more on the interwebs. Not that it is necessarily true, but i would love to see an ID'er refute them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4
"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: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:19 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Of course if there is no theory describing a phenomenon it is ok to say "we do not know." 
+1
RIP Marcello Gandini
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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:40 pm

This wasn't a proof that intelligent design is false. It's an accurate description of how people look to God when they can't figure something out. And why it's so harmful. And he's right.

And if you think he's that stupid, I think we best just agree to disagree. I've seen a lot of his stuff and Tyson is the man.

I can understand why you wouldn't like a guy who is sarcastic towards religion, but his sarcasm comes from a place deeply rooted in frustration with when religion tries to silence scientific truth. His has happened so many times in history that it's not even funny.  We are just going to have very different perspectives on how much sarcasm can be heaped upon religion without crossing a professionalism line.
Last edited by moda0306 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:55 pm

Why don't we leave behind Tyson, as he's obviously long on stories and his controversial "perspective," and short on objective deductive analysis.

I think one of the more useful areas will be focusing on irreducible complexity, which a HUGE portion of the intelligent design communities argument rests upon.  I think this is going to be a huge area of debate.  Should be interesting.
"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 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:31 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Another video that more thoroughly dissects ID and irreducible complexity.
"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
rickb
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:12 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by rickb » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:06 am

Desert wrote: I still haven't figured out what his argument is. 
Seriously?

His argument is that science stops when scientists ascribe things they don't understand to God. 

This has happened repeatedly.  Otherwise brilliant scientists have pushed beyond their contemporaries, and discovered/explained things no one in all of history did before them - but stopped dead in their tracks at things they couldn't (at the time) understand and, rather than push further, have offered explanations that invoke God.

His point is that belief in God is detrimental to science.  It basically killed the Arabic scientific explosion (between 800 and 1100 AD).  He's not so subtly saying that Intelligent Design proponents now are endangering science in the US, and that a scientist who accepts "God did it" as the answer to ANY question is not actually a scientist. 

Is evolution the right answer?  If it's wrong, the right answer certainly isn't "God did it".
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:58 am

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
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: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:03 am

Mountaineer wrote: 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").
The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.
- Karl Popper
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:27 am

dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: 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").
The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.
- Karl Popper
OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.

But, I must give my view:  God will always be a part of science since He created man and our ability to understand our surroundings via science.  Science is a wonderful, useful gift from God.  But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.  If we define the word "god" as whatever or whomever we trust for our identity, security, or meaning in life, then all of us have a god!  The question becomes, "How's your 'god' working for you in the 21st century?"

... 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: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:53 am

I don't want to derail from evolution, but briefly:
Mountaineer wrote: OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.
Think of it this way: if you have to rule out everything proposed that cannot be disproven, there are an infinite number of ideas that cannot be ruled out. Maybe Satan created the universe and the God in the Hebrew Bible is the bad guy, and a pretender. Maybe Kim Kardashian created the universe... Maybe it's a big test and only those who offer their allegiance to the biblical God will be punished.
But, I must give my view:  ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
That comparison is often made, but science includes replacing old conclusions with new ones in light of new evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn from science can't be said to be "worshipped."  Evolution, Darwinism, survival of the fittest and nature in general can appear to be pretty cold and cruel sometimes. Somehow, though, unbelievers still find their way to morality.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:59 am

dualstow wrote: I don't want to derail from evolution, but briefly:
Mountaineer wrote: OK if you wish to believe that.  But I still don't understand how that makes it "right" to rule out "God did it" as an alternative to evolution.
Think of it this way: if you have to rule out everything proposed that cannot be disproven, there are an infinite number of ideas that cannot be ruled out. Maybe Satan created the universe and the God in the Hebrew Bible is the bad guy, and a pretender. Maybe Kim Kardashian created the universe... Maybe it's a big test and only those who offer their allegiance to the biblical God will be punished.
But, I must give my view:  ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
That comparison is often made, but science includes replacing old conclusions with new ones in light of new evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn from science can't be said to be "worshipped."  Evolution, Darwinism, survival of the fittest and nature in general can appear to be pretty cold and cruel sometimes. Somehow, though, unbelievers still find their way to morality.
Re. point one.  There are literally thousands of manuscripts that deal with Judaism and Christianity with more being discovered all the time, including non-Biblical sources that substantiate Jesus.  I have not run across (m)any authorative texts that have evidence that Kim Kardashian created much of anything of value ... ditto Satan.  As you say though ...... maybe; we shall see on the Last Day.  :)

Re. point two.  Thanks be to God for giving mankind a conscience so we can all struggle our way to "find" morality.  I agree there is much overlap between God's moral law that is described in the Christian Bible and the teachings of other cultures.  That is another case for the Creator.

... 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.
Post Reply