Page 3 of 10

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:59 pm
by Benko
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.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:02 pm
by moda0306
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.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:14 pm
by moda0306
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

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:19 pm
by dualstow
moda0306 wrote:
Of course if there is no theory describing a phenomenon it is ok to say "we do not know." 
+1

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:40 pm
by moda0306
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.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:55 pm
by moda0306
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.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:31 pm
by moda0306
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Another video that more thoroughly dissects ID and irreducible complexity.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:06 am
by rickb
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".

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:58 am
by Mountaineer
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

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:03 am
by dualstow
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

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:27 am
by Mountaineer
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

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:53 am
by dualstow
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: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:59 am
by Mountaineer
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

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:14 am
by dualstow
Ah, you're taking a page from my grandmother's book. She used to say, "If it weren't true, they wouldn't print it!"  ;)

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:38 am
by Mountaineer
Here is a question for the evolution supporters:  Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?  Why or why not and/or any other thoughts you have on the subject? 

My perspective is this is just one example in a very long string of examples on how "cursed" mankind is after the incident in the Garden of Eden and how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19636

... Mountaineer

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:02 pm
by moda0306
Mountaineer wrote: Here is a question for the evolution supporters:  Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?  Why or why not and/or any other thoughts you have on the subject? 

My perspective is this is just one example in a very long string of examples on how "cursed" mankind is after the incident in the Garden of Eden and how thankful I am to have a way out of this world's messes to a new perfect creation of eternal joy and peace.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19636

... Mountaineer
No, that is not the next step in human evolution. IMO, of course. I don't know why anyone would think so, though.


And you mean eternal joy and peace to those who accept Jesus as their savior with little evidence that he is... While the rest of us suffer internal damnation... Right? :)

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:22 pm
by iwealth
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?

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:33 pm
by moda0306
Desert wrote:
moda0306 wrote: 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.
I agree moda.  I was too harsh last night, obviously.  I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!  :)
But seriously... if you've seen Neil's less politically charged stuff, I don't see how you can't love the guy.  He just friggin' loves science and discovery, and explaining it to folks... which, yes, means he has to be somewhat affable and (gasp) entertaining in his delivery.  If he's simply an "entertainer," though, worthy of nothing more than an MSNBC slot, than I shudder at what we should call most religious "leaders" :).

If you get a chance to watch any of his stuff on Netflix (Cosmos & some other documentary series), he's one interesting dude.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:38 pm
by dualstow
Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
;) Though the question is tongue-in-cheek, I'll use this space to remind you that evolution is not necessarily up, up, up towards perfection (whatever that is) but rather adapting to one's environment. Hence, there may be some truth in the old notion that only stupid people are breeding. Or at least, the world "rewards" those who make a lot of babies, to quote Idiocracy

The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:46 pm
by moda0306
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.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:46 pm
by doodle
moda0306 wrote:
Desert wrote:
moda0306 wrote: 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.
I agree moda.  I was too harsh last night, obviously.  I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!  :)
But seriously... if you've seen Neil's less politically charged stuff, I don't see how you can't love the guy.  He just friggin' loves science and discovery, and explaining it to folks... which, yes, means he has to be somewhat affable and (gasp) entertaining in his delivery.  If he's simply an "entertainer," though, worthy of nothing more than an MSNBC slot, than I shudder at what we should call most religious "leaders" :).

If you get a chance to watch any of his stuff on Netflix (Cosmos & some other documentary series), he's one interesting dude.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is an amazingly insightful and intelligent human being. I can't fathom how that isn't completely apparent to anyone who listens to him.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:49 pm
by doodle
dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
;) Though the question is tongue-in-cheek, I'll use this space to remind you that evolution is not necessarily up, up, up towards perfection (whatever that is) but rather adapting to one's environment. Hence, there may be some truth in the old notion that only stupid people are breeding. Or at least, the world "rewards" those who make a lot of babies, to quote Idiocracy

The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
If it weren't for sports, gyms and exercise and cultural conceptions of beauty,  I think humans would definitely begin evolving towards blob like shapes with miniature little limbs. There really is no need in modern day society for so much of what we are physically capable of.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:54 pm
by moda0306
doodle wrote:
dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
;) Though the question is tongue-in-cheek, I'll use this space to remind you that evolution is not necessarily up, up, up towards perfection (whatever that is) but rather adapting to one's environment. Hence, there may be some truth in the old notion that only stupid people are breeding. Or at least, the world "rewards" those who make a lot of babies, to quote Idiocracy

The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
If it weren't for sports, gyms and exercise and cultural conceptions of beauty,  I think humans would definitely begin evolving towards blob like shapes with miniature little limbs. There really is no need in modern day society for so much of what we are physically capable of.
Yeah, but volleyball, kayaking, and shaking your head vigorously at how boring soccer is are all FUN physical activities.

Remember, doodle, for a lot of us, the ultimate goal is HAPPINESS, and we don't get to choose what makes us happy, but only how to strategize maximizing that environment in our potentially limited lifetime... well, except for those few that will go to heaven, and the rest of us poor souls who will rot in hell for eternity...

I sure hope there's a purgatory!

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:17 pm
by dualstow
doodle wrote:
dualstow wrote: ;) Though the question is tongue-in-cheek, I'll use this space to remind you that evolution is not necessarily up, up, up towards perfection (whatever that is) but rather adapting to one's environment. Hence, there may be some truth in the old notion that only stupid people are breeding. Or at least, the world "rewards" those who make a lot of babies, to quote Idiocracy

The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
If it weren't for sports, gyms and exercise and cultural conceptions of beauty,  I think humans would definitely begin evolving towards blob like shapes with miniature little limbs. There really is no need in modern day society for so much of what we are physically capable of.
Heh. Like in Wall-E:D
I think you hit the nail on the head with "cultural conceptions of beauty." It's like rooster and peacock plumage. But, it also feels good.

Re: Evolution discussion

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:26 pm
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