Re: Evolution discussion
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:19 pm
+1moda0306 wrote:
Of course if there is no theory describing a phenomenon it is ok to say "we do not know."
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6237
+1moda0306 wrote:
Of course if there is no theory describing a phenomenon it is ok to say "we do not know."
Seriously?Desert wrote: I still haven't figured out what his argument is.
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.rickb wrote:
Is evolution the right answer? If it's wrong, the right answer certainly isn't "God did it".
The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.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").
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.dualstow wrote:The existence of God cannot be disproven, and therefore can never be a part of science.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").
- Karl Popper
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.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.
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.But, I must give my view: ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
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.dualstow wrote: I don't want to derail from evolution, but briefly: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.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.
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.But, I must give my view: ... But worshiping science or making it ones religion should never replace worshiping the Creator.
No, that is not the next step in human evolution. IMO, of course. I don't know why anyone would think so, though.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
Did this desire influence your decision to believe in (a) God? Or did your belief in (a) God come first?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.
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" .Desert wrote:I agree moda. I was too harsh last night, obviously. I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!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.
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.Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
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.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.rickb wrote:
Is evolution the right answer? If it's wrong, the right answer certainly isn't "God did it".
... Mountaineer
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.moda0306 wrote: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" .Desert wrote:I agree moda. I was too harsh last night, obviously. I'll come back for more calm discussions tonight!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.
If you get a chance to watch any of his stuff on Netflix (Cosmos & some other documentary series), he's one interesting dude.
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.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.Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
Yeah, but volleyball, kayaking, and shaking your head vigorously at how boring soccer is are all FUN physical activities.doodle wrote: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.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.Mountaineer wrote: Is this the next "natural" step in human evolution?
The physical part happens so slowly that we don't notice. I think most evolution these days is social and cultural.
Heh. Like in Wall-E?doodle wrote: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.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.
That is sort of a chicken and egg question.iwealth wrote:Did this desire influence your decision to believe in (a) God? Or did your belief in (a) God come first?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.
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.moda0306 wrote: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.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.rickb wrote:
Is evolution the right answer? If it's wrong, the right answer certainly isn't "God did it".
... Mountaineer
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.
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.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.
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.Mountaineer wrote: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.moda0306 wrote: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.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
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.
... Mountaineer