Evolution discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
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 Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4434
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
What you revere you resemble, either for ruin or for restoration. G. K. Beale
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4602
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by pugchief » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:48 am

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.
And you don't think the biblical story of creation was birthed by early man's need to explain something they couldn't understand? At least the theory of evolution tries to show the path from which the conclusion is derived. Creationism simply makes a statement and expects one to believe it without any other proof or logic than faith.
"Congressmen should wear uniforms, you know, like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
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 Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Desert » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:24 am

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!  :)
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4434
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
What you revere you resemble, either for ruin or for restoration. G. K. Beale
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:14 am

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!"  ;)
RIP Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:38 am

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
What you revere you resemble, either for ruin or for restoration. G. K. Beale
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:02 pm

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? :)
"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
iwealth
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by iwealth » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:22 pm

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?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:33 pm

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.
"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: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:38 pm

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.
RIP Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:46 pm

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.
"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
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4626
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by doodle » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:46 pm

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.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4626
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by doodle » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:49 pm

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.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:54 pm

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!
"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: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:17 pm

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.
RIP Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:26 pm

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
What you revere you resemble, either for ruin or for restoration. G. K. Beale
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:33 pm

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
What you revere you resemble, either for ruin or for restoration. G. K. Beale
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:37 pm

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: 7666
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by moda0306 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:04 pm

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: 1862
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Benko » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:55 pm

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: 11787
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by dualstow » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:33 pm

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.
RIP Dusty Hill and be well, Bob Odenkirk
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Desert » Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:54 pm

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.
Ok, I'll check out some other samples of his material. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Evolution discussion

Post by Desert » Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:55 pm

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.
Just wait until you get older ...  :)
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
Post Reply