I could say the exact same thing for creationalism.I myself believe in theistic evolotion.I don't buy that everything merley happened by chance. The Earth is much too complicated for that. IMO, for science to suggest that man comes from the monkey is absurd.
If Jesus would return?
- Thread starter Kal-el
- Start date
-
- Tags
- average biologists dating effective enormous equipment exercise extending extreme fitness gains genetics growing hands hanging homosexual larger loads massive masturbate methodology painful penis posts progress question research results sensitivity sex short shower shrink skin stories stretch support theoretical thick vacuum wide wrap
I could say the exact same thing for creationalism.I myself believe in theistic evolotion.I don't buy that everything merley happened by chance. The Earth is much too complicated for that. IMO, for science to suggest that man comes from the monkey is absurd.
I guess the troll screwed up this thread. I deleted the message, but don't know if it will take out the redirect. Hopefully so.
Kal,
>I could say the exact same thing for creationalism.<
I did say that. Proof of creatioinism would kind of ruin the point of faith.
>IMO, for science to suggest that man comes from the monkey is absurd.<
Actually, that is not what evolutionists say. The monkeys thing is a tired old thing that has been around since Darwin. However, what they do say is still not valid.
Bigger
Kal,
>I could say the exact same thing for creationalism.<
I did say that. Proof of creatioinism would kind of ruin the point of faith.
>IMO, for science to suggest that man comes from the monkey is absurd.<
Actually, that is not what evolutionists say. The monkeys thing is a tired old thing that has been around since Darwin. However, what they do say is still not valid.
Bigger
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
My thoughts exactly.
A few things,
Hm, didn't think the plow hand quote was about you. With you saying my message was blah, blah, blah, that if you read the bible without a bit of reason it is confusing, and somewhat dismissive responses, I took it as refering to me. The ending then becomes "don't let your (low) intelligence get in the way of truth".
Faith. There are multiple definitions:
1- belief in something without evidence or against evidence (often based on desires)
2- people of the christian, muslim, etc. faith. So, a person or group holding a religious view
3- (this is an odd use) sometimes people say it's on faith, when they mean based on reason, evidence, induction and so on.
I think you can see that faith(3) fits with what I meant. This does not attach a personal commitment either. When you say it's on faith, I'm pretty sure you mean faith(1). A few things such as the the axioms of logic are irrefutably true, so you could say those are absolute in my view, and I'm not going to abandon rationality and empiricism.
Please break down how you see the scientific method, we just aren't lining up at all on it. Also, proving things. Hope we can find a common understanding, as summarizing my epistemology et al. would take a long time.
Evolution, yes, a cell or group of cells are seens as the common ancestor of all life on earth. That is where evolution starts, it is unconcerned with how the cell got there. Abiogenesis is a serperate question, and is about how life started. Once you explain your view of science we can go into it.
Time for jujitsu, I'll get around to the rest some time this weekend.
Hm, didn't think the plow hand quote was about you. With you saying my message was blah, blah, blah, that if you read the bible without a bit of reason it is confusing, and somewhat dismissive responses, I took it as refering to me. The ending then becomes "don't let your (low) intelligence get in the way of truth".
Faith. There are multiple definitions:
1- belief in something without evidence or against evidence (often based on desires)
2- people of the christian, muslim, etc. faith. So, a person or group holding a religious view
3- (this is an odd use) sometimes people say it's on faith, when they mean based on reason, evidence, induction and so on.
I think you can see that faith(3) fits with what I meant. This does not attach a personal commitment either. When you say it's on faith, I'm pretty sure you mean faith(1). A few things such as the the axioms of logic are irrefutably true, so you could say those are absolute in my view, and I'm not going to abandon rationality and empiricism.
Please break down how you see the scientific method, we just aren't lining up at all on it. Also, proving things. Hope we can find a common understanding, as summarizing my epistemology et al. would take a long time.
Evolution, yes, a cell or group of cells are seens as the common ancestor of all life on earth. That is where evolution starts, it is unconcerned with how the cell got there. Abiogenesis is a serperate question, and is about how life started. Once you explain your view of science we can go into it.
Time for jujitsu, I'll get around to the rest some time this weekend.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kraft said:
That makes it sound like evolution answers one of its most obvious flaws or unanswered questions by simply ignoring the issue.
Have fun with jujitsu. As I mentioned in that other thread, I love that shit. I'm getting pretty pumped up for UFC 55 because one of the guys on the heavyweight card, Branden Lee Hinkle, lives just a few miles from here in smalltown Weirton, WV.
Penguin, it isn't a flaw in the theory of evolution, it's a false dilemma usually levelled by creationists.
Using the old NABT definition:
The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredctable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Doesn't say anything on the matter of origins of life.
Yeah, I'm having a great time with jujitsu. Some newbies just joined so I'm finally getting some wins... 55's card looks a bit weak, but I'll probably watch it, cool that a local is in it.
BIB, I said I'd respond this weekend, but things have been kind of crazy. Life is busy at the moment, so please be patient.
Using the old NABT definition:
The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredctable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Doesn't say anything on the matter of origins of life.
Yeah, I'm having a great time with jujitsu. Some newbies just joined so I'm finally getting some wins... 55's card looks a bit weak, but I'll probably watch it, cool that a local is in it.
BIB, I said I'd respond this weekend, but things have been kind of crazy. Life is busy at the moment, so please be patient.
Kraft,
>Hm, didn't think the plow hand quote was about you. With you saying my message was blah, blah, blah, that if you read the bible without a bit of reason it is confusing, and somewhat dismissive responses, I took it as refering to me. The ending then becomes "don't let your (low) intelligence get in the way of truth".<
No. Actually, I meant high intelligence. The blah thing was that there seemed to be no meat to what you were saying. Of course, I have not provided a lot of meat either.
>Faith. There are multiple definitions:
1- belief in something without evidence or against evidence (often based on desires)
2- people of the christian, muslim, etc. faith. So, a person or group holding a religious view
3- (this is an odd use) sometimes people say it's on faith, when they mean based on reason, evidence, induction and so on.
I think you can see that faith(3) fits with what I meant. This does not attach a personal commitment either. When you say it's on faith, I'm pretty sure you mean faith(1). A few things such as the the axioms of logic are irrefutably true, so you could say those are absolute in my view, and I'm not going to abandon rationality and empiricism.<
I think that faith one is involved in both creationism and evolution. You must have at least some faith to believe either is true.
>Please break down how you see the scientific method, we just aren't lining up at all on it.<
My definition is the textbook definition. Observation. Then develop an hypothesis, then test the hypothesis using reliable data and/or evidence. The testing should be verifiable and repeatable. Usually, the results and conclusions of the testing is written up in peer reviewed journals. Then the attacking begins from colleagues.
>Evolution, yes, a cell or group of cells are seens as the common ancestor of all life on earth. That is where evolution starts, it is unconcerned with how the cell got there. Abiogenesis is a serperate question, and is about how life started. Once you explain your view of science we can go into it.<
You can't have one without the other. Period.
Bigger
>Hm, didn't think the plow hand quote was about you. With you saying my message was blah, blah, blah, that if you read the bible without a bit of reason it is confusing, and somewhat dismissive responses, I took it as refering to me. The ending then becomes "don't let your (low) intelligence get in the way of truth".<
No. Actually, I meant high intelligence. The blah thing was that there seemed to be no meat to what you were saying. Of course, I have not provided a lot of meat either.
>Faith. There are multiple definitions:
1- belief in something without evidence or against evidence (often based on desires)
2- people of the christian, muslim, etc. faith. So, a person or group holding a religious view
3- (this is an odd use) sometimes people say it's on faith, when they mean based on reason, evidence, induction and so on.
I think you can see that faith(3) fits with what I meant. This does not attach a personal commitment either. When you say it's on faith, I'm pretty sure you mean faith(1). A few things such as the the axioms of logic are irrefutably true, so you could say those are absolute in my view, and I'm not going to abandon rationality and empiricism.<
I think that faith one is involved in both creationism and evolution. You must have at least some faith to believe either is true.
>Please break down how you see the scientific method, we just aren't lining up at all on it.<
My definition is the textbook definition. Observation. Then develop an hypothesis, then test the hypothesis using reliable data and/or evidence. The testing should be verifiable and repeatable. Usually, the results and conclusions of the testing is written up in peer reviewed journals. Then the attacking begins from colleagues.
>Evolution, yes, a cell or group of cells are seens as the common ancestor of all life on earth. That is where evolution starts, it is unconcerned with how the cell got there. Abiogenesis is a serperate question, and is about how life started. Once you explain your view of science we can go into it.<
You can't have one without the other. Period.
Bigger
I PM'd this to BIB, so incase anyone is following this. Pretty much just summarizing some of my views and trying to clear up things.
Finally some time to think and respond. Passed my belt test (no more white belt
) and earned a broken knuckle in the process
Kind of long, didn't have time to cut it down and make it flow nicely.
Science- ok, that is pretty much the standard definition. You're missing the science uses methodological naturalism, that only natural explanations will be considered. It is assumed that all that exists is matter, no metaphysical realm or supernatural. When you say science will prove God, that is an illogical statement. Later you say that the evidence you agree with, but not the theory. To me this smacks of confirmation bias, you have your conclusions (the bible) and are working backwards to find support for it. I would venture to say the reason you don't agree with the theories is that they try to strive for a parsimonious solutions, positing another realm of which we have no knowledge (and many would argue cannot have knowledge of if it were to exist) is an added layer of complexity. Parsimony is another name for Ockham's razor, that if 2 explanations for the same phenomenon rely on a different number of assumptions, we should go with the one with the fewest assumptions. When I say conclusions I hold, they would be based off of theory or theories. You seem to hold some requirement for absolute proof, however, knowing the scientific method you should know that isn't something it gives. It confirms or disproves positive statements. I would argue the supernatural explanations aren't explanations at all. If one is proposing that the natural laws of the reality should suspend themselves so that a phenomenon occurs, that is no solution. It's not falsifiable and therefore not science. It could explain anything and thus explains nothing. No predictive or explanatory power. Such as what you say of God's power, paraphrasing: he wills such, thus it occurs. Saying God did it has the ring of an answer, but is utterly hollow.
Certainty-I think the problem here is that of confusing infallibility and certainty. I hold very few things 100%, as I know man is fallible. As we know man is fallible, we have ways of separating truth from falsehood, science being the most thorough test. From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
"In science, we do not work with metaphysical certainties. We support theories with empirical evidence, and test them by experiments set up to DISPROVE them vigorously and often. Failure to disprove a theory leads us to accepting it, tentatively. As Karl Popper says: "All theories will eventually be replaced by better ones." "
However I can have confidence in my knowledge based off the best evidence available. I'm not going to blindly and dogmatically hold them though, I am always questioning and revising my views. Contradiction isn't likely to established theories, only revision. You keep saying I must have great faith, as your religion takes faith as the highest virtue I'm not sure if that's criticism or compliment. Faith(1) which you think I need to endorse is exactly what I reject. Faith(1) is the rejection of epistemology, it has no standard of truth/falsity, simply a means to hold beliefs that can't be rationally demonstrated. You seem to take it that inductive reasoning must be topped up to 100% certainty with faith, which is blatantly false. This is an attempt to drop everyone to your level, using this kind of thinking one needs 'faith' the sun will rise. Now you start using this kind of faith barometer, "oh, they aren't too confident in X, must fill it up with 40% faith, guess my beliefs based on faith are ok then". Do you see how this position is ridiculous?
In reality, if there is evidence for the position, faith has no place at all. With evidence and reason we come to knowledge. There is doubt when the argument and evidence are insufficient or flawed, in these cases "I/We don't know" can be appropriate. However, when this comes up, you seem to think that means a supernatural 'explanation' is justified. No, the default position is that this is all there is, materialistic existence. If you wish to posit a supernatural realm the onus is on you to provide evidence and argument for it existing.
Naturalism - A quick summary
"The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.'' From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions."
When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out. Lightning isn't seen as Thor getting angry, earthquakes/eruptions aren't the titans trapped under the mountain, etc. Based on naturalistic explanations holding such explanatory and predictive power among other things, while supernatural ones continually lose ground, one can infer philosophical naturalism. With no argument for this supernatural realm and that the concept itself is unintelligible, it should be rejected (more on this later). Nature being the non-sentient universe. This is it, time, space, physical law, material, we may discover new laws, whatever, it is just another aspect of reality.
Abiogenesis - I think you can see why I said it would just be an extension of naturalism. As we have no evidence for anything else, the formation of life would come about due to the physical laws of the universe, ie. necessity, not chance. I would say, your statistic about a 100 aa protein is about the chance of all the atoms of the aa's coming together to form the protein at once, considering all other possibilities (that is the standard argument). However, if we consider all other possibilities, the chance of anything happening drops to slightly above 0. That a specific raindrop hits a specific blade of grass, is nigh impossible. That a rock has its structure is nigh impossible. That I am sitting at my computer typing is so improbable, it's inconceivable, I could be anywhere in the world or do this another moment, or have never been born or... You get the idea. I don't like the quote mining, but it's expected. The information quotes are red herrings, provide no backing for your argument, same with the 'size of human fossils' info. It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is, especially talking of evolution where the strongest case is genetic and biochemical. I don’t want to see this degenerate into a pure evolution discussion, and I’m not going to play the game where I have to come up with an answer for any biological question you can come up with. “Science must answer all, or I am justified in my magical thinking” isn’t a reasonable position, as explained above.
Why haven’t we found fossils of first life and why doesn’t it seem to still be around?
Well, they were obviously soft bodied and very small so I’d think fossilization would be unlikely. As for still being around, being out competed by descendants, possible incorporation and modification in other organisms, possible hypotheses. Some guesses, not really my area.
As for current views on it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.
Part of the reason what you’re saying bothers me is the consequence of such thinking. You say it’s evo + abio or divine creation and call them all theory. We have theory of abiogenesis and evolution, but as stated earlier, supernatural claims aren’t in the realm of science. Please don’t misrepresent it as theory. This way of looking at things makes it that any unknown is due to the supernatural, until a naturalistic explanation is given. I can see it in the places you stick God, once god was everywhere, now he’s receded to the unknowns of the origin of this universe and life. My point in showing the separation between abio and evo was that citing ‘problems’ with abiogenesis isn’t a problem with evolution. What it seems you are working against is naturalism, which I find surprising as I gather you have 20 years experience in evolution from your posts. Or was that meant to say you’ve been following evolutionary theory for 20 years and happen to be a scientist?
Hope that all makes sense, it’s a basic overview of my thoughts on many things. In terms of atheism, I can get into some atheistic arguments or go into problems apologetic arguments. Also, I’ll come up with some biblical questions if I have time.
The books by Carrier and Smith I mentioned earlier helped shape some of these views, same with Massimo Pigliucci’s Tales of the Rational.
Some of your other points:
Mosaic law (the commandments), did a bit of searching and it looks like it was pre-empted by other moral codes. One being the Egyptian book of the dead and the things needed to get into the afterlife, Chapter 125. Which bear resemblance to the exodus 20 proclamations. The other would be the Code of Hammurabi, which was formed ~700 years before the Mosaic law in Babylon. See what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
In terms of my daily life, I try to use a basic empathetic approach as a basic rule. You’ll probably say that is Christian, the “golden rule” of do onto others as you would have them unto you, but it has appeared throughout history before Jesus allegedly said it. Or the Leviticus 19:18 use of it. How I act isn’t “due to the Bible”, just some teachings of the bible happen to align with how I act.
I meant by the passed down comment, that what you call “the Bible” is simply a compilation of scrolls chosen by vote by a bunch of Romans. It’s a compilation and many were rejected, so you have an incomplete story.
As you say you have researched the NT, I would like to hear about dates and the original authors. To the best of my knowledge the gospels are anonymous and post date Jesus by decades, while the letter have author, but there are questions of forgery I’ve heard some raise. As for changes, even my bible says that Mark 16:9-20 aren’t in early manuscripts and are suspect.
That’s all I have the energy for at the moment, later,
Kraft
Finally some time to think and respond. Passed my belt test (no more white belt
) and earned a broken knuckle in the process Kind of long, didn't have time to cut it down and make it flow nicely.
Science- ok, that is pretty much the standard definition. You're missing the science uses methodological naturalism, that only natural explanations will be considered. It is assumed that all that exists is matter, no metaphysical realm or supernatural. When you say science will prove God, that is an illogical statement. Later you say that the evidence you agree with, but not the theory. To me this smacks of confirmation bias, you have your conclusions (the bible) and are working backwards to find support for it. I would venture to say the reason you don't agree with the theories is that they try to strive for a parsimonious solutions, positing another realm of which we have no knowledge (and many would argue cannot have knowledge of if it were to exist) is an added layer of complexity. Parsimony is another name for Ockham's razor, that if 2 explanations for the same phenomenon rely on a different number of assumptions, we should go with the one with the fewest assumptions. When I say conclusions I hold, they would be based off of theory or theories. You seem to hold some requirement for absolute proof, however, knowing the scientific method you should know that isn't something it gives. It confirms or disproves positive statements. I would argue the supernatural explanations aren't explanations at all. If one is proposing that the natural laws of the reality should suspend themselves so that a phenomenon occurs, that is no solution. It's not falsifiable and therefore not science. It could explain anything and thus explains nothing. No predictive or explanatory power. Such as what you say of God's power, paraphrasing: he wills such, thus it occurs. Saying God did it has the ring of an answer, but is utterly hollow.
Certainty-I think the problem here is that of confusing infallibility and certainty. I hold very few things 100%, as I know man is fallible. As we know man is fallible, we have ways of separating truth from falsehood, science being the most thorough test. From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
"In science, we do not work with metaphysical certainties. We support theories with empirical evidence, and test them by experiments set up to DISPROVE them vigorously and often. Failure to disprove a theory leads us to accepting it, tentatively. As Karl Popper says: "All theories will eventually be replaced by better ones." "
However I can have confidence in my knowledge based off the best evidence available. I'm not going to blindly and dogmatically hold them though, I am always questioning and revising my views. Contradiction isn't likely to established theories, only revision. You keep saying I must have great faith, as your religion takes faith as the highest virtue I'm not sure if that's criticism or compliment. Faith(1) which you think I need to endorse is exactly what I reject. Faith(1) is the rejection of epistemology, it has no standard of truth/falsity, simply a means to hold beliefs that can't be rationally demonstrated. You seem to take it that inductive reasoning must be topped up to 100% certainty with faith, which is blatantly false. This is an attempt to drop everyone to your level, using this kind of thinking one needs 'faith' the sun will rise. Now you start using this kind of faith barometer, "oh, they aren't too confident in X, must fill it up with 40% faith, guess my beliefs based on faith are ok then". Do you see how this position is ridiculous?
In reality, if there is evidence for the position, faith has no place at all. With evidence and reason we come to knowledge. There is doubt when the argument and evidence are insufficient or flawed, in these cases "I/We don't know" can be appropriate. However, when this comes up, you seem to think that means a supernatural 'explanation' is justified. No, the default position is that this is all there is, materialistic existence. If you wish to posit a supernatural realm the onus is on you to provide evidence and argument for it existing.
Naturalism - A quick summary
"The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.'' From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions."
When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out. Lightning isn't seen as Thor getting angry, earthquakes/eruptions aren't the titans trapped under the mountain, etc. Based on naturalistic explanations holding such explanatory and predictive power among other things, while supernatural ones continually lose ground, one can infer philosophical naturalism. With no argument for this supernatural realm and that the concept itself is unintelligible, it should be rejected (more on this later). Nature being the non-sentient universe. This is it, time, space, physical law, material, we may discover new laws, whatever, it is just another aspect of reality.
Abiogenesis - I think you can see why I said it would just be an extension of naturalism. As we have no evidence for anything else, the formation of life would come about due to the physical laws of the universe, ie. necessity, not chance. I would say, your statistic about a 100 aa protein is about the chance of all the atoms of the aa's coming together to form the protein at once, considering all other possibilities (that is the standard argument). However, if we consider all other possibilities, the chance of anything happening drops to slightly above 0. That a specific raindrop hits a specific blade of grass, is nigh impossible. That a rock has its structure is nigh impossible. That I am sitting at my computer typing is so improbable, it's inconceivable, I could be anywhere in the world or do this another moment, or have never been born or... You get the idea. I don't like the quote mining, but it's expected. The information quotes are red herrings, provide no backing for your argument, same with the 'size of human fossils' info. It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is, especially talking of evolution where the strongest case is genetic and biochemical. I don’t want to see this degenerate into a pure evolution discussion, and I’m not going to play the game where I have to come up with an answer for any biological question you can come up with. “Science must answer all, or I am justified in my magical thinking” isn’t a reasonable position, as explained above.
Why haven’t we found fossils of first life and why doesn’t it seem to still be around?
Well, they were obviously soft bodied and very small so I’d think fossilization would be unlikely. As for still being around, being out competed by descendants, possible incorporation and modification in other organisms, possible hypotheses. Some guesses, not really my area.
As for current views on it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.
Part of the reason what you’re saying bothers me is the consequence of such thinking. You say it’s evo + abio or divine creation and call them all theory. We have theory of abiogenesis and evolution, but as stated earlier, supernatural claims aren’t in the realm of science. Please don’t misrepresent it as theory. This way of looking at things makes it that any unknown is due to the supernatural, until a naturalistic explanation is given. I can see it in the places you stick God, once god was everywhere, now he’s receded to the unknowns of the origin of this universe and life. My point in showing the separation between abio and evo was that citing ‘problems’ with abiogenesis isn’t a problem with evolution. What it seems you are working against is naturalism, which I find surprising as I gather you have 20 years experience in evolution from your posts. Or was that meant to say you’ve been following evolutionary theory for 20 years and happen to be a scientist?
Hope that all makes sense, it’s a basic overview of my thoughts on many things. In terms of atheism, I can get into some atheistic arguments or go into problems apologetic arguments. Also, I’ll come up with some biblical questions if I have time.
The books by Carrier and Smith I mentioned earlier helped shape some of these views, same with Massimo Pigliucci’s Tales of the Rational.
Some of your other points:
Mosaic law (the commandments), did a bit of searching and it looks like it was pre-empted by other moral codes. One being the Egyptian book of the dead and the things needed to get into the afterlife, Chapter 125. Which bear resemblance to the exodus 20 proclamations. The other would be the Code of Hammurabi, which was formed ~700 years before the Mosaic law in Babylon. See what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
In terms of my daily life, I try to use a basic empathetic approach as a basic rule. You’ll probably say that is Christian, the “golden rule” of do onto others as you would have them unto you, but it has appeared throughout history before Jesus allegedly said it. Or the Leviticus 19:18 use of it. How I act isn’t “due to the Bible”, just some teachings of the bible happen to align with how I act.
I meant by the passed down comment, that what you call “the Bible” is simply a compilation of scrolls chosen by vote by a bunch of Romans. It’s a compilation and many were rejected, so you have an incomplete story.
As you say you have researched the NT, I would like to hear about dates and the original authors. To the best of my knowledge the gospels are anonymous and post date Jesus by decades, while the letter have author, but there are questions of forgery I’ve heard some raise. As for changes, even my bible says that Mark 16:9-20 aren’t in early manuscripts and are suspect.
That’s all I have the energy for at the moment, later,
Kraft
Kraft,
Man, that is quite a bit of stuff. After reading through once, I have a recommendation. Use some original thought. Try not to get caught up in things others have postulated. Nothing wrong with reading other’s thoughts and conclusions, reviewing evidence, etc. Use what you find useful. But climb out of the box. I find it interesting that rather than debate, you simply give books or websites for information. I would rather see you put things into your own words, or site direct quotes, etc., and debate from them.
>Science- ok, that is pretty much the standard definition. You're missing the science uses methodological naturalism, that only natural explanations will be considered.<
Right. But who determines what is natural, and what is not? Why oh why cannot science prove God? Why do you automatically place God in the realm of the supernatural? What if He embodies the "natural" world.
>It is assumed that all that exists is matter, no metaphysical realm or supernatural.<
You know what happens when one assumes, right? Further, who decides what is supernatural? Many things once thought "supernatural" have been proven by science. I consider Hawking’s work to expose the supernatural. Come on, the entire universe came from a singularity, smaller than a mustard seed, and expanded into what we see today? If you believe that theory has merit, then it appears you may believe in the supernatural. The Big Bang sounds about like what I would expect from God in Genesis 1:1.
>When you say science will prove God, that is an illogical statement.<
No, I said it would prove creationism before it proves evolution. I said I don’t think we will be around to see it.
>Later you say that the evidence you agree with, but not the theory. To me this smacks of confirmation bias, you have your conclusions (the bible) and are working backwards to find support for it.<
Please do not assume what I do in order to found my beliefs. If you wish to know, simply ask. I did not start with the Bible or science. I simply observed both, the evidence on both sides, and came to my conclusions. If anything, when I began my journey, I started solely with science.
>I would venture to say the reason you don't agree with the theories is that they try to strive for a parsimonious solutions, positing another realm of which we have no knowledge (and many would argue cannot have knowledge of if it were to exist) is an added layer of complexity. Parsimony is another name for Ockham's razor, that if 2 explanations for the same phenomenon rely on a different number of assumptions, we should go with the one with the fewest assumptions. When I say conclusions I hold, they would be based off of theory or theories.<
I have no problem with anyone positing a theory. None whatsoever. I do have a problem with scientists throwing out conclusions based on facts not in evidence.
>You seem to hold some requirement for absolute proof, however, knowing the scientific method you should know that isn't something it gives.<
No. As I have said several times, I do not believe anything will ever be "proved". I do my own research, and have come to my life conclusions based on that research. Can I "prove" them correct? I can to myself. But others will have their own level of proof before they can believe.
>It confirms or disproves positive statements.<
Exactly, and as any evolution scientist will tell you, almost any "statement" made about evolution, of any significant age, has been disproved, by scientists. Then, as they should, they go back, re-postulate, and try again. That is fine. But one should not expound the whole, shout it from the rooftops, teach it in schools, when one cannot even prove even a bit of the whole.
Following are just a few quotes of scientists dedicated to the premise of evolution. If you can find anything…anything regarding evolution, that anyone can have some significant portion of confidence in, I would appreciate reading it.
I am sorry there are so many of these. But I do believe they are important, and interesting.
CHARLES DARWIN, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
S. M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins Univ. "Once established, an average species of animal or plant will not change enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something like a hundred thousand or a million, or even ten million generations... Something tends to prevent the wholesale restructuring of a species, once it has become well established on earth."
STEPHEN T. GOULD, HARVARD, We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence.
CHARLES DARWIN, "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."
Yet even the staunchest supporters of "Out of Africa" (a theory which says all modern humans evolved from Africa millions of years ago) concede that the issue is still unresolved. As Ian Tattersall, an evolutionary biologist and head of the anthropology department at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, explains, "The emergence of Homo sapiens is still the really big mystery in human evolution."
STEPHEN T. GOULD, Harvard, "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species. ...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change." Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 14/2/1980
STEPHEN. T GOULD Harvard, "I we] I remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid -1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution ... I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is often forever - but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." .
FRANCIS CRICK, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. l will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual."
T.H. MORGAN Prof Zoology, Columbia, Univ., "If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."
SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BathmateNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless."
STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome .... brings terrible distress. ...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it."
S.J. GOULD, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence .... I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record .... we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
DARWIN, "....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? .... why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory".
DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information."
NELES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of the history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."
DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been 'debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge."
D. S. WOODROF'F, Univ. of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."
A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."
NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven t found any evolution. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, and are stable once established."
S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly ... a punctuational model of evolution ... operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them in small, localized, transitory populations. ...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found."
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven’t got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. "
Valentine (Univ. of CA) & Erwin (MI St. Univ), "We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans. "
D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories .... the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution."
MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
>I would argue the supernatural explanations aren't explanations at all. If one is proposing that the natural laws of the reality should suspend themselves so that a phenomenon occurs, that is no solution.<
Once again, what do you consider supernatural? No current explanation? What? What if God is the most natural thing in the universe?
>It's not falsifiable and therefore not science. It could explain anything and thus explains nothing. No predictive or explanatory power. Such as what you say of God's power, paraphrasing: he wills such, thus it occurs. Saying God did it has the ring of an answer, but is utterly hollow.<
So you place your faith in that God cannot be disproved? How truly sad. This thought is truly absurd. You reject anything that, you THINK, cannot be proven or disproved by science. I have not heard WHY God cannot be proven, or disproved by science, from anyone. When the subject is on the order of how all things came about, you will be sorely limited in your beliefs, or even your thoughts, using this logic.
>Certainty-I think the problem here is that of confusing infallibility and certainty. I hold very few things 100%, as I know man is fallible. As we know man is fallible, we have ways of separating truth from falsehood, science being the most thorough test. From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
"In science, we do not work with metaphysical certainties. We support theories with empirical evidence, and test them by experiments set up to DISPROVE them vigorously and often. Failure to disprove a theory leads us to accepting it, tentatively. As Karl Popper says: "All theories will eventually be replaced by better ones." "<
Concerning evolution, everything thus far has been disproved. I am not aware of any ground breaking "new" significant theories since punctuated equilibrium. Do you know of any?
>However I can have confidence in my knowledge based off the best evidence available. I'm not going to blindly and dogmatically hold them though, I am always questioning and revising my views. Contradiction isn't likely to established theories, only revision. You keep saying I must have great faith, as your religion takes faith as the highest virtue I'm not sure if that's criticism or compliment. Faith(1) which you think I need to endorse is exactly what I reject. Faith(1) is the rejection of epistemology, it has no standard of truth/falsity, simply a means to hold beliefs that can't be rationally demonstrated. You seem to take it that inductive reasoning must be topped up to 100% certainty with faith, which is blatantly false. This is an attempt to drop everyone to your level, using this kind of thinking one needs 'faith' the sun will rise. Now you start using this kind of faith barometer, "oh, they aren't too confident in X, must fill it up with 40% faith, guess my beliefs based on faith are ok then". Do you see how this position is ridiculous?<
Actually, I have no idea what you mean. Whether you wish it to be untrue or not, believing in evolution, as it stands today, requires great faith. If not faith, then there should be a great depository of information, evidence, that would back up the theory, or your beliefs in the theory. There is not to my knowledge. So, if you believe in evolution, at any level, you must have at least some faith. If you are saying you neither believe or disbelieve, then that is another matter.
>In reality, if there is evidence for the position, faith has no place at all. With evidence and reason we come to knowledge.<
Exactly. Where is the evidence?
>There is doubt when the argument and evidence are insufficient or flawed, in these cases "I/We don't know" can be appropriate. However, when this comes up, you seem to think that means a supernatural 'explanation' is justified.<
I surely do not. Please leave the realm of my beliefs to me. Just ask specifically what you wish to know, and I will tell you, if I can.
>No, the default position is that this is all there is, materialistic existence. If you wish to posit a supernatural realm the onus is on you to provide evidence and argument for it existing.<
I can surely give you my evidence for creationism. It is sufficient for myself. I do not consider it to be "supernatural". I believe it to be normal, as shown by evidence.
>When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out.<
Except in the case of evolution vs creationism. But then, I should ask how you are judging the contest. Today, there are many more believers than non-believers.
>Abiogenesis - I think you can see why I said it would just be an extension of naturalism. As we have no evidence for anything else, the formation of life would come about due to the physical laws of the universe, ie. necessity, not chance.<
But see, you have no evidence for Abiogenesis! There is ZERO evidence for it. In fact, there is complete evidence against the odds it would occur, and the LAWS of nature would have to be violated for it to happen! You say, "we have no evidence for anything else". Well friend, you have no evidence for what you believe either.
>I don't like the quote mining, but it's expected.<
What? You do not like reading what others have concluded, who have done work in the field? It would be very hard for any one individual to do all the original research needed to come to a personal decision. Almost any science performed today is based on the work of others.
>The information quotes are red herrings, provide no backing for your argument, same with the 'size of human fossils' info.<
You must be joking. It is all scientific evidence. You may reject it. We may debate it. But it is there. It seems you now wish to throw away, or ignore the evidence. Below, I quote some of the leaders in the various fields concerning evolution. Many are atheists. And you want to disregard what they have found or concluded? What kind of scientific approach is that?
>It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is<
My gosh man, repeatability is one of the major foundations of science. I cannot believe you wrote that. By that logic, if you have zero evidence, but the theory sounds good, you can still put great confidence in it?
>especially talking of evolution where the strongest case is genetic and biochemical.<
That is great. Genetics is my old field man. So you can provide me with specific evidence supporting the theory of evolution using genetics and biochemistry? I cannot wait.
The following is pretty funny:
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific "detectives," working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: "Sounds like pretty complicated work."
S: "You can’t imagine how complicated!"
G: "Try me."
S: "I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words."
G: "With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!"
S: "There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease."
G: "So how do you do it?"
S: "We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by."
G: "How did all that information happen to get there?"
S: "Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?"
G: "Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?"
S: "George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius’, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!"
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
S: "No. It all just evolved."
G: "What? You just told me ---?"
S: "Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
S: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’."
G: "What elephant?"
S: "Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!"
Or perhaps you would like to discuss the newer mDNA research? I find that fascinating.
>I don’t want to see this degenerate into a pure evolution discussion, and I’m not going to play the game where I have to come up with an answer for any biological question you can come up with. "Science must answer all, or I am justified in my magical thinking" isn’t a reasonable position, as explained above.<
I do not expect that at all. I would appreciate any smidgen of information you might have that points to the truth of evolution, or that has not been disproved yet. Actually, any answers whatsoever would be refreshing.
>Why haven’t we found fossils of first life and why doesn’t it seem to still be around?
Well, they were obviously soft bodied and very small so I’d think fossilization would be unlikely.<
Not true at all. In fact, I would say that there is easily more fossil information on soft bodied species than anything else to date. As you can see from the quotes above, most paleontologists work in the lower orders.
>As for still being around, being out competed by descendants, possible incorporation and modification in other organisms, possible hypotheses. Some guesses, not really my area.<
I have no idea what this means. The fossil record is fairly well complete.
>I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.<
And yet you have faith that it did happen in the manner you believe.
I do not wish to debate another source through you. But the very simple, and obvious question would be, ‘then where is the evidence’. I read briefly over the site. They write of the slow formation of some things from others, evolution into a cell. But there should easily be evidence of this in the record. It has been looked for. It is not there, or has not been found yet. If you know of any, please report. They further write of things that could not have happened, without some ‘miraculous’ turns of physics. It is great to try and prove or disprove something. But you must have evidence in order to do it. The evidence, or lack thereof, so far tends to completely disprove spontaneous generation.
>Part of the reason what you’re saying bothers me is the consequence of such thinking. You say it’s evo + abio or divine creation and call them all theory. We have theory of abiogenesis and evolution, but as stated earlier, supernatural claims aren’t in the realm of science. Please don’t misrepresent it as theory.<
Still, you seem to have a hard time defining supernatural, or wish to define it in some personally held belief. You appear to be hung up on this. You are defining a Being as supernatural, that I personally believe to be natural. Always there, always been there. What you seem to be saying is that; just your METHOD of believing in anything precludes the possible existence of God. What rubbish. Science as developed over the years does not preclude ANY explanation. There are simply things that have not been answered yet. Do not attempt to co-op science into your own belief system, and change what it is. You are deigning completely-without -possibility anything occurring that you cannot fathom. I might also point out, that many scientists ascribe things they cannot explain into the realm of :God".
>This way of looking at things makes it that any unknown is due to the supernatural, until a naturalistic explanation is given.<
Not at all. Some things can be simply unknown. It is not a crime. It does not have to be one or the other or something in between.
>I can see it in the places you stick God, once god was everywhere, now he’s receded to the unknowns of the origin of this universe and life.<
I have no idea what you mean.
>My point in showing the separation between abio and evo was that citing ‘problems’ with abiogenesis isn’t a problem with evolution.<
Then, you must have some other kicking off point for evolution. Obviously, science does NOT support a theory that cannot explain even the foundation of the theory. That is like defining the Laws of Thermodynamics without defining mass. You are your own critic in this matter. The first life was just ‘there’, by magic, or what? Was it "supernatural"? Whether you like it or not, they are joined at the hip.
>What it seems you are working against is naturalism, which I find surprising as I gather you have 20 years experience in evolution from your posts. Or was that meant to say you’ve been following evolutionary theory for 20 years and happen to be a scientist?<
What kind of logic is that? If you work with, or research evolution, you must believe in a certain methodology?
After getting my BS, I worked in reproductive physiology and genetics. Later in other fields. I have followed information in many fields related to evolution over the years.
>Mosaic law (the commandments), did a bit of searching and it looks like it was pre-empted by other moral codes. One being the Egyptian book of the dead and the things needed to get into the afterlife, Chapter 125. Which bear resemblance to the exodus 20 proclamations. The other would be the Code of Hammurabi, which was formed ~700 years before the Mosaic law in Babylon. See what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi<
I looked at your link. What evidence is there that Mosaic law was "pre-empted by other moral codes"? The link you gave had no evidence of this. Or do you think that because something was written in stone, it must have come first? And you claim to believe in science? Rubbish.
The first writing came about the time of Abraham. Nobody knows exactly when the first WRITTEN record of the Torah was made. Until then, in prehistoric time, everything was passed by word.
From your link:
"It was initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse). After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. It became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved."
The time of Abraham has been determined to be about 2300 BC. The exodus occurred much earlier. Therefore, a very good case can be made that Mosaic law predates any other by many thousands of years. I believe almost every scholar I have read, believes this to be true.
>In terms of my daily life, I try to use a basic empathetic approach as a basic rule. You’ll probably say that is Christian, the "golden rule" of do onto others as you would have them unto you, but it has appeared throughout history before Jesus allegedly said it. Or the Leviticus 19:18 use of it. How I act isn’t "due to the Bible", just some teachings of the bible happen to align with how I act.<
OK, yeah right. You were taught in schools, by your parents, and I believe in Sunday school? You do not think the Bible worked into the things you were taught? You are dreaming. If you have any other sources of these laws predating the Bible, I would be glad to look at them.
>I meant by the passed down comment, that what you call "the Bible" is simply a compilation of scrolls chosen by vote by a bunch of Romans. It’s a compilation and many were rejected, so you have an incomplete story.<
Obviously, since we have the other scrolls, it is not an incomplete story. I can judge for myself their worth. Further, one does not have to rely on translations. You can go back to the original Hebrew. There is the possibility of error in passing the oral record, in prehistoric time. But I will judge on what I can read.
>As you say you have researched the NT, I would like to hear about dates and the original authors. To the best of my knowledge the gospels are anonymous and post date Jesus by decades, while the letter have author, but there are questions of forgery I’ve heard some raise. As for changes, even my bible says that Mark 16:9-20 aren’t in early manuscripts and are suspect.<
Do you mean the guys did not drop their cups at the last supper, go to their rooms, and jot down everything? I suppose not. But then, I truly love the differences in the Gospels. It makes it greatly more believable to me. The Gospels do post date Jesus by decades, as best as can be determined. I see no reason why that should make them any less reliable, considering the importance of the topic, I would imagine accuracy would be important.
I would be interested in any evidence of "forgery" you might find.
Bigger
Man, that is quite a bit of stuff. After reading through once, I have a recommendation. Use some original thought. Try not to get caught up in things others have postulated. Nothing wrong with reading other’s thoughts and conclusions, reviewing evidence, etc. Use what you find useful. But climb out of the box. I find it interesting that rather than debate, you simply give books or websites for information. I would rather see you put things into your own words, or site direct quotes, etc., and debate from them.
>Science- ok, that is pretty much the standard definition. You're missing the science uses methodological naturalism, that only natural explanations will be considered.<
Right. But who determines what is natural, and what is not? Why oh why cannot science prove God? Why do you automatically place God in the realm of the supernatural? What if He embodies the "natural" world.
>It is assumed that all that exists is matter, no metaphysical realm or supernatural.<
You know what happens when one assumes, right? Further, who decides what is supernatural? Many things once thought "supernatural" have been proven by science. I consider Hawking’s work to expose the supernatural. Come on, the entire universe came from a singularity, smaller than a mustard seed, and expanded into what we see today? If you believe that theory has merit, then it appears you may believe in the supernatural. The Big Bang sounds about like what I would expect from God in Genesis 1:1.
>When you say science will prove God, that is an illogical statement.<
No, I said it would prove creationism before it proves evolution. I said I don’t think we will be around to see it.
>Later you say that the evidence you agree with, but not the theory. To me this smacks of confirmation bias, you have your conclusions (the bible) and are working backwards to find support for it.<
Please do not assume what I do in order to found my beliefs. If you wish to know, simply ask. I did not start with the Bible or science. I simply observed both, the evidence on both sides, and came to my conclusions. If anything, when I began my journey, I started solely with science.
>I would venture to say the reason you don't agree with the theories is that they try to strive for a parsimonious solutions, positing another realm of which we have no knowledge (and many would argue cannot have knowledge of if it were to exist) is an added layer of complexity. Parsimony is another name for Ockham's razor, that if 2 explanations for the same phenomenon rely on a different number of assumptions, we should go with the one with the fewest assumptions. When I say conclusions I hold, they would be based off of theory or theories.<
I have no problem with anyone positing a theory. None whatsoever. I do have a problem with scientists throwing out conclusions based on facts not in evidence.
>You seem to hold some requirement for absolute proof, however, knowing the scientific method you should know that isn't something it gives.<
No. As I have said several times, I do not believe anything will ever be "proved". I do my own research, and have come to my life conclusions based on that research. Can I "prove" them correct? I can to myself. But others will have their own level of proof before they can believe.
>It confirms or disproves positive statements.<
Exactly, and as any evolution scientist will tell you, almost any "statement" made about evolution, of any significant age, has been disproved, by scientists. Then, as they should, they go back, re-postulate, and try again. That is fine. But one should not expound the whole, shout it from the rooftops, teach it in schools, when one cannot even prove even a bit of the whole.
Following are just a few quotes of scientists dedicated to the premise of evolution. If you can find anything…anything regarding evolution, that anyone can have some significant portion of confidence in, I would appreciate reading it.
I am sorry there are so many of these. But I do believe they are important, and interesting.
CHARLES DARWIN, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
S. M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins Univ. "Once established, an average species of animal or plant will not change enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something like a hundred thousand or a million, or even ten million generations... Something tends to prevent the wholesale restructuring of a species, once it has become well established on earth."
STEPHEN T. GOULD, HARVARD, We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence.
CHARLES DARWIN, "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."
Yet even the staunchest supporters of "Out of Africa" (a theory which says all modern humans evolved from Africa millions of years ago) concede that the issue is still unresolved. As Ian Tattersall, an evolutionary biologist and head of the anthropology department at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, explains, "The emergence of Homo sapiens is still the really big mystery in human evolution."
STEPHEN T. GOULD, Harvard, "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species. ...That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change." Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 14/2/1980
STEPHEN. T GOULD Harvard, "I we] I remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid -1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution ... I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is often forever - but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." .
FRANCIS CRICK, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. l will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual."
T.H. MORGAN Prof Zoology, Columbia, Univ., "If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."
SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BathmateNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless."
STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome .... brings terrible distress. ...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it."
S.J. GOULD, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence .... I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record .... we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
DARWIN, "....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? .... why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory".
DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information."
NELES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of the history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."
DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been 'debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge."
D. S. WOODROF'F, Univ. of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."
A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."
NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven t found any evolution. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, and are stable once established."
S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly ... a punctuational model of evolution ... operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them in small, localized, transitory populations. ...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found."
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven’t got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. "
Valentine (Univ. of CA) & Erwin (MI St. Univ), "We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans. "
D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories .... the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution."
MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
>I would argue the supernatural explanations aren't explanations at all. If one is proposing that the natural laws of the reality should suspend themselves so that a phenomenon occurs, that is no solution.<
Once again, what do you consider supernatural? No current explanation? What? What if God is the most natural thing in the universe?
>It's not falsifiable and therefore not science. It could explain anything and thus explains nothing. No predictive or explanatory power. Such as what you say of God's power, paraphrasing: he wills such, thus it occurs. Saying God did it has the ring of an answer, but is utterly hollow.<
So you place your faith in that God cannot be disproved? How truly sad. This thought is truly absurd. You reject anything that, you THINK, cannot be proven or disproved by science. I have not heard WHY God cannot be proven, or disproved by science, from anyone. When the subject is on the order of how all things came about, you will be sorely limited in your beliefs, or even your thoughts, using this logic.
>Certainty-I think the problem here is that of confusing infallibility and certainty. I hold very few things 100%, as I know man is fallible. As we know man is fallible, we have ways of separating truth from falsehood, science being the most thorough test. From Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
"In science, we do not work with metaphysical certainties. We support theories with empirical evidence, and test them by experiments set up to DISPROVE them vigorously and often. Failure to disprove a theory leads us to accepting it, tentatively. As Karl Popper says: "All theories will eventually be replaced by better ones." "<
Concerning evolution, everything thus far has been disproved. I am not aware of any ground breaking "new" significant theories since punctuated equilibrium. Do you know of any?
>However I can have confidence in my knowledge based off the best evidence available. I'm not going to blindly and dogmatically hold them though, I am always questioning and revising my views. Contradiction isn't likely to established theories, only revision. You keep saying I must have great faith, as your religion takes faith as the highest virtue I'm not sure if that's criticism or compliment. Faith(1) which you think I need to endorse is exactly what I reject. Faith(1) is the rejection of epistemology, it has no standard of truth/falsity, simply a means to hold beliefs that can't be rationally demonstrated. You seem to take it that inductive reasoning must be topped up to 100% certainty with faith, which is blatantly false. This is an attempt to drop everyone to your level, using this kind of thinking one needs 'faith' the sun will rise. Now you start using this kind of faith barometer, "oh, they aren't too confident in X, must fill it up with 40% faith, guess my beliefs based on faith are ok then". Do you see how this position is ridiculous?<
Actually, I have no idea what you mean. Whether you wish it to be untrue or not, believing in evolution, as it stands today, requires great faith. If not faith, then there should be a great depository of information, evidence, that would back up the theory, or your beliefs in the theory. There is not to my knowledge. So, if you believe in evolution, at any level, you must have at least some faith. If you are saying you neither believe or disbelieve, then that is another matter.
>In reality, if there is evidence for the position, faith has no place at all. With evidence and reason we come to knowledge.<
Exactly. Where is the evidence?
>There is doubt when the argument and evidence are insufficient or flawed, in these cases "I/We don't know" can be appropriate. However, when this comes up, you seem to think that means a supernatural 'explanation' is justified.<
I surely do not. Please leave the realm of my beliefs to me. Just ask specifically what you wish to know, and I will tell you, if I can.
>No, the default position is that this is all there is, materialistic existence. If you wish to posit a supernatural realm the onus is on you to provide evidence and argument for it existing.<
I can surely give you my evidence for creationism. It is sufficient for myself. I do not consider it to be "supernatural". I believe it to be normal, as shown by evidence.
>When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out.<
Except in the case of evolution vs creationism. But then, I should ask how you are judging the contest. Today, there are many more believers than non-believers.
>Abiogenesis - I think you can see why I said it would just be an extension of naturalism. As we have no evidence for anything else, the formation of life would come about due to the physical laws of the universe, ie. necessity, not chance.<
But see, you have no evidence for Abiogenesis! There is ZERO evidence for it. In fact, there is complete evidence against the odds it would occur, and the LAWS of nature would have to be violated for it to happen! You say, "we have no evidence for anything else". Well friend, you have no evidence for what you believe either.
>I don't like the quote mining, but it's expected.<
What? You do not like reading what others have concluded, who have done work in the field? It would be very hard for any one individual to do all the original research needed to come to a personal decision. Almost any science performed today is based on the work of others.
>The information quotes are red herrings, provide no backing for your argument, same with the 'size of human fossils' info.<
You must be joking. It is all scientific evidence. You may reject it. We may debate it. But it is there. It seems you now wish to throw away, or ignore the evidence. Below, I quote some of the leaders in the various fields concerning evolution. Many are atheists. And you want to disregard what they have found or concluded? What kind of scientific approach is that?
>It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is<
My gosh man, repeatability is one of the major foundations of science. I cannot believe you wrote that. By that logic, if you have zero evidence, but the theory sounds good, you can still put great confidence in it?
>especially talking of evolution where the strongest case is genetic and biochemical.<
That is great. Genetics is my old field man. So you can provide me with specific evidence supporting the theory of evolution using genetics and biochemistry? I cannot wait.
The following is pretty funny:
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific "detectives," working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: "Sounds like pretty complicated work."
S: "You can’t imagine how complicated!"
G: "Try me."
S: "I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words."
G: "With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!"
S: "There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease."
G: "So how do you do it?"
S: "We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by."
G: "How did all that information happen to get there?"
S: "Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?"
G: "Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?"
S: "George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius’, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!"
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
S: "No. It all just evolved."
G: "What? You just told me ---?"
S: "Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
S: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’."
G: "What elephant?"
S: "Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!"
Or perhaps you would like to discuss the newer mDNA research? I find that fascinating.
>I don’t want to see this degenerate into a pure evolution discussion, and I’m not going to play the game where I have to come up with an answer for any biological question you can come up with. "Science must answer all, or I am justified in my magical thinking" isn’t a reasonable position, as explained above.<
I do not expect that at all. I would appreciate any smidgen of information you might have that points to the truth of evolution, or that has not been disproved yet. Actually, any answers whatsoever would be refreshing.
>Why haven’t we found fossils of first life and why doesn’t it seem to still be around?
Well, they were obviously soft bodied and very small so I’d think fossilization would be unlikely.<
Not true at all. In fact, I would say that there is easily more fossil information on soft bodied species than anything else to date. As you can see from the quotes above, most paleontologists work in the lower orders.
>As for still being around, being out competed by descendants, possible incorporation and modification in other organisms, possible hypotheses. Some guesses, not really my area.<
I have no idea what this means. The fossil record is fairly well complete.
>I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.<
And yet you have faith that it did happen in the manner you believe.
I do not wish to debate another source through you. But the very simple, and obvious question would be, ‘then where is the evidence’. I read briefly over the site. They write of the slow formation of some things from others, evolution into a cell. But there should easily be evidence of this in the record. It has been looked for. It is not there, or has not been found yet. If you know of any, please report. They further write of things that could not have happened, without some ‘miraculous’ turns of physics. It is great to try and prove or disprove something. But you must have evidence in order to do it. The evidence, or lack thereof, so far tends to completely disprove spontaneous generation.
>Part of the reason what you’re saying bothers me is the consequence of such thinking. You say it’s evo + abio or divine creation and call them all theory. We have theory of abiogenesis and evolution, but as stated earlier, supernatural claims aren’t in the realm of science. Please don’t misrepresent it as theory.<
Still, you seem to have a hard time defining supernatural, or wish to define it in some personally held belief. You appear to be hung up on this. You are defining a Being as supernatural, that I personally believe to be natural. Always there, always been there. What you seem to be saying is that; just your METHOD of believing in anything precludes the possible existence of God. What rubbish. Science as developed over the years does not preclude ANY explanation. There are simply things that have not been answered yet. Do not attempt to co-op science into your own belief system, and change what it is. You are deigning completely-without -possibility anything occurring that you cannot fathom. I might also point out, that many scientists ascribe things they cannot explain into the realm of :God".
>This way of looking at things makes it that any unknown is due to the supernatural, until a naturalistic explanation is given.<
Not at all. Some things can be simply unknown. It is not a crime. It does not have to be one or the other or something in between.
>I can see it in the places you stick God, once god was everywhere, now he’s receded to the unknowns of the origin of this universe and life.<
I have no idea what you mean.
>My point in showing the separation between abio and evo was that citing ‘problems’ with abiogenesis isn’t a problem with evolution.<
Then, you must have some other kicking off point for evolution. Obviously, science does NOT support a theory that cannot explain even the foundation of the theory. That is like defining the Laws of Thermodynamics without defining mass. You are your own critic in this matter. The first life was just ‘there’, by magic, or what? Was it "supernatural"? Whether you like it or not, they are joined at the hip.
>What it seems you are working against is naturalism, which I find surprising as I gather you have 20 years experience in evolution from your posts. Or was that meant to say you’ve been following evolutionary theory for 20 years and happen to be a scientist?<
What kind of logic is that? If you work with, or research evolution, you must believe in a certain methodology?
After getting my BS, I worked in reproductive physiology and genetics. Later in other fields. I have followed information in many fields related to evolution over the years.
>Mosaic law (the commandments), did a bit of searching and it looks like it was pre-empted by other moral codes. One being the Egyptian book of the dead and the things needed to get into the afterlife, Chapter 125. Which bear resemblance to the exodus 20 proclamations. The other would be the Code of Hammurabi, which was formed ~700 years before the Mosaic law in Babylon. See what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi<
I looked at your link. What evidence is there that Mosaic law was "pre-empted by other moral codes"? The link you gave had no evidence of this. Or do you think that because something was written in stone, it must have come first? And you claim to believe in science? Rubbish.
The first writing came about the time of Abraham. Nobody knows exactly when the first WRITTEN record of the Torah was made. Until then, in prehistoric time, everything was passed by word.
From your link:
"It was initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse). After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. It became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved."
The time of Abraham has been determined to be about 2300 BC. The exodus occurred much earlier. Therefore, a very good case can be made that Mosaic law predates any other by many thousands of years. I believe almost every scholar I have read, believes this to be true.
>In terms of my daily life, I try to use a basic empathetic approach as a basic rule. You’ll probably say that is Christian, the "golden rule" of do onto others as you would have them unto you, but it has appeared throughout history before Jesus allegedly said it. Or the Leviticus 19:18 use of it. How I act isn’t "due to the Bible", just some teachings of the bible happen to align with how I act.<
OK, yeah right. You were taught in schools, by your parents, and I believe in Sunday school? You do not think the Bible worked into the things you were taught? You are dreaming. If you have any other sources of these laws predating the Bible, I would be glad to look at them.
>I meant by the passed down comment, that what you call "the Bible" is simply a compilation of scrolls chosen by vote by a bunch of Romans. It’s a compilation and many were rejected, so you have an incomplete story.<
Obviously, since we have the other scrolls, it is not an incomplete story. I can judge for myself their worth. Further, one does not have to rely on translations. You can go back to the original Hebrew. There is the possibility of error in passing the oral record, in prehistoric time. But I will judge on what I can read.
>As you say you have researched the NT, I would like to hear about dates and the original authors. To the best of my knowledge the gospels are anonymous and post date Jesus by decades, while the letter have author, but there are questions of forgery I’ve heard some raise. As for changes, even my bible says that Mark 16:9-20 aren’t in early manuscripts and are suspect.<
Do you mean the guys did not drop their cups at the last supper, go to their rooms, and jot down everything? I suppose not. But then, I truly love the differences in the Gospels. It makes it greatly more believable to me. The Gospels do post date Jesus by decades, as best as can be determined. I see no reason why that should make them any less reliable, considering the importance of the topic, I would imagine accuracy would be important.
I would be interested in any evidence of "forgery" you might find.
Bigger
Creationism is a belief not a theory, in a scientific context. A scientific theory is much different than just a theory that some jackass might come up with, to theorize on something. Their definitions are much different.
It's not even a quesition if evolution has happened, it's a fact. Proven like 98% with out a doubt. The evidence is overwhelming.
Now people will try to distract you by poking little insignificant holes in the theory, like "well if thats true then how come.....blah blah....? oh you can't explain it? well then evolution is wrong". enough with the false logic already. or posting a million quotes that nobody knows where you got it from (probably some anti-evolution pro-intelligent design website), that were probably taken out of context in the first place.
It's not even a quesition if evolution has happened, it's a fact. Proven like 98% with out a doubt. The evidence is overwhelming.
Now people will try to distract you by poking little insignificant holes in the theory, like "well if thats true then how come.....blah blah....? oh you can't explain it? well then evolution is wrong". enough with the false logic already. or posting a million quotes that nobody knows where you got it from (probably some anti-evolution pro-intelligent design website), that were probably taken out of context in the first place.
Last edited:
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
anti-pop said:
Anti-pop you just dug a big hole to fall into. It is a question about evolution, did evolution happen, it didn't and there is not proof it did and to say there is 98% proof without a doubt is showing your lack of study. Then to say that the fossil evidence alone is overwhelming....that is ludicrous. If there was fossil evidence then we could believe evolution then we could believe. There is no evidence of evolution. There are no fossil evidence to show the so called jumping from lower to higher forms. Don't give us this stuff. It takes blind faith to believe evolution...actually more so called faith, in evolution, to believe it. The real reason evolutionists believe in evolution is they don't want to give accountability to a God of creation. You say, enough with the false logic...it is the evolutionist that have false logic and if you don't know this, you have not been honest with yourself. I have never posted a quote I didn't back up and no it was not taken out of context and no, no one later retracted it. There is much proof that evolution didn't happen. Just common sense tells you there is a design behind our creation. The possibility of all this just happening on the earth is just not even fathomable. GS
Ah, another long post
I wrote in that style as I find it theraputic, this line by line stuff can get annoying. The last post was kind of a summary, to break down my thinking, as per a discussion, not a debate.
Nature - "By "nature" we mean a non-sentient universe, with all its properties and behaviors. Basically, we mean nothing more than space, time, material, and physical law." (Carrier, Sense and Goodness, P. 68). In other words, reality is all there is, it's a closed system.
While I work on my response, please explain how life got started. Don't tell me to read genesis in the bible, I want to know how and what evidence you have for this.
Also, as evolution 'can't' happen, what is the creationist explaination of adaptation?
Why do you believe this god if it exists is the christian one? If there was a different religion that fit better with reality, would you switch to it?
Lastly, if the rational arguments for your belief were to be refuted someday, would you leave christianity/theism?
Thanks,
Kraft
I wrote in that style as I find it theraputic, this line by line stuff can get annoying. The last post was kind of a summary, to break down my thinking, as per a discussion, not a debate.
Nature - "By "nature" we mean a non-sentient universe, with all its properties and behaviors. Basically, we mean nothing more than space, time, material, and physical law." (Carrier, Sense and Goodness, P. 68). In other words, reality is all there is, it's a closed system.
While I work on my response, please explain how life got started. Don't tell me to read genesis in the bible, I want to know how and what evidence you have for this.
Also, as evolution 'can't' happen, what is the creationist explaination of adaptation?
Why do you believe this god if it exists is the christian one? If there was a different religion that fit better with reality, would you switch to it?
Lastly, if the rational arguments for your belief were to be refuted someday, would you leave christianity/theism?
Thanks,
Kraft
Kraft,
>I wrote in that style as I find it theraputic, this line by line stuff can get annoying. The last post was kind of a summary, to break down my thinking, as per a discussion, not a debate.<
How can I address your points, if not line by line? Or would you rather we not address each other’s points?
>Nature - "By "nature" we mean a non-sentient universe, with all its properties and behaviors. Basically, we mean nothing more than space, time, material, and physical law." (Carrier, Sense and Goodness, P. 68). In other words, reality is all there is, it's a closed system.<
I see. I surely see the "closed system" part. So, it will be very tough to debate anything, if you are not even able to consider the possibility, however small, of a plan as to how we got here. That would be the definition of close minded.
>While I work on my response, please explain how life got started. Don't tell me to read genesis in the bible, I want to know how and what evidence you have for this.<
Well, the Bible would surely be the hypothesis. It gives the possibility, the theory if you will, that there was a creator. That he was able, by some means yet unfound, to give the spark of life. But it surely does not provide any proof that there is a creator, nor was it supposed to. It has been found to be accurate concerning many if not all things, from the NT, all the way back to Genesis. I found things that to me, were amazing. However, God told Job, concerning these questions, it was none of his business.
But then, you must look at the evidence at hand. In the "natural world", if you will. The entire universe, galaxy, world, being, micro-organism, cell, atom, quark, etc. Examine each setting on it's own merits. At each level, you can find evidence of intelligent design. Things that apply in each setting that make it doubtful it could be as it is, without some help.
>Also, as evolution 'can't' happen, what is the creationist explaination of adaptation?<
To me, natural selection is not a theory or hypothesis. It is a fact. But it does not produce evolution, as many evolutionists, if not all, will tell you. I believe I provided many direct quotes on the subject above. But if not. let me know and I will supply them.
In short, adaptation does occur, but so what? If it is not involved in evolution, it is rather off topic.
>Why do you believe this god if it exists is the christian one?<
That would be the consistency, and irrefutability, by my lights, of the Bible. I have found, to date, no other religious document that is as spot on in describing how we came about.
>If there was a different religion that fit better with reality, would you switch to it?<
Absolutely. But I must say, while I term myself a Christian, it is probably not the same as for other Christians, with all the bells and whistles.
>Lastly, if the rational arguments for your belief were to be refuted someday, would you leave christianity/theism?<
If they were absolute, and could not be explained within the context of the Bible, I surely would. A good example would be mDNA evidence, actual samples, which were more than say, 50,000 years old or thereabout, which showed a link to today’s man.
Funny that. As I understand it, that is a sin. A pretty bad one. I should be able to live my life on faith alone. But that is how I am put together. Of course, even on the above example, I reserve the right to change my mind. The amount of time may need to be increased.
Bigger
>I wrote in that style as I find it theraputic, this line by line stuff can get annoying. The last post was kind of a summary, to break down my thinking, as per a discussion, not a debate.<
How can I address your points, if not line by line? Or would you rather we not address each other’s points?
>Nature - "By "nature" we mean a non-sentient universe, with all its properties and behaviors. Basically, we mean nothing more than space, time, material, and physical law." (Carrier, Sense and Goodness, P. 68). In other words, reality is all there is, it's a closed system.<
I see. I surely see the "closed system" part. So, it will be very tough to debate anything, if you are not even able to consider the possibility, however small, of a plan as to how we got here. That would be the definition of close minded.
>While I work on my response, please explain how life got started. Don't tell me to read genesis in the bible, I want to know how and what evidence you have for this.<
Well, the Bible would surely be the hypothesis. It gives the possibility, the theory if you will, that there was a creator. That he was able, by some means yet unfound, to give the spark of life. But it surely does not provide any proof that there is a creator, nor was it supposed to. It has been found to be accurate concerning many if not all things, from the NT, all the way back to Genesis. I found things that to me, were amazing. However, God told Job, concerning these questions, it was none of his business.
But then, you must look at the evidence at hand. In the "natural world", if you will. The entire universe, galaxy, world, being, micro-organism, cell, atom, quark, etc. Examine each setting on it's own merits. At each level, you can find evidence of intelligent design. Things that apply in each setting that make it doubtful it could be as it is, without some help.
>Also, as evolution 'can't' happen, what is the creationist explaination of adaptation?<
To me, natural selection is not a theory or hypothesis. It is a fact. But it does not produce evolution, as many evolutionists, if not all, will tell you. I believe I provided many direct quotes on the subject above. But if not. let me know and I will supply them.
In short, adaptation does occur, but so what? If it is not involved in evolution, it is rather off topic.
>Why do you believe this god if it exists is the christian one?<
That would be the consistency, and irrefutability, by my lights, of the Bible. I have found, to date, no other religious document that is as spot on in describing how we came about.
>If there was a different religion that fit better with reality, would you switch to it?<
Absolutely. But I must say, while I term myself a Christian, it is probably not the same as for other Christians, with all the bells and whistles.
>Lastly, if the rational arguments for your belief were to be refuted someday, would you leave christianity/theism?<
If they were absolute, and could not be explained within the context of the Bible, I surely would. A good example would be mDNA evidence, actual samples, which were more than say, 50,000 years old or thereabout, which showed a link to today’s man.
Funny that. As I understand it, that is a sin. A pretty bad one. I should be able to live my life on faith alone. But that is how I am put together. Of course, even on the above example, I reserve the right to change my mind. The amount of time may need to be increased.
Bigger
BIB thanks for your answers, and intellectual honesty on the topic. Now here comes a gigantic post. I think you can tell I'm pretty busy, so I only have time to respond 1-2 nights a week.
Once again it isn't line by line, if you are looking for evo/abio stuff, it'll be in my next post.
Naturalism: Now that I've provided my definition of natural, and by your reaction you are no longer considering your god natural in the sense I mean. If you still do consider it natural, then I can go into the problems there. So, why naturalism, it makes sense to me, something immaterial existing doesn't fit with reality. The planet, the galaxy, everything in material, down to our own thoughts. Firing of neurons storing memory, moving our body, communication by speaking by vibration of air molecules, compression and rarefraction of the sound waves, hit someone elses ear drum, and so on. It's all material. When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?
How is one to apply naturalistic terms to a non-natural being?
The qualities put onto many god concepts are the opposite of all that man sense and can empiracally know. An infinite being, what is that? All beings I know are finite, have limits. Earlier you asked why saying the being was unlimited and the christian god was contradictory. As christians usually put attributes on their god, these would be limiting. If god is loving to humans, that limits its actions, then again I don't know exactly how you define it. There is a further problem, that characteristics apply in relation to the nature of a being. Does loving apply as a dog to his master? Master to dog? Do don't know the nature of this thing, so how do we apply these characteristics. Furthermore, characteristics pushed to infinite make no sense to me.
Now, you assumed that the only reason I rejected theism was that science can't explore it. Well, it's much different from that. In fact, I would like for there to be a god watching it all, and there to be an afterlife. Dealing with your mortality in your early 20's and the finality of death isn't fun. Especially when raised to think you're going to live forever in some paradise.
So, why am I an atheist?
It isn't just based on the unintelligibility of god concepts but reasons. I find all arguments for the existance of god I've seen to be flawed, and not a shred of evidence for any god concept. I do see god being used as a placeholder for the unknown, IOW god of the gaps. As our konwledge increases the areas god occupies shrink. Once gods were everywhere, then they retreated to far away places (like the tops of mountains), we looked there, gods go to the sky, we check up there god is now in space. At the moment, god regulated to some supernatural alternate dimension by most I talk to. We see the same trend in natural phenomena, once most things were attributed to gods, as those became better explained, god receeded to harder questions. To the point where now god is there for the origin of life and this universe. Interesting that you say god gave the spark of life. Not created on whim? Are you implying a natural explaination for creationism, god the scientist figured it out?
The fun thing about many theist arguments is that they contradict themselves right off the bat. Things like the firse cause argument where "everything has a cause", and solution? God is causeless and started it, violating its own premise. The designer argument is great, "things are way to complex to have come about naturally, so I'm going to posit some amazingly complex designer to solve that". By the argument's own standard this designer now requires a designer. I see no merit in any of the arguments. In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.
Based on this lack of coherance, referant to reality, evidence, or valid argument, I find rejection of the proposition "god exists" reasonable.
There are also good reasons not to believe, though atheists are under no burden to provide them. I will go into a few personal ones.
Many religions impose psychological sanctions on man, the most apparent is sin in christianity. To sin is to go against god, and that is the worst thing immaginable to most believers. Now, man is being judged not on his actions but on the content of his thoughts, many involuntary and completely natural. This inability to control these thoughts leads to guilt and shame. That one try and control their involuntary emotional response or attraction, then feel guilt. Guilt breaks people and lets them be controlled. I have a thing against tormenting people, so I find this a downside to some religions.
Devaluation of life is another. By the promise of eternal life, this life (the only one I think there is) is seen as a way point. The point is to live up to some (usually impossible) standard and do certain things/believe certain things. That is it, this is just a test, doesn't matter. It loses the reality of people dying and suffering, as "they are in a better place now". I see many just waiting to die, my mother was and I'm glad she snapped out of it. If you get nothing else from this, seize the day, don't live waiting to go to heaven. Enjoy your life.
Consider the recent NO hurricane, many died, lost their livelihood, their homes. If someone had the power to stop the hurricane, would you nat think it their obligation to do so?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” [Epicurus]
I'm not talking about things religion may say man brought on himself, rather "natural evils" that lead to apparently pointless suffering. Floods, famine, avalances, epidemics, etc, permitting such suffering isn't compatible with god concepts where human welfare, love or compassion are characteristics.
If you want more philosophical arguments head to your local library. I like some of the teleological arguments. Really, just think about the characteristics given to your god, are they internally consistent? Do they agree with reality? As Jefferson said "question with boldness even the exsitence of God"
I'm about to pass out, so I'll leave it there for tonight. I have another page of notes before the evo/abio, but it will have to wait.
Kraft
Once again it isn't line by line, if you are looking for evo/abio stuff, it'll be in my next post.
Naturalism: Now that I've provided my definition of natural, and by your reaction you are no longer considering your god natural in the sense I mean. If you still do consider it natural, then I can go into the problems there. So, why naturalism, it makes sense to me, something immaterial existing doesn't fit with reality. The planet, the galaxy, everything in material, down to our own thoughts. Firing of neurons storing memory, moving our body, communication by speaking by vibration of air molecules, compression and rarefraction of the sound waves, hit someone elses ear drum, and so on. It's all material. When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?
How is one to apply naturalistic terms to a non-natural being?
The qualities put onto many god concepts are the opposite of all that man sense and can empiracally know. An infinite being, what is that? All beings I know are finite, have limits. Earlier you asked why saying the being was unlimited and the christian god was contradictory. As christians usually put attributes on their god, these would be limiting. If god is loving to humans, that limits its actions, then again I don't know exactly how you define it. There is a further problem, that characteristics apply in relation to the nature of a being. Does loving apply as a dog to his master? Master to dog? Do don't know the nature of this thing, so how do we apply these characteristics. Furthermore, characteristics pushed to infinite make no sense to me.
Now, you assumed that the only reason I rejected theism was that science can't explore it. Well, it's much different from that. In fact, I would like for there to be a god watching it all, and there to be an afterlife. Dealing with your mortality in your early 20's and the finality of death isn't fun. Especially when raised to think you're going to live forever in some paradise.
So, why am I an atheist?
It isn't just based on the unintelligibility of god concepts but reasons. I find all arguments for the existance of god I've seen to be flawed, and not a shred of evidence for any god concept. I do see god being used as a placeholder for the unknown, IOW god of the gaps. As our konwledge increases the areas god occupies shrink. Once gods were everywhere, then they retreated to far away places (like the tops of mountains), we looked there, gods go to the sky, we check up there god is now in space. At the moment, god regulated to some supernatural alternate dimension by most I talk to. We see the same trend in natural phenomena, once most things were attributed to gods, as those became better explained, god receeded to harder questions. To the point where now god is there for the origin of life and this universe. Interesting that you say god gave the spark of life. Not created on whim? Are you implying a natural explaination for creationism, god the scientist figured it out?
The fun thing about many theist arguments is that they contradict themselves right off the bat. Things like the firse cause argument where "everything has a cause", and solution? God is causeless and started it, violating its own premise. The designer argument is great, "things are way to complex to have come about naturally, so I'm going to posit some amazingly complex designer to solve that". By the argument's own standard this designer now requires a designer. I see no merit in any of the arguments. In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.
Based on this lack of coherance, referant to reality, evidence, or valid argument, I find rejection of the proposition "god exists" reasonable.
There are also good reasons not to believe, though atheists are under no burden to provide them. I will go into a few personal ones.
Many religions impose psychological sanctions on man, the most apparent is sin in christianity. To sin is to go against god, and that is the worst thing immaginable to most believers. Now, man is being judged not on his actions but on the content of his thoughts, many involuntary and completely natural. This inability to control these thoughts leads to guilt and shame. That one try and control their involuntary emotional response or attraction, then feel guilt. Guilt breaks people and lets them be controlled. I have a thing against tormenting people, so I find this a downside to some religions.
Devaluation of life is another. By the promise of eternal life, this life (the only one I think there is) is seen as a way point. The point is to live up to some (usually impossible) standard and do certain things/believe certain things. That is it, this is just a test, doesn't matter. It loses the reality of people dying and suffering, as "they are in a better place now". I see many just waiting to die, my mother was and I'm glad she snapped out of it. If you get nothing else from this, seize the day, don't live waiting to go to heaven. Enjoy your life.
Consider the recent NO hurricane, many died, lost their livelihood, their homes. If someone had the power to stop the hurricane, would you nat think it their obligation to do so?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” [Epicurus]
I'm not talking about things religion may say man brought on himself, rather "natural evils" that lead to apparently pointless suffering. Floods, famine, avalances, epidemics, etc, permitting such suffering isn't compatible with god concepts where human welfare, love or compassion are characteristics.
If you want more philosophical arguments head to your local library. I like some of the teleological arguments. Really, just think about the characteristics given to your god, are they internally consistent? Do they agree with reality? As Jefferson said "question with boldness even the exsitence of God"
I'm about to pass out, so I'll leave it there for tonight. I have another page of notes before the evo/abio, but it will have to wait.
Kraft
Excellent thoughts. I've been saying the same thing. Where the hell is this "God"? If the universe is indeed infinite, it can't have a center or outer edge, or else it wouldn't be infinite. "God" isn't in the sky, we go there everyday by means of airplane, and no one found a "God". We went to the moon, no "God" there. Our high-power telescopes can detect distant planets and galaxies,and see many millions of miles in space. Still no white-bearded "God" in sight. Maybe because "God" is a dark-ages myth?
Kraft,
Naturalism: Now that I've provided my definition of natural, and by your reaction you are no longer considering your god natural in the sense I mean. If you still do consider it natural, then I can go into the problems there. So, why naturalism, it makes sense to me, something immaterial existing doesn't fit with reality.<
What is material? Energy? Waves? Or do you need to weigh it or measure it? I am afraid you are a bit arrogant considering the level of today’s scientific intelligence. We are still truly ignorant. There is so much unaccounted for mass and energy within the universe, we are stumped. Nothing wrong with that. It is fascinating. Could these unanswered questions of mass an energy contain God? Beats me. But I would think the possibility exists.
If you are trying to quantify God, it may be very tough, at least according to the Bible. But I do not see how you could place Him outside your "natural" world, with so many holes in that "natural" world.
It would be difficult to assign properties to God. In fact, it is not my place. But the possibility is there that God could someday be measured. Or perhaps his ‘waves’ are so minute, we could never measure them. Think about the stages science has gone through in finding the smallest unit of matter. How long did it take to find electrons? Now, we know there are much smaller units. I feel we have not even scratched the surface. Remember, the concept, E=mc squared, is not absolute. Sometimes, it just does not add up. Close, but no cigar.
> The planet, the galaxy, everything in material, down to our own thoughts. Firing of neurons storing memory, moving our body, communication by speaking by vibration of air molecules, compression and rarefraction of the sound waves, hit someone elses ear drum, and so on. It's all material. When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?<
That is my point. Humans are not able to even measure all that they see, hear, feel, etc. You surely know that there are so many things that occur, that we cannot currently explain. Does that make them false or not real? Of course not. I do not know if God can be termed material or not. But I would not bet against it.
> The qualities put onto many god concepts are the opposite of all that man sense and can empiracally know. An infinite being, what is that? All beings I know are finite, have limits.<
So that means there is not the possiblity for something infinite?
>Earlier you asked why saying the being was unlimited and the christian god was contradictory. As christians usually put attributes on their god, these would be limiting. If god is loving to humans, that limits its actions, then again I don't know exactly how you define it. There is a further problem, that characteristics apply in relation to the nature of a being. Does loving apply as a dog to his master? Master to dog? Do don't know the nature of this thing, so how do we apply these characteristics. Furthermore, characteristics pushed to infinite make no sense to me. <
That is truly a messed up argument. I meant infinite in His abilities and reach. Not his characteristics, at least some of which are explored in the Bible. We are made in His image. Humans have some fairly explainable characteristics, and from reading about God, he has many, if not all of the same characteristics. Even to the point of murdering. But then, it is His game, and he can call the shots.
Infinite is not so tough. Space and time. Why would you ever think there would be a need for a beginning or an end? There may be delineation’s along the way, but no true beginning or ending.
>Now, you assumed that the only reason I rejected theism was that science can't explore it. Well, it's much different from that. In fact, I would like for there to be a god watching it all, and there to be an afterlife. Dealing with your mortality in your early 20's and the finality of death isn't fun. Especially when raised to think you're going to live forever in some paradise.<
I know what you mean. Have you ever seen an elderly or very sick person, nearing death, not knowing his/her fate? It is a tough experience.
>So, why am I an atheist?
It isn't just based on the unintelligibility of god concepts but reasons. I find all arguments for the existance of god I've seen to be flawed, and not a shred of evidence for any god concept. I do see god being used as a placeholder for the unknown, IOW god of the gaps. As our konwledge increases the areas god occupies shrink.<
Actually not. As I am sure you know, the more we solve using science, the more questions arise. Such is the nature of science. Very little in any scientific field has been settled. Answers only breed more questions. The area for a God only expands with each answer.
I explored above whether God may or may not be material. There is surely room for him. But also, there may not be a need for anything ‘material’. Or whatever, however he exists, it may not be possible to measure.
>Once gods were everywhere, then they retreated to far away places (like the tops of mountains), we looked there, gods go to the sky, we check up there god is now in space. At the moment, god regulated to some supernatural alternate dimension by most I talk to.<
Even when very young, I realized that God was not a physical presence that could be seen. That is not the way he rolls.
>To the point where now god is there for the origin of life and this universe. Interesting that you say god gave the spark of life. Not created on whim?<
That was a phrase I used in that instance to mean organic forms of life. I believe in Hawkings Big Bang. I believe He created this universe, at that moment, for this time period. Similar events could have happened untold numbers of times before, and surely will after (expansion contraction theory). Then, after playing with other forms of life, which he created along the way, decided to make intelligent beings, in His image, about 4.25 billion years after the big bang. For what reason you ask? Beats me. Perhaps entertainment. Further, He may have done this countless other times.
>Are you implying a natural explaination for creationism, god the scientist figured it out?<
I suppose the first part depends on your definition of natural. I believe He could create "naturally", anything He wanted or wants. I do not believe God would have to figure anything out. Just think it and do it.
>The fun thing about many theist arguments is that they contradict themselves right off the bat. Things like the firse cause argument where "everything has a cause", and solution? God is causeless and started it, violating its own premise.<
I have no idea what you mean.
> The designer argument is great, "things are way to complex to have come about naturally, so I'm going to posit some amazingly complex designer to solve that".<
Actually, the guys that wrote the Bible had no idea how complex everything was or is now. Complexity comes about through asking and answering questions. Compared to today, the authors were rather ignorant. When the Bible was first written, the Hebrew language only had about 3500 words. But what they wrote has been able to withstand the scrutiny of the ages.
>By the argument's own standard this designer now requires a designer.<
Why is that? Why do you think a God could not have always been there, and always will be there. No beginning or end. Do you really see an end to YOUR consciousness? Turn off the switch, everything goes to dark, and that’s it?
> I see no merit in any of the arguments. In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.<
Then that sets you up to try and explain all of the so far unexplained. Very tough chore. And once again, who defines what is "natural". Just because something is not understood, does not make it "unnatural". Further, look at how many assumed "unnatural" things have been explained.
>Based on this lack of coherance, referant to reality, evidence, or valid argument, I find rejection of the proposition "god exists" reasonable.<
Obviously, you have not researched the evidence, or refuse to consider it. That would make it tough. Especially if you throw out possibilities before you begin.
>There are also good reasons not to believe, though atheists are under no burden to provide them. I will go into a few personal ones.<
Surely, you, nor anyone, do not have to explain anything. This was also written about in the Bible, prophesied, if you will.
>Many religions impose psychological sanctions on man, the most apparent is sin in christianity. To sin is to go against god, and that is the worst thing immaginable to most believers. Now, man is being judged not on his actions but on the content of his thoughts, many involuntary and completely natural.<
And yet, we are not animals. We are able to control ourselves, if we wish. If you do the research, you will find very little within the human body is involuntary. Even our heartbeat and breathing can be controlled. Some things may seem involuntary, but they truly are not.
> This inability to control these thoughts leads to guilt and shame.<
Not if handled correctly. If one feels guilt or shame, one only need explore the reason for the feelings, and correct the problem.
> That one try and control their involuntary emotional response or attraction, then feel guilt. Guilt breaks people and lets them be controlled. I have a thing against tormenting people, so I find this a downside to some religions.<
Wow. I have never been through that. Not that I do not feel guilt or shame. But I do not let it consume me. I have a release called forgiveness.
>Devaluation of life is another. By the promise of eternal life, this life (the only one I think there is) is seen as a way point. The point is to live up to some (usually impossible) standard and do certain things/believe certain things. That is it, this is just a test, doesn't matter. It loses the reality of people dying and suffering, as "they are in a better place now". I see many just waiting to die, my mother was and I'm glad she snapped out of it. If you get nothing else from this, seize the day, don't live waiting to go to heaven. Enjoy your life.<
Surely you can enjoy this life. Nothing wrong with that. Do all you can, especially to help others. That is a great feeling. Further, the most sinful person on earth can have salvation. No problem. I may fall into that category.
But this life IS just a test as you say. Or you can even think of it as choosing up sides. If you read the Bible, you will find that God DOES consider each life to be almost nothing, inconsequential, EXCEPT in our thoughts and actions, our conscious decisions. Our actual breathing ‘lives’, our bodies, what we must go though, mean very little. That is because, as science tells us, this brief period of time we spend on earth is not even a spec of time, in either what has gone before, or what will come after. But it is what comes after this life that counts in the here and now. God is extremely consistent in this matter, according to the Bible.
It is somewhat like the phrase, "it is what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts".
>Consider the recent NO hurricane, many died, lost their livelihood, their homes. If someone had the power to stop the hurricane, would you nat think it their obligation to do so?<
Well not at all. It was just a hurricane. There have been countless episodes of death and destruction throughout the history of earth. Many brought on by God himself, as told in the Bible. Look at what he did to poor Job. Once again, any amount of suffering on earth, for even great periods of a ‘life’, are inconsequential in the realm of God and time, and yes, irrelevant to us. It may seem horrendous at the time, and should be considered so by humans, and hopefully corrected. But it is only a pinprick of pain in the grand scheme and duration of time. God will put nothing on you, that you cannot handle. Death should be the least of worries. It is a release from the worries and pain of this world.
>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" [Epicurus]<
>I'm not talking about things religion may say man brought on himself, rather "natural evils" that lead to apparently pointless suffering. Floods, famine, avalances, epidemics, etc, permitting such suffering isn't compatible with god concepts where human welfare, love or compassion are characteristics.<
Do not present God as something he is not. The Bible explains it very well. We are made in His image. We have the same capacity for good and evil, that God has. We also have self determination, and free will. I believe He is able to prevent evil, but also promote it if needed. Or simply let the course of events run out.
Bad or evil is a blessing. If you never knew bad, then how could you know or appreciate good? It is what makes life, life. Bad or evil events allow for conscious decisions and actions. These can be judged. Now that my friend, is a great thing, a great plan.
You say, "God should prevent such things". Well no. These events actually have great value. What suffering has there ever been, that has not, at least eventually, been addressed in one way or another? No suffering on EARTH is eternal. None. And then comes, the rest of time. Some seem to be saying that God put us on this earth, He should take care of us in all things. This concept ended definitively in the Garden of Eden.
>If you want more philosophical arguments head to your local library. I like some of the teleological arguments. Really, just think about the characteristics given to your god, are they internally consistent? Do they agree with reality? As Jefferson said "question with boldness even the exsitence of God"<
The characteristics of God are as consistent and real as the characteristics of "we the people". They are spot on, as told in the Bible, then and now.
Bigger
Naturalism: Now that I've provided my definition of natural, and by your reaction you are no longer considering your god natural in the sense I mean. If you still do consider it natural, then I can go into the problems there. So, why naturalism, it makes sense to me, something immaterial existing doesn't fit with reality.<
What is material? Energy? Waves? Or do you need to weigh it or measure it? I am afraid you are a bit arrogant considering the level of today’s scientific intelligence. We are still truly ignorant. There is so much unaccounted for mass and energy within the universe, we are stumped. Nothing wrong with that. It is fascinating. Could these unanswered questions of mass an energy contain God? Beats me. But I would think the possibility exists.
If you are trying to quantify God, it may be very tough, at least according to the Bible. But I do not see how you could place Him outside your "natural" world, with so many holes in that "natural" world.
It would be difficult to assign properties to God. In fact, it is not my place. But the possibility is there that God could someday be measured. Or perhaps his ‘waves’ are so minute, we could never measure them. Think about the stages science has gone through in finding the smallest unit of matter. How long did it take to find electrons? Now, we know there are much smaller units. I feel we have not even scratched the surface. Remember, the concept, E=mc squared, is not absolute. Sometimes, it just does not add up. Close, but no cigar.
> The planet, the galaxy, everything in material, down to our own thoughts. Firing of neurons storing memory, moving our body, communication by speaking by vibration of air molecules, compression and rarefraction of the sound waves, hit someone elses ear drum, and so on. It's all material. When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?<
That is my point. Humans are not able to even measure all that they see, hear, feel, etc. You surely know that there are so many things that occur, that we cannot currently explain. Does that make them false or not real? Of course not. I do not know if God can be termed material or not. But I would not bet against it.
> The qualities put onto many god concepts are the opposite of all that man sense and can empiracally know. An infinite being, what is that? All beings I know are finite, have limits.<
So that means there is not the possiblity for something infinite?
>Earlier you asked why saying the being was unlimited and the christian god was contradictory. As christians usually put attributes on their god, these would be limiting. If god is loving to humans, that limits its actions, then again I don't know exactly how you define it. There is a further problem, that characteristics apply in relation to the nature of a being. Does loving apply as a dog to his master? Master to dog? Do don't know the nature of this thing, so how do we apply these characteristics. Furthermore, characteristics pushed to infinite make no sense to me. <
That is truly a messed up argument. I meant infinite in His abilities and reach. Not his characteristics, at least some of which are explored in the Bible. We are made in His image. Humans have some fairly explainable characteristics, and from reading about God, he has many, if not all of the same characteristics. Even to the point of murdering. But then, it is His game, and he can call the shots.
Infinite is not so tough. Space and time. Why would you ever think there would be a need for a beginning or an end? There may be delineation’s along the way, but no true beginning or ending.
>Now, you assumed that the only reason I rejected theism was that science can't explore it. Well, it's much different from that. In fact, I would like for there to be a god watching it all, and there to be an afterlife. Dealing with your mortality in your early 20's and the finality of death isn't fun. Especially when raised to think you're going to live forever in some paradise.<
I know what you mean. Have you ever seen an elderly or very sick person, nearing death, not knowing his/her fate? It is a tough experience.
>So, why am I an atheist?
It isn't just based on the unintelligibility of god concepts but reasons. I find all arguments for the existance of god I've seen to be flawed, and not a shred of evidence for any god concept. I do see god being used as a placeholder for the unknown, IOW god of the gaps. As our konwledge increases the areas god occupies shrink.<
Actually not. As I am sure you know, the more we solve using science, the more questions arise. Such is the nature of science. Very little in any scientific field has been settled. Answers only breed more questions. The area for a God only expands with each answer.
I explored above whether God may or may not be material. There is surely room for him. But also, there may not be a need for anything ‘material’. Or whatever, however he exists, it may not be possible to measure.
>Once gods were everywhere, then they retreated to far away places (like the tops of mountains), we looked there, gods go to the sky, we check up there god is now in space. At the moment, god regulated to some supernatural alternate dimension by most I talk to.<
Even when very young, I realized that God was not a physical presence that could be seen. That is not the way he rolls.
>To the point where now god is there for the origin of life and this universe. Interesting that you say god gave the spark of life. Not created on whim?<
That was a phrase I used in that instance to mean organic forms of life. I believe in Hawkings Big Bang. I believe He created this universe, at that moment, for this time period. Similar events could have happened untold numbers of times before, and surely will after (expansion contraction theory). Then, after playing with other forms of life, which he created along the way, decided to make intelligent beings, in His image, about 4.25 billion years after the big bang. For what reason you ask? Beats me. Perhaps entertainment. Further, He may have done this countless other times.
>Are you implying a natural explaination for creationism, god the scientist figured it out?<
I suppose the first part depends on your definition of natural. I believe He could create "naturally", anything He wanted or wants. I do not believe God would have to figure anything out. Just think it and do it.
>The fun thing about many theist arguments is that they contradict themselves right off the bat. Things like the firse cause argument where "everything has a cause", and solution? God is causeless and started it, violating its own premise.<
I have no idea what you mean.
> The designer argument is great, "things are way to complex to have come about naturally, so I'm going to posit some amazingly complex designer to solve that".<
Actually, the guys that wrote the Bible had no idea how complex everything was or is now. Complexity comes about through asking and answering questions. Compared to today, the authors were rather ignorant. When the Bible was first written, the Hebrew language only had about 3500 words. But what they wrote has been able to withstand the scrutiny of the ages.
>By the argument's own standard this designer now requires a designer.<
Why is that? Why do you think a God could not have always been there, and always will be there. No beginning or end. Do you really see an end to YOUR consciousness? Turn off the switch, everything goes to dark, and that’s it?
> I see no merit in any of the arguments. In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.<
Then that sets you up to try and explain all of the so far unexplained. Very tough chore. And once again, who defines what is "natural". Just because something is not understood, does not make it "unnatural". Further, look at how many assumed "unnatural" things have been explained.
>Based on this lack of coherance, referant to reality, evidence, or valid argument, I find rejection of the proposition "god exists" reasonable.<
Obviously, you have not researched the evidence, or refuse to consider it. That would make it tough. Especially if you throw out possibilities before you begin.
>There are also good reasons not to believe, though atheists are under no burden to provide them. I will go into a few personal ones.<
Surely, you, nor anyone, do not have to explain anything. This was also written about in the Bible, prophesied, if you will.
>Many religions impose psychological sanctions on man, the most apparent is sin in christianity. To sin is to go against god, and that is the worst thing immaginable to most believers. Now, man is being judged not on his actions but on the content of his thoughts, many involuntary and completely natural.<
And yet, we are not animals. We are able to control ourselves, if we wish. If you do the research, you will find very little within the human body is involuntary. Even our heartbeat and breathing can be controlled. Some things may seem involuntary, but they truly are not.
> This inability to control these thoughts leads to guilt and shame.<
Not if handled correctly. If one feels guilt or shame, one only need explore the reason for the feelings, and correct the problem.
> That one try and control their involuntary emotional response or attraction, then feel guilt. Guilt breaks people and lets them be controlled. I have a thing against tormenting people, so I find this a downside to some religions.<
Wow. I have never been through that. Not that I do not feel guilt or shame. But I do not let it consume me. I have a release called forgiveness.
>Devaluation of life is another. By the promise of eternal life, this life (the only one I think there is) is seen as a way point. The point is to live up to some (usually impossible) standard and do certain things/believe certain things. That is it, this is just a test, doesn't matter. It loses the reality of people dying and suffering, as "they are in a better place now". I see many just waiting to die, my mother was and I'm glad she snapped out of it. If you get nothing else from this, seize the day, don't live waiting to go to heaven. Enjoy your life.<
Surely you can enjoy this life. Nothing wrong with that. Do all you can, especially to help others. That is a great feeling. Further, the most sinful person on earth can have salvation. No problem. I may fall into that category.
But this life IS just a test as you say. Or you can even think of it as choosing up sides. If you read the Bible, you will find that God DOES consider each life to be almost nothing, inconsequential, EXCEPT in our thoughts and actions, our conscious decisions. Our actual breathing ‘lives’, our bodies, what we must go though, mean very little. That is because, as science tells us, this brief period of time we spend on earth is not even a spec of time, in either what has gone before, or what will come after. But it is what comes after this life that counts in the here and now. God is extremely consistent in this matter, according to the Bible.
It is somewhat like the phrase, "it is what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts".
>Consider the recent NO hurricane, many died, lost their livelihood, their homes. If someone had the power to stop the hurricane, would you nat think it their obligation to do so?<
Well not at all. It was just a hurricane. There have been countless episodes of death and destruction throughout the history of earth. Many brought on by God himself, as told in the Bible. Look at what he did to poor Job. Once again, any amount of suffering on earth, for even great periods of a ‘life’, are inconsequential in the realm of God and time, and yes, irrelevant to us. It may seem horrendous at the time, and should be considered so by humans, and hopefully corrected. But it is only a pinprick of pain in the grand scheme and duration of time. God will put nothing on you, that you cannot handle. Death should be the least of worries. It is a release from the worries and pain of this world.
>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" [Epicurus]<
>I'm not talking about things religion may say man brought on himself, rather "natural evils" that lead to apparently pointless suffering. Floods, famine, avalances, epidemics, etc, permitting such suffering isn't compatible with god concepts where human welfare, love or compassion are characteristics.<
Do not present God as something he is not. The Bible explains it very well. We are made in His image. We have the same capacity for good and evil, that God has. We also have self determination, and free will. I believe He is able to prevent evil, but also promote it if needed. Or simply let the course of events run out.
Bad or evil is a blessing. If you never knew bad, then how could you know or appreciate good? It is what makes life, life. Bad or evil events allow for conscious decisions and actions. These can be judged. Now that my friend, is a great thing, a great plan.
You say, "God should prevent such things". Well no. These events actually have great value. What suffering has there ever been, that has not, at least eventually, been addressed in one way or another? No suffering on EARTH is eternal. None. And then comes, the rest of time. Some seem to be saying that God put us on this earth, He should take care of us in all things. This concept ended definitively in the Garden of Eden.
>If you want more philosophical arguments head to your local library. I like some of the teleological arguments. Really, just think about the characteristics given to your god, are they internally consistent? Do they agree with reality? As Jefferson said "question with boldness even the exsitence of God"<
The characteristics of God are as consistent and real as the characteristics of "we the people". They are spot on, as told in the Bible, then and now.
Bigger
Ok BIB, you scare me. Say you're a scientist, but take the garden of eden literally ? Your last response summed up my devaluation of life point nicely.
Material: we look at say a block of wood, can break it down into its constituent compounds, how they go together. Beyond that, the molecules that make up each substance. Then we can go to the atoms that make up the molecule. The parts of the atom. Then the parts that make up the parts of the atom. Beyond particle physics I am ignorant.
If you want to tell me your God is material, then it becomes bound by the same workings as everything else. Gravity, conservation of energy, etc. Creation now becomes naturalistic, like we see. Making of things from preexisting compontents, no creation ex nihlo. Is God alive? Then now he requires a metabolism, sensory apparatus, a material basis for consciousness (brain/CNS), and so on. There are huge problems when you bring this concoction into the natural world. If it stays immaterial, how can something immaterial interact with something material?
>There is so much unaccounted for mass and energy within the universe, we are stumped. Nothing wrong with that. It is fascinating. Could these unanswered questions of mass an energy contain God?<
Last I heard dark matter had been discovered and was accounting for it.
This reminds me of something Terrible Heresy wrote
We've done fine so far without appeal to any sky fairy, why assume one is there? The positions I'm taking are very basic, I'm simply going from what we know, and applying skepticism. Trying to 'reason' from what we don't know to something else we don't know isn't rational.
>It would be difficult to assign properties to God. In fact, it is not my place. But the possibility is there that God could someday be measured. Or perhaps his ‘waves’ are so minute, we could never measure them.<
There is a very reasonable explaination for why we can't measure it that I think you're overlooking. Gods are the invention of man. We made gods, all of them. I covered this earlier about use of analogy to construct anthropomorphic gods. In regards to Odin, Vishnu, and thousands of other gods, I'm sure you're an atheist just as I am. When you tell me the chrisitian myth is really real, it's about the same as saying batman exists but superman and spiderman are just stories.
>When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?<
That is my point. Humans are not able to even measure all that they see, hear, feel, etc. You surely know that there are so many things that occur, that we cannot currently explain.<
Good, thus you admit the properties placed on your god are unintelligible. Another argument to ignorance... Please take a course in basic logic, I beg you.
>So that means there is not the possiblity for something infinite?<
Infinite beings I would say no. Infinite itself I am fine with, such as existance having always been.
>We are made in His image. Humans have some fairly explainable characteristics, and from reading about God, he has many, if not all of the same characteristics. Even to the point of murdering. But then, it is His game, and he can call the shots.<
Easier answer, he is made in our image. We made god. That you worship an amoral being kind of scares me. You obviously don't hold that God is all good, or loving. Might makes right, wow.
>Infinite is not so tough. Space and time. Why would you ever think there would be a need for a beginning or an end? There may be delineation’s along the way, but no true beginning or ending.<
Good, so you've just got rid of the 'need' for a ex nihlo creation event.
>Have you ever seen an elderly or very sick person, nearing death, not knowing his/her fate? It is a tough experience.<
I have, it is tough. To answer your later question, yes, I think this is it. Cerebral death is the end of your consciousness, memories and you. Everything goes black and that is it, just like before you were born. Frightening isn't it?
>As I am sure you know, the more we solve using science, the more questions arise. Such is the nature of science.<
What a caracture of science, just a source of questions. The questions that arrise are usually reductionist, so say we figure out how some enzyme works, the new question is how did it get into that form, what is it made of? It's not like we're becoming more clueless, it's that we are finding new areas to explore.
>I believe in Hawkings Big Bang. I believe He created this universe, at that moment, for this time period. Similar events could have happened untold numbers of times before, and surely will after (expansion contraction theory). Then, after playing with other forms of life, which he created along the way, decided to make intelligent beings, in His image, about 4.25 billion years after the big bang.<
You do realize one of the consequences of expansion/contraction theory is that a universe that supports life gets spat out? ie. this one. No god necessary. So, you're aren't a young earth creationist, yet believe in the story of Adam and Eve? :s
As you seemed to misunderstand:
First cause argument - this states that all things must have a first cause, an actual infinite is impossible, therefore god is the first cause. Apply the argument to itself and then god now requires a cause based of the premises.
Design argument - I was talking about apologetics, so you talk of hebrew language doesn't apply. This goes that things are way to complex, therefore a designer is required. This designer is god. Apply it to itself, god is exceedingly complex, thus requires a designer.
Understand?
You're lucky you have't experienced much guilt from Christianity. I stick by what I said, there are prerational reactions we make that can't be controlled except by avoiding such situations. As exploring this would make this even larger, I'll just leave it.
>In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.<
Then that sets you up to try and explain all of the so far unexplained. Very tough chore. And once again, who defines what is "natural". Just because something is not understood, does not make it "unnatural".<
Actually, it goes that any natural explaination is more likely by definition than a miracle (magic). As I covered before, magical/supernatural explainations aren't explainations at all. When lightning wasn't understood was it unnatural? nope.
>Further, the most sinful person on earth can have salvation. No problem. I may fall into that category.<
Guilt for sin, need for saving, these things aren't part of my worldview. As I said earlier. Think over the salvation plan. God sent himself to sacifice to himself to change a rule he made. And we need to believe to avoid getting sent to hell, the only way is through belief in jesus. According to the bible who made hell? Jesus the only way? It's similar to someone putting a gun to your head, then praise them for not pulling the trigger.
George Carlin
Your God is very different from any other Christian's I've met. You don't use any rose coloured glasses. It is welcome, no idealized lovey god or ignorance of the OT. You praise what many would consider a demon and know it.
I have broken down my worldview on here, I ask that you do the same. Spell it out for me, show how it is consisitent with reality. After that, how about 3 questions of cross-examination each, responses then this ends?
From older posts:
>The Big Bang sounds about like what I would expect from God in Genesis 1:1.<
Really? God creates the sky and that below it (the earth) first. The stars, sun and moon start appearing around verse 14. This sounds nothing like the big bang. I envision something more like a snowglobe, with pancake earth in the middle of the waters. Fits with what I've heard of babylonian creation myths too. I already covered how that could be shoehorned to fit a static model of the universe, it's just retroactive fitting of myth.
>>It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is<
My gosh man, repeatability is one of the major foundations of science. I cannot believe you wrote that. By that logic, if you have zero evidence, but the theory sounds good, you can still put great confidence in it?<
Oh yes, it's simply the physical size of the evidence that matters. Maybe you should start a site called matters of science, we can all start hanging weights off the end of our evidence and it will be much better. Next time I run a gel I'll run a really big one, that way my evidence will be that much better. Get real man.
>>When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out.<
Except in the case of evolution vs creationism.<
And what happens if/when life is synthesised in the lab? Where shall god retreat to then?
>In fact, there is complete evidence against the odds it would occur, and the LAWS of nature would have to be violated for it to happen!<
What would have to be violated? Make a case. If I were to conceed it as unlikely, that simply means an unlikely event occured.
>It is all scientific evidence. You may reject it. We may debate it. But it is there. It seems you now wish to throw away, or ignore the evidence. Below, I quote some of the leaders in the various fields concerning evolution. Many are atheists. And you want to disregard what they have found or concluded? What kind of scientific approach is that?<
haha, I was rejection the red herrings. Things that aren't relevant to the discussion. Yeah, you pasted in a bunch of quotes, even the classic out of context darwin quotes. What I mean by quote mining is what you did, ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution, all the papers, studies, etc. confirming it. Instead search for sound bites.
>>I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.<
And yet you have faith that it did happen in the manner you believe.<
Do you take what I say incorrectly on purpose? This is not a matter of faith, and I was simply giving the best explaination we have at the moment. You don't get it do you, I don't believe in things, I simply endorse certain views that I find reasonable and that have evidence. Naturalism is one of those. Life is around, looking into the past thorough fossils, our model of solar system formation, etc. Life hasn't always been here. Therefore, at some time life arose on earth. My answer, it came about naturally, followling through necessity based off of natural laws. How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it. As I said, talkorigins.org is one of the best resources around. Your answer, some mysterious being, using no means, simply its will, made life from non-life. Wow, which is more reasonable? Oh, how about a new scientific method, whenever there is a really hard question, we'll just say it was the work of mysterious agents using magic. Soon we can be back in the dark ages.
>What evidence is there that Mosaic law was "pre-empted by other moral codes"?<
Guess you missed this part
"The earlier Ur-Nammu, of the written literature prolific Ur-III dynasty (2050 BC), also produced a code of laws, some of which bear resemblance to certain specific laws in the Code of Hammurabi. The later Mosaic Law (according to the Torah redactor theory 400-300 BC; traditionally ca 1200 BC) also has some laws that resemble the Code of Hammurabi, as well as other law codes of the region."
Moses "According to the Hebrew Bible, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and received the Torah of Judaism from God on Mount Sinai. The Torah contains the life story of Moses and his people until his death at the age of 120 years, according to some calculations in the year 2488, or 1272 BC/BCE. Consequently, "may you live to 120" has become a common blessing among Jews."
>The time of Abraham has been determined to be about 2300 BC. The exodus occurred much earlier. Therefore, a very good case can be made that Mosaic law predates any other by many thousands of years.<
Please read your bible, the exodus occured after abraham. The Exodus (to people that think it happened) is usually dated between the 12th-15th century BCE.
>What kind of logic is that? If you work with, or research evolution, you must believe in a certain methodology?<
Part of doing science is using methodological naturalism, I simply found it surprising that someone invoved in it so long hasn't adopted a naturalistic view.
>OK, yeah right. You were taught in schools, by your parents, and I believe in Sunday school? You do not think the Bible worked into the things you were taught? You are dreaming. If you have any other sources of these laws predating the Bible, I would be glad to look at them.<
Your logic is astounding. The first place you hear something must be the reason you do it. I see the light, I don't share with people because I want to, it's all due to Sesame Street. I abstain from killing people not because of empathy, social reasons, etc. it's all due to the Bible, which I don't use as an authority in any way. Yeah...
Other sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
The better question would be, did they come up with them independantly? If someone has no connection to Judaism, if they come up with it afterwards you can't really say it is due to the earlier writing.
Since you believe in the accuracy of the gospels, try the easter challenge. Try to make sense of exactly what happened that day. Put the events of the resurrection in order, see any problems?
Tomorrow I have time to type up the evolution/abio stuff. Let me know about my offer in bold. This has really helped me organize many thoughts, I have a presentation to a club on campus on related material this week so it's been good.
Kraft
Your last response summed up my devaluation of life point nicely. Material: we look at say a block of wood, can break it down into its constituent compounds, how they go together. Beyond that, the molecules that make up each substance. Then we can go to the atoms that make up the molecule. The parts of the atom. Then the parts that make up the parts of the atom. Beyond particle physics I am ignorant.
If you want to tell me your God is material, then it becomes bound by the same workings as everything else. Gravity, conservation of energy, etc. Creation now becomes naturalistic, like we see. Making of things from preexisting compontents, no creation ex nihlo. Is God alive? Then now he requires a metabolism, sensory apparatus, a material basis for consciousness (brain/CNS), and so on. There are huge problems when you bring this concoction into the natural world. If it stays immaterial, how can something immaterial interact with something material?
>There is so much unaccounted for mass and energy within the universe, we are stumped. Nothing wrong with that. It is fascinating. Could these unanswered questions of mass an energy contain God?<
Last I heard dark matter had been discovered and was accounting for it.
This reminds me of something Terrible Heresy wrote
We've done fine so far without appeal to any sky fairy, why assume one is there? The positions I'm taking are very basic, I'm simply going from what we know, and applying skepticism. Trying to 'reason' from what we don't know to something else we don't know isn't rational.
>It would be difficult to assign properties to God. In fact, it is not my place. But the possibility is there that God could someday be measured. Or perhaps his ‘waves’ are so minute, we could never measure them.<
There is a very reasonable explaination for why we can't measure it that I think you're overlooking. Gods are the invention of man. We made gods, all of them. I covered this earlier about use of analogy to construct anthropomorphic gods. In regards to Odin, Vishnu, and thousands of other gods, I'm sure you're an atheist just as I am. When you tell me the chrisitian myth is really real, it's about the same as saying batman exists but superman and spiderman are just stories.
>When someone says to me that god is immaterial, atemporal, supernatural, and so forth, what referent to reality do I have?<
That is my point. Humans are not able to even measure all that they see, hear, feel, etc. You surely know that there are so many things that occur, that we cannot currently explain.<
Good, thus you admit the properties placed on your god are unintelligible. Another argument to ignorance... Please take a course in basic logic, I beg you.
>So that means there is not the possiblity for something infinite?<
Infinite beings I would say no. Infinite itself I am fine with, such as existance having always been.
>We are made in His image. Humans have some fairly explainable characteristics, and from reading about God, he has many, if not all of the same characteristics. Even to the point of murdering. But then, it is His game, and he can call the shots.<
Easier answer, he is made in our image. We made god. That you worship an amoral being kind of scares me. You obviously don't hold that God is all good, or loving. Might makes right, wow.
>Infinite is not so tough. Space and time. Why would you ever think there would be a need for a beginning or an end? There may be delineation’s along the way, but no true beginning or ending.<
Good, so you've just got rid of the 'need' for a ex nihlo creation event.
>Have you ever seen an elderly or very sick person, nearing death, not knowing his/her fate? It is a tough experience.<
I have, it is tough. To answer your later question, yes, I think this is it. Cerebral death is the end of your consciousness, memories and you. Everything goes black and that is it, just like before you were born. Frightening isn't it?
>As I am sure you know, the more we solve using science, the more questions arise. Such is the nature of science.<
What a caracture of science, just a source of questions. The questions that arrise are usually reductionist, so say we figure out how some enzyme works, the new question is how did it get into that form, what is it made of? It's not like we're becoming more clueless, it's that we are finding new areas to explore.
>I believe in Hawkings Big Bang. I believe He created this universe, at that moment, for this time period. Similar events could have happened untold numbers of times before, and surely will after (expansion contraction theory). Then, after playing with other forms of life, which he created along the way, decided to make intelligent beings, in His image, about 4.25 billion years after the big bang.<
You do realize one of the consequences of expansion/contraction theory is that a universe that supports life gets spat out? ie. this one. No god necessary. So, you're aren't a young earth creationist, yet believe in the story of Adam and Eve? :s
As you seemed to misunderstand:
First cause argument - this states that all things must have a first cause, an actual infinite is impossible, therefore god is the first cause. Apply the argument to itself and then god now requires a cause based of the premises.
Design argument - I was talking about apologetics, so you talk of hebrew language doesn't apply. This goes that things are way to complex, therefore a designer is required. This designer is god. Apply it to itself, god is exceedingly complex, thus requires a designer.
Understand?
You're lucky you have't experienced much guilt from Christianity. I stick by what I said, there are prerational reactions we make that can't be controlled except by avoiding such situations. As exploring this would make this even larger, I'll just leave it.
>In terms of miracles, as Hume asks, what is more likely, that the workings of nature be suspended or that man should lie or misunderstand? Same with all other apologetics, full of holes.<
Then that sets you up to try and explain all of the so far unexplained. Very tough chore. And once again, who defines what is "natural". Just because something is not understood, does not make it "unnatural".<
Actually, it goes that any natural explaination is more likely by definition than a miracle (magic). As I covered before, magical/supernatural explainations aren't explainations at all. When lightning wasn't understood was it unnatural? nope.
>Further, the most sinful person on earth can have salvation. No problem. I may fall into that category.<
Guilt for sin, need for saving, these things aren't part of my worldview. As I said earlier. Think over the salvation plan. God sent himself to sacifice to himself to change a rule he made. And we need to believe to avoid getting sent to hell, the only way is through belief in jesus. According to the bible who made hell? Jesus the only way? It's similar to someone putting a gun to your head, then praise them for not pulling the trigger.
George Carlin
Your God is very different from any other Christian's I've met. You don't use any rose coloured glasses. It is welcome, no idealized lovey god or ignorance of the OT. You praise what many would consider a demon and know it.
I have broken down my worldview on here, I ask that you do the same. Spell it out for me, show how it is consisitent with reality. After that, how about 3 questions of cross-examination each, responses then this ends?
From older posts:
>The Big Bang sounds about like what I would expect from God in Genesis 1:1.<
Really? God creates the sky and that below it (the earth) first. The stars, sun and moon start appearing around verse 14. This sounds nothing like the big bang. I envision something more like a snowglobe, with pancake earth in the middle of the waters. Fits with what I've heard of babylonian creation myths too. I already covered how that could be shoehorned to fit a static model of the universe, it's just retroactive fitting of myth.
>>It's irrelevant how large in physical size the evidence is<
My gosh man, repeatability is one of the major foundations of science. I cannot believe you wrote that. By that logic, if you have zero evidence, but the theory sounds good, you can still put great confidence in it?<
Oh yes, it's simply the physical size of the evidence that matters. Maybe you should start a site called matters of science, we can all start hanging weights off the end of our evidence and it will be much better. Next time I run a gel I'll run a really big one, that way my evidence will be that much better. Get real man.
>>When supernatural explanations go up against natural ones, naturalistic ones have always won out.<
Except in the case of evolution vs creationism.<
And what happens if/when life is synthesised in the lab? Where shall god retreat to then?
>In fact, there is complete evidence against the odds it would occur, and the LAWS of nature would have to be violated for it to happen!<
What would have to be violated? Make a case. If I were to conceed it as unlikely, that simply means an unlikely event occured.
>It is all scientific evidence. You may reject it. We may debate it. But it is there. It seems you now wish to throw away, or ignore the evidence. Below, I quote some of the leaders in the various fields concerning evolution. Many are atheists. And you want to disregard what they have found or concluded? What kind of scientific approach is that?<
haha, I was rejection the red herrings. Things that aren't relevant to the discussion. Yeah, you pasted in a bunch of quotes, even the classic out of context darwin quotes. What I mean by quote mining is what you did, ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution, all the papers, studies, etc. confirming it. Instead search for sound bites.
>>I would suggest looking over the site, they address many misconceptions. Precisely how it came about isn’t a huge concern to me, we have a sample of 1, and it was long ago, so really we may never know just how it happened.<
And yet you have faith that it did happen in the manner you believe.<
Do you take what I say incorrectly on purpose? This is not a matter of faith, and I was simply giving the best explaination we have at the moment. You don't get it do you, I don't believe in things, I simply endorse certain views that I find reasonable and that have evidence. Naturalism is one of those. Life is around, looking into the past thorough fossils, our model of solar system formation, etc. Life hasn't always been here. Therefore, at some time life arose on earth. My answer, it came about naturally, followling through necessity based off of natural laws. How exactly, we don't know at the moment, and we are working at it. As I said, talkorigins.org is one of the best resources around. Your answer, some mysterious being, using no means, simply its will, made life from non-life. Wow, which is more reasonable? Oh, how about a new scientific method, whenever there is a really hard question, we'll just say it was the work of mysterious agents using magic. Soon we can be back in the dark ages.
>What evidence is there that Mosaic law was "pre-empted by other moral codes"?<
Guess you missed this part
"The earlier Ur-Nammu, of the written literature prolific Ur-III dynasty (2050 BC), also produced a code of laws, some of which bear resemblance to certain specific laws in the Code of Hammurabi. The later Mosaic Law (according to the Torah redactor theory 400-300 BC; traditionally ca 1200 BC) also has some laws that resemble the Code of Hammurabi, as well as other law codes of the region."
Moses "According to the Hebrew Bible, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and received the Torah of Judaism from God on Mount Sinai. The Torah contains the life story of Moses and his people until his death at the age of 120 years, according to some calculations in the year 2488, or 1272 BC/BCE. Consequently, "may you live to 120" has become a common blessing among Jews."
>The time of Abraham has been determined to be about 2300 BC. The exodus occurred much earlier. Therefore, a very good case can be made that Mosaic law predates any other by many thousands of years.<
Please read your bible, the exodus occured after abraham. The Exodus (to people that think it happened) is usually dated between the 12th-15th century BCE.
>What kind of logic is that? If you work with, or research evolution, you must believe in a certain methodology?<
Part of doing science is using methodological naturalism, I simply found it surprising that someone invoved in it so long hasn't adopted a naturalistic view.
>OK, yeah right. You were taught in schools, by your parents, and I believe in Sunday school? You do not think the Bible worked into the things you were taught? You are dreaming. If you have any other sources of these laws predating the Bible, I would be glad to look at them.<
Your logic is astounding. The first place you hear something must be the reason you do it. I see the light, I don't share with people because I want to, it's all due to Sesame Street. I abstain from killing people not because of empathy, social reasons, etc. it's all due to the Bible, which I don't use as an authority in any way. Yeah...
Other sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
The better question would be, did they come up with them independantly? If someone has no connection to Judaism, if they come up with it afterwards you can't really say it is due to the earlier writing.
Since you believe in the accuracy of the gospels, try the easter challenge. Try to make sense of exactly what happened that day. Put the events of the resurrection in order, see any problems?
Tomorrow I have time to type up the evolution/abio stuff. Let me know about my offer in bold. This has really helped me organize many thoughts, I have a presentation to a club on campus on related material this week so it's been good.
Kraft
Evolution
You already accept natural selection, so you're most of the way there.
With natural selection we have variation within a population, where does this variation come from?
Gene and genome duplication, mutation and recombination are thought to be the main ones. These things are heritable, and I bet you'll agree that certain offspring will have advantages that let them reproduce more than others (due to competition, limited resources, etc.). I'm sure you're familiar with all this. Let us look at all the variety of dogs, how did we get such variation. Easy, we bred them, artificial selection.
Now, we have an event that limits breeding between groups. As geneflow between the groups is slowed/stopped, independant mutations and selection will occur between the groups. Thus we see seperation, . In this example we would see cladogenesis. A common ancestor population branching to 2.
According to Hardy and Weinberg, evolution will not occur if:
1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population
Speciation?
I'm sure you're familiar with the allopatric and sympatric speciation models. Genetic drift, mate selection and polypoidation are other ones that occurs. Do we see any speciation events? Yes, we have observed many.
Evening primrose, Zea mays, ferns, we have found many instances in plants. Much research has been done on Drosophila, and we have observed
we have speciation there. There are many more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
What other general evidence do we have?
Written by a friend, Yellow #5
Something else you may find interesting, chimps, gorillas and orangutans have 24 chromosomes while humans usually have 23. Scientists thought this odd and hypothesized that a fusion had occured between 2 chromosomes, as well as predicting a certain structure for the resulting chromosome. When this was looked into what did they find? A chromosome that was analogous to those found in other primates, having 2 centromeres.
You can view the rest of the article here http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Now let's look at some fossils, we would expect some progression in hominid fossils to back the theory. What do we find?
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Looks very nice to me. This is connected to the 29+ evidences of macroevolution link I posted earlier.
You already mentioned that mDNA from neanderthal didn't match current man. Thus it is not a direct ancestor. What is the best explaination for that? We have a very similar creature, sharing characteristics with man, showing divergence. Looks to me like it branched off the hominid lineage, and had reproductive isolation. We share a common ancestor with neanderthals, but aren't descendants. As you have already accepted sources of variation, this makes perfect sense.
When we look at fossils (geological column), it starts to jump out at you that there is a definite progression. At the bottom we have just microorganisms, progressing through to modern creatures. When we do phylogenetic research it aligns with this. Genes are duplicated, accumulate changes, we see branching points and evidence of common ancestry. You asked of any recent developments, I would say bioinformatics and genome sequencing are a huge development.
This is a short case for evolution, there are piles of evidence, including the very obvious ones like antibiotic resistance, our selective breeding of many plants and animals, homology, etc. I find evolution to be an elegant theory, with great explanitory power and the best explaination we have for the diversity of life on earth.
____________________________________
Abiogenesis was covered ealier by Y #5, and I've gone over it a few times.
Once again, evolution will apply no matter how life got started. Not knowing how life began has no impact on the workings of evolution. From talkorigins
Though I disagree with them calling creation a theory.
What are some current hypothesis?
To living cells
Read more about it here http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
Once again, that link I posted earlier goes thorough many of these things http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html It talks of proteins that self replicate, the hypercycle hypothesis, why creationist probability estimates don't work and much more.
There you go.
You already accept natural selection, so you're most of the way there.
With natural selection we have variation within a population, where does this variation come from?
Gene and genome duplication, mutation and recombination are thought to be the main ones. These things are heritable, and I bet you'll agree that certain offspring will have advantages that let them reproduce more than others (due to competition, limited resources, etc.). I'm sure you're familiar with all this. Let us look at all the variety of dogs, how did we get such variation. Easy, we bred them, artificial selection.
Now, we have an event that limits breeding between groups. As geneflow between the groups is slowed/stopped, independant mutations and selection will occur between the groups. Thus we see seperation, . In this example we would see cladogenesis. A common ancestor population branching to 2.
According to Hardy and Weinberg, evolution will not occur if:
1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population
Speciation?
I'm sure you're familiar with the allopatric and sympatric speciation models. Genetic drift, mate selection and polypoidation are other ones that occurs. Do we see any speciation events? Yes, we have observed many.
Evening primrose, Zea mays, ferns, we have found many instances in plants. Much research has been done on Drosophila, and we have observed
we have speciation there. There are many more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
What other general evidence do we have?
Written by a friend, Yellow #5
Something else you may find interesting, chimps, gorillas and orangutans have 24 chromosomes while humans usually have 23. Scientists thought this odd and hypothesized that a fusion had occured between 2 chromosomes, as well as predicting a certain structure for the resulting chromosome. When this was looked into what did they find? A chromosome that was analogous to those found in other primates, having 2 centromeres.
You can view the rest of the article here http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Now let's look at some fossils, we would expect some progression in hominid fossils to back the theory. What do we find?
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Looks very nice to me. This is connected to the 29+ evidences of macroevolution link I posted earlier.
You already mentioned that mDNA from neanderthal didn't match current man. Thus it is not a direct ancestor. What is the best explaination for that? We have a very similar creature, sharing characteristics with man, showing divergence. Looks to me like it branched off the hominid lineage, and had reproductive isolation. We share a common ancestor with neanderthals, but aren't descendants. As you have already accepted sources of variation, this makes perfect sense.
When we look at fossils (geological column), it starts to jump out at you that there is a definite progression. At the bottom we have just microorganisms, progressing through to modern creatures. When we do phylogenetic research it aligns with this. Genes are duplicated, accumulate changes, we see branching points and evidence of common ancestry. You asked of any recent developments, I would say bioinformatics and genome sequencing are a huge development.
This is a short case for evolution, there are piles of evidence, including the very obvious ones like antibiotic resistance, our selective breeding of many plants and animals, homology, etc. I find evolution to be an elegant theory, with great explanitory power and the best explaination we have for the diversity of life on earth.
____________________________________
Abiogenesis was covered ealier by Y #5, and I've gone over it a few times.
Once again, evolution will apply no matter how life got started. Not knowing how life began has no impact on the workings of evolution. From talkorigins
Though I disagree with them calling creation a theory.
What are some current hypothesis?
To living cells
Read more about it here http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
Once again, that link I posted earlier goes thorough many of these things http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html It talks of proteins that self replicate, the hypercycle hypothesis, why creationist probability estimates don't work and much more.
There you go.
Similar threads
