Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Fisticuffs, Your point is well taken. I have to confess I get carried away with my sarcasm. That said, however, please note that my argument was not in the form: "this sounds ridiculous, therefore it is false". My appeal was for your scientific knowledge to provide some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview. Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake. 0 reasons so far. - J
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake.
Okay, since you want a serious discussion... IMO I comment first that you are mushing three major lines of investigation into one umbrella - those of the Big Bang, of abiotic synthesis, and of evolution. None of these theories/hypotheses require the other to be valid. Secondly, you are attempting to discredit evolutionary theory by specifically pointing out the gaps in knowledge or evidence that currently exist. This is disingenuous - it's basically goalpost shifting, as Chris suggested above. The question is, how consistent is evolutionary theory based on the preponderance of existing evidence? How well does evolution explain what we can measure in the world? As a biochemist, I rely on the experts in other fields to make such conclusions based on their observations. From the fields paleontology, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics etc, there exists various independent lines of evidence that are consistent with the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old. So I ask: How consistent is that with my own observations? I am specifically capable of discussing, say, the overall structure and function of the human genome, or the structure and function of the immune system. Various observations in these fields are explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the human genome is ~44% comprised of noncoding crap DNA. Evolutionary theory explains this well - retroviral infections, shifts, duplications, translocations, etc, none of which are selected against. We observe a roughly 0.01% difference in the genome between each human, a ~0.05% difference in the genome between humans and the latest neandertal sequences, a ~0.1% difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. Divergence from a common ancestor explains this observation very well and supports findings by paleontologists. The immune system is a system that is explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the diversity in humans is created by a specific enzyme that mediates DNA rearrangement in developing B and T cells. If we examine the immune system of distantly related species (as determined by the field of biology), we find that jawed fishes have adaptive immunity, where jawless fishes do not. Evolution can explain this by suggesting gene disruption from an exogen
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
Of course you're right, and a testable hypothesis is always worth questioning and testing. Which I believe that one has for a while now, as few others have. In the interest of fair play, I'll include links to this site[^] when they declare a day of celebration and contemplation. By linking to the Darwin Days celebration Web site, I was not promoting any religious beliefs. I'll likely do the same to remind everyone of International Talk Like a Pirate Day[^], SysAdmin Day[^] and similar "geek" holidays. PS: Apologies to the eyesight and psyche of any Web designers who follow the link above[^]. I know you're fragile creatures.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote...
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did. If there was ample evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record, as you suggest, he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote...
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did. If there was ample evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record, as you suggest, he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did.
:wtf:
The Grand Negus wrote:
he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis
you clearly have no idea what Gould actually wrote. again, go read it for yourself, quit relying on out of context quotes. punctuated evolution is not an 'alternative' to evolution, nor does it say there won't be any transitional fossils. in fact, all it says is that species apparently stay stable in the fossil record for long periods of time but then are replaced by new (but similar) species over geologically short time scales. the transitional fossils are still there, but they are not as plentiful as those from 'stable' species (because they aren't around long enough to leave plentiful fossils); nature appears to go from one long-lived species to another with geologically-short bursts of change in between. evolution and natual selection are still at work, Gould's simply talking about the rate at which they progress. if PE is an alternative to anything, it's an alternative to the idea that evolution is a constant, gradual, steady process. and actually it's not even an alternative, since Gould says PE is one possible explanation, but not the only one; he was comfortable with PE existing side by side with 'gradualism'. but strict gradualism's a theory that few defend anyway - not even Darwin believed that. in fact, Darwin's own books show that he clearly recognized that speciation appears to occur irregularly.
"...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form."
that's PE in a nutshell. but Darwin wrote it 100 years before Gould proposed his PE theory. and, in any case, the specifics of Gould's theory, interesting as it was at the time, have been beaten up pretty well in the 30+ years since he first proposed it. do yourself a favor, read what Darwin wrote, read what Gould wrote. then learn what thousands of other scientists have learned in the decades since Gould proposed his hypothesis. because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake.
Okay, since you want a serious discussion... IMO I comment first that you are mushing three major lines of investigation into one umbrella - those of the Big Bang, of abiotic synthesis, and of evolution. None of these theories/hypotheses require the other to be valid. Secondly, you are attempting to discredit evolutionary theory by specifically pointing out the gaps in knowledge or evidence that currently exist. This is disingenuous - it's basically goalpost shifting, as Chris suggested above. The question is, how consistent is evolutionary theory based on the preponderance of existing evidence? How well does evolution explain what we can measure in the world? As a biochemist, I rely on the experts in other fields to make such conclusions based on their observations. From the fields paleontology, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics etc, there exists various independent lines of evidence that are consistent with the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old. So I ask: How consistent is that with my own observations? I am specifically capable of discussing, say, the overall structure and function of the human genome, or the structure and function of the immune system. Various observations in these fields are explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the human genome is ~44% comprised of noncoding crap DNA. Evolutionary theory explains this well - retroviral infections, shifts, duplications, translocations, etc, none of which are selected against. We observe a roughly 0.01% difference in the genome between each human, a ~0.05% difference in the genome between humans and the latest neandertal sequences, a ~0.1% difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. Divergence from a common ancestor explains this observation very well and supports findings by paleontologists. The immune system is a system that is explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the diversity in humans is created by a specific enzyme that mediates DNA rearrangement in developing B and T cells. If we examine the immune system of distantly related species (as determined by the field of biology), we find that jawed fishes have adaptive immunity, where jawless fishes do not. Evolution can explain this by suggesting gene disruption from an exogen
excellent post.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did.
:wtf:
The Grand Negus wrote:
he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis
you clearly have no idea what Gould actually wrote. again, go read it for yourself, quit relying on out of context quotes. punctuated evolution is not an 'alternative' to evolution, nor does it say there won't be any transitional fossils. in fact, all it says is that species apparently stay stable in the fossil record for long periods of time but then are replaced by new (but similar) species over geologically short time scales. the transitional fossils are still there, but they are not as plentiful as those from 'stable' species (because they aren't around long enough to leave plentiful fossils); nature appears to go from one long-lived species to another with geologically-short bursts of change in between. evolution and natual selection are still at work, Gould's simply talking about the rate at which they progress. if PE is an alternative to anything, it's an alternative to the idea that evolution is a constant, gradual, steady process. and actually it's not even an alternative, since Gould says PE is one possible explanation, but not the only one; he was comfortable with PE existing side by side with 'gradualism'. but strict gradualism's a theory that few defend anyway - not even Darwin believed that. in fact, Darwin's own books show that he clearly recognized that speciation appears to occur irregularly.
"...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form."
that's PE in a nutshell. but Darwin wrote it 100 years before Gould proposed his PE theory. and, in any case, the specifics of Gould's theory, interesting as it was at the time, have been beaten up pretty well in the 30+ years since he first proposed it. do yourself a favor, read what Darwin wrote, read what Gould wrote. then learn what thousands of other scientists have learned in the decades since Gould proposed his hypothesis. because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
Funny, I don't feel embarrassed. And I know how to spell it. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And I know how to spell it.
that's all ya got? whew.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
prove it. show your work.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And I know how to spell it.
that's all ya got? whew.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
prove it. show your work.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
-
Just wondering, did you happen to follow the link in the developer news? Oh, for a first post, this may set a record for length and rating for moving to the Soapbox. But welcome aboard anyway. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
Chris, Yes, I followed the link; that is where I quoted from about our duty for unity. Thanks for your welcoming and I apologize for the length. I tried to reduce it a litte but some material I consider important would have been left out. Best regards, Juan
Juanfer
-
I'm sitting with Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Beunos Aires Cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Pro Favor by the same means; and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeous Gentilhomme; their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary; and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed to Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Osca
-
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
Good point. Maybe you just have to wait some billions of years for something to make sense, in the right context and still understandable by then. Or... so would the evolutionists make you believe? I am glad you are working with a few permutations and not the DNA!;)
Juanfer
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did.
:wtf:
The Grand Negus wrote:
he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis
you clearly have no idea what Gould actually wrote. again, go read it for yourself, quit relying on out of context quotes. punctuated evolution is not an 'alternative' to evolution, nor does it say there won't be any transitional fossils. in fact, all it says is that species apparently stay stable in the fossil record for long periods of time but then are replaced by new (but similar) species over geologically short time scales. the transitional fossils are still there, but they are not as plentiful as those from 'stable' species (because they aren't around long enough to leave plentiful fossils); nature appears to go from one long-lived species to another with geologically-short bursts of change in between. evolution and natual selection are still at work, Gould's simply talking about the rate at which they progress. if PE is an alternative to anything, it's an alternative to the idea that evolution is a constant, gradual, steady process. and actually it's not even an alternative, since Gould says PE is one possible explanation, but not the only one; he was comfortable with PE existing side by side with 'gradualism'. but strict gradualism's a theory that few defend anyway - not even Darwin believed that. in fact, Darwin's own books show that he clearly recognized that speciation appears to occur irregularly.
"...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form."
that's PE in a nutshell. but Darwin wrote it 100 years before Gould proposed his PE theory. and, in any case, the specifics of Gould's theory, interesting as it was at the time, have been beaten up pretty well in the 30+ years since he first proposed it. do yourself a favor, read what Darwin wrote, read what Gould wrote. then learn what thousands of other scientists have learned in the decades since Gould proposed his hypothesis. because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
Chris, It is good for you to call attention to the proponents themselves. On page 287 of his Origin of Species, Darwin said "all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day"... "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."... "if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth". Now, I am glad I have lived during these 30+ years after Gould's theory was proposed and I am yet to see the conclusive evidence showing that he was right. Is it not amazing that with all the scientific advances in true science, evolutionists have their firm foundation in words like Gould's in your quote: "have 'probably' been short in comparison"? Just read any book, or easier, watch any evolution indoctrinating documentary and count how many times you hear the words maybe, probably, most likely, etc. and how you end up refreshed in your 'knowledge'. Now, you ask Grand Genus to prove God but, what kind of prove would you accept: rational, empirical, pragmatic or transcendental? Does your evolutionary theory pass the test? Does your test involve the application of reasons and universal laws? Do you have any way of proving these principles in the same way you expect God's existence to be proven? -- modified at 10:18 Saturday 17th February, 2007 -- modified at 11:25 Saturday 17th February, 2007
Juanfer
-
Nice start - by throwing Darwin in the same pot as religion. :mad:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!Peterchen, Sorry if I made you angry, that is not at all my intention but I understand how this happens. We take personally any attack to an argument that is foundational to our worldview. I stick to this position as long as somebody is able to provide a reason why evolution doesn't fit in the broader description of the term 'religion' from the second paragraph in the Wikipedia.
Juanfer
-
Of course you're right, and a testable hypothesis is always worth questioning and testing. Which I believe that one has for a while now, as few others have. In the interest of fair play, I'll include links to this site[^] when they declare a day of celebration and contemplation. By linking to the Darwin Days celebration Web site, I was not promoting any religious beliefs. I'll likely do the same to remind everyone of International Talk Like a Pirate Day[^], SysAdmin Day[^] and similar "geek" holidays. PS: Apologies to the eyesight and psyche of any Web designers who follow the link above[^]. I know you're fragile creatures.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, Thanks for your reply and desire for fair balance. I must say I appreciate this as an opportunity for a healthy discussion about what is, indeed, a religion, if you follow closely its broader definition (second paragraph) from the Wikipedia. I am not personally looking to resolve a "you have a link, we don't" kind of issue. My interest is to make people realize how much we are willing to take uncountable, apparently small, leaps of faith to defend a belief, while at the same time not willing to consider the alternative, which requires only the application of the faith they already have to the only substantiated option. Why don't we do it? Because we would have to pay what we consider the highest price: our autonomy and the sacrifice of the god we have built out of humanism. Regards. -- modified at 13:15 Saturday 17th February, 2007
Juanfer
-
Peterchen, Sorry if I made you angry, that is not at all my intention but I understand how this happens. We take personally any attack to an argument that is foundational to our worldview. I stick to this position as long as somebody is able to provide a reason why evolution doesn't fit in the broader description of the term 'religion' from the second paragraph in the Wikipedia.
Juanfer
I honestly don't care about a "broader definition of religion". After all, there's a whole religion around breathing. it is our god, our mantra, our sole belief. We are obsessed with it. We start with it when we gwet up, until we go asleep, and even afterwards, we continue. If you suggest a nice weekend trip to, say, the moon, one of the first questions is "but how will we breathe there?" And just when people try to get along without it they start to feel all dizzy and nauseous. As long as you can't ask a question without stating your position, I won't try to convince you otherwise. I am sick of the low standards of terms - be it "religion" or "science" - pure laziness and muddy thoughts. If you want to talk about a religion called "evolution", fine - but don't mix it up with science. If you have strong disbelief in the science of evolution, attack it scientifically. But don't pulli the game onto religous ground just because you can't or don't want to argue scientifically.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
The Grand Negus wrote:
These things can't be proved, Chris
then you get an F
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Grand Negus, God's existence can indeed be proven. The problem is that the kind of proof we offer is not the one that an unbeliever wants for this specific case. Please check the kind of evidence I am asking Chris to provide. The proof of God's existence, in a nutshell of course because the explanation of why this is so is rather lengthy for this site, is from the imposibility of the contrary: Without Him we cannot prove anything. God provides the preconditions to make anything intelligible, like the universality of the laws of logic and reason, which the unbeliever uses but cannot offer an account of why is it that he can use them. Please ask them to prove that immaterial universal entites like laws exist at all. If they succeed, they would have proven God's existence. The Bible says that God has plainly manifested Himself to every creature so that they are without excuse; in other words, He has proven Himself (Rom 1:18,19). For a demonstration of this principle in a practical historical debate (1985), please check this: http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=234 Blessings.
Juanfer
-
Chris, It is good for you to call attention to the proponents themselves. On page 287 of his Origin of Species, Darwin said "all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day"... "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."... "if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth". Now, I am glad I have lived during these 30+ years after Gould's theory was proposed and I am yet to see the conclusive evidence showing that he was right. Is it not amazing that with all the scientific advances in true science, evolutionists have their firm foundation in words like Gould's in your quote: "have 'probably' been short in comparison"? Just read any book, or easier, watch any evolution indoctrinating documentary and count how many times you hear the words maybe, probably, most likely, etc. and how you end up refreshed in your 'knowledge'. Now, you ask Grand Genus to prove God but, what kind of prove would you accept: rational, empirical, pragmatic or transcendental? Does your evolutionary theory pass the test? Does your test involve the application of reasons and universal laws? Do you have any way of proving these principles in the same way you expect God's existence to be proven? -- modified at 10:18 Saturday 17th February, 2007 -- modified at 11:25 Saturday 17th February, 2007
Juanfer
i have no idea what you're trying to say with your quote-spliced first paragraph.
juanfer68 wrote:
Now, I am glad I have lived during these 30+ years after Gould's theory was proposed and I am yet to see the conclusive evidence showing that he was right.
you didn't even read what i wrote, did you? it's ok, you can admit it.
juanfer68 wrote:
Is it not amazing that with all the scientific advances in true science, evolutionists have their firm foundation in words like Gould's in your quote: "have been short in comparison"?
that's a truly foolish and ignorant statement. it's just so packed full of wrong, it would take hours to address it all.
juanfer68 wrote:
indoctrinating
and with that one word you prove yourself to be, not the open-minded critical thinker you challenge us to be, but rather, a propogandist, spewing creationist nonsense.
juanfer68 wrote:
Do you have any way of proving these principles in the same way you expect God's existence to be proven?
they are proven the same way all science is proved: theory, prediction, validation. the theory of evolution allows biologists, paleontologists and geneticists to make predictions. and those predictions have been overwhelmingly borne out in research. evolution is about as successful a theory as you can get: it predicts, explains and has withstood a 150 years of criticism. and creationists have been running with their goalposts the whole time. give up.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Grand Negus, God's existence can indeed be proven. The problem is that the kind of proof we offer is not the one that an unbeliever wants for this specific case. Please check the kind of evidence I am asking Chris to provide. The proof of God's existence, in a nutshell of course because the explanation of why this is so is rather lengthy for this site, is from the imposibility of the contrary: Without Him we cannot prove anything. God provides the preconditions to make anything intelligible, like the universality of the laws of logic and reason, which the unbeliever uses but cannot offer an account of why is it that he can use them. Please ask them to prove that immaterial universal entites like laws exist at all. If they succeed, they would have proven God's existence. The Bible says that God has plainly manifested Himself to every creature so that they are without excuse; in other words, He has proven Himself (Rom 1:18,19). For a demonstration of this principle in a practical historical debate (1985), please check this: http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=234 Blessings.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
Without Him we cannot prove anything
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: behold! i give unto you the fallacy of Begging The Question[^]!
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging