Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
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 Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.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
-
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
Chris, I am sorry you are ignoring my appeal to avoid ad-hominem attacks, this does not help a rational discusion, but that's ok. I corrected my previous post becuase my quote from Gould had the word 'probably' in brackets and it was removed from the comment. About how something is proven, please try to realize the implications of my question: do you assume that science is the only way of knowing something for sure? If so, can you follow the scientific method to prove that conviction to be absolutely true? Can all instances be observed to come to an absolute conclusion? Do you believe this because you were taught or because you have observed it? Think carefully before answering. How was it first established that something must make predictions and validated to be true, if it was not by assuming first the principles of induction and causality, which in themselves cannot be scientifically proven? Is it not true that you require the excercise of faith in intangible and absolute rules to make sense of your trust in your sensory perception, your memory and the principles of science? Let's get back to my original question. Personally, please mention one thing you know FOR SURE about evolution.
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!Peterchen, Thanks for acknowledging evolution can be viewed from a religious perspective; I was just trying to address your comment. As far as my position about evolution, I may not have done a very good job at it, but it looks to me that I have been addressing its requirements to qualify as a scientific theory, and others have not had any problem addressing it as such.
Juanfer
-
Chris, I am sorry you are ignoring my appeal to avoid ad-hominem attacks, this does not help a rational discusion, but that's ok. I corrected my previous post becuase my quote from Gould had the word 'probably' in brackets and it was removed from the comment. About how something is proven, please try to realize the implications of my question: do you assume that science is the only way of knowing something for sure? If so, can you follow the scientific method to prove that conviction to be absolutely true? Can all instances be observed to come to an absolute conclusion? Do you believe this because you were taught or because you have observed it? Think carefully before answering. How was it first established that something must make predictions and validated to be true, if it was not by assuming first the principles of induction and causality, which in themselves cannot be scientifically proven? Is it not true that you require the excercise of faith in intangible and absolute rules to make sense of your trust in your sensory perception, your memory and the principles of science? Let's get back to my original question. Personally, please mention one thing you know FOR SURE about evolution.
Juanfer
sorry, i'm not going to play your semantic games. if you want twist logic so much that you're on the verge of claiming no knowledge at all is possible, there's literally nothing left to discuss. that's a dead-end. so, let's get back to the real world: either propose a viable alternative theory for evolution, which a) explains the existing data from biology, genetics and paleontology - at least to the degree evolution does (ID does not), b) predicts what new data we may find (ID does not), and c) fits with what we know about the other sciences (ex. physics, geology and cosmology) (again, ID does not), or admit that you're just proselytizing (which ID certainly is).
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
sorry, i'm not going to play your semantic games. if you want twist logic so much that you're on the verge of claiming no knowledge at all is possible, there's literally nothing left to discuss. that's a dead-end. so, let's get back to the real world: either propose a viable alternative theory for evolution, which a) explains the existing data from biology, genetics and paleontology - at least to the degree evolution does (ID does not), b) predicts what new data we may find (ID does not), and c) fits with what we know about the other sciences (ex. physics, geology and cosmology) (again, ID does not), or admit that you're just proselytizing (which ID certainly is).
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, This was not a semantic game by any means. The implications are really important if you decide to honestly challenge how you know what you know. My point is not that no knowledge at all is possible, but I like you bringing that up because I hope you have started to realize that this is precisely the only possible logical consequence of the 'materialistic/scientific only' worldview, and it requires a lot of blind faith. Knowledge is not only possible but attainable, but its certainty can only be accounted for by acknowledging the principle of God being the precondition of it, in spite of your attempt to ridicule the idea in a previous post. I have to admit this is not easy to swallow because it took me a lot of time to realize why this is the only viable alternative. Let me submit this assertion: God created the heavens and the earth, and every creature after its kind, and He is the only reason why we, being created in his image, are different from other creatures in the sense of our self-awareness and intelligence. We can confidently trust in the existence of absolute laws and predictability that make all the branches of science possible, because without God we cannot explain the nature of these principles. If this is not true, we cannot explain rationally why we trust in causality, ethics, language, love, duty, etc. or why we demand them from others. It predicts that no transitional form can ever be found between any species and that one species have been given dominion with responsibility over the others. This answers rationally and consistently in every area, the issues I presented as problems in my first post from the evolutionary perspective. If it doesn't, please show me how it violates the one of them, the laws of logic or empirical evidence. Of course, you don't have to believe this, but then you have to give a better and consistent account for why you don't, not just an arbitrary appeal to humanism and naturalism.
Juanfer
-
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:
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... 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.
Agreed. In my post to Chris I meant exactly that - we can't prove the existence of God in a way that will incontrovertibly convince the unbeliever. There are kinds of evidence that they won't allow, because their intent is to disallow, by their "rules of proof", any train of thought that leads to God before the argument even begins. And they're blinded, in any case (2 Cor 4:3-4). A man who is physically blind will not accept evidence that a sighted man will - which is not altogether unreasonable. That's why we're instructed to approach the whole matter with "meekness", expecting and ignoring, for example, ad-hominem attacks, however unhelpful they may be (2 Tim 2:24-26). In short, there's no reasoning with unbelievers on their ground - and that's the only ground they have. The best we can do, in my view, is to shine the light around and see if anyone blinks. If nobody does, we go on to the next village.
-
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
OK, pulling said second paragraph from Wikipedia:
In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life.
Taking the last line of that paragraph, anything could be described as a way of life, and therefore following a political party of even the Atkin's Diet could be a religion using that weak sentence. Taking the paragraph as a whole it begins to become a better description of most religions as it brings in "an unseen being, person or object." With this, the scientific method (and therefore our current understanding of evolution) cease to qualify. The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory. Few theories have reached the realm of Law: momentum, gravity, etc. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, it is not a theory in the sense that lawyers or others commonly use it, but as working scientists define it. In this sense it is a much stronger, heavily tested concept. On the whole religion vs. science non-battle, I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation. Science would not dispute this, as there is no way to prove (or disprove) God on the basis of the scientific method. I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Chris, This was not a semantic game by any means. The implications are really important if you decide to honestly challenge how you know what you know. My point is not that no knowledge at all is possible, but I like you bringing that up because I hope you have started to realize that this is precisely the only possible logical consequence of the 'materialistic/scientific only' worldview, and it requires a lot of blind faith. Knowledge is not only possible but attainable, but its certainty can only be accounted for by acknowledging the principle of God being the precondition of it, in spite of your attempt to ridicule the idea in a previous post. I have to admit this is not easy to swallow because it took me a lot of time to realize why this is the only viable alternative. Let me submit this assertion: God created the heavens and the earth, and every creature after its kind, and He is the only reason why we, being created in his image, are different from other creatures in the sense of our self-awareness and intelligence. We can confidently trust in the existence of absolute laws and predictability that make all the branches of science possible, because without God we cannot explain the nature of these principles. If this is not true, we cannot explain rationally why we trust in causality, ethics, language, love, duty, etc. or why we demand them from others. It predicts that no transitional form can ever be found between any species and that one species have been given dominion with responsibility over the others. This answers rationally and consistently in every area, the issues I presented as problems in my first post from the evolutionary perspective. If it doesn't, please show me how it violates the one of them, the laws of logic or empirical evidence. Of course, you don't have to believe this, but then you have to give a better and consistent account for why you don't, not just an arbitrary appeal to humanism and naturalism.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
God created the heavens and the earth
prove it. show your work.
juanfer68 wrote:
and every creature after its kind,
prove it. show your work.
juanfer68 wrote:
and He is the only reason why, being created in his image, we are different from animals in the sense of our self-awareness and intelligence
prove it. show your work. etc.
juanfer68 wrote:
We can confidently trust in the existence of absolute laws and predictability that make all the branches of science possible, because without God we cannot explain the nature of these principles.
that is, literally, nonsense. you're begging the question, again.
juanfer68 wrote:
It predicts that no transitional form can ever be found between any species and that one species have been given dominion with responsibility over the others.
and yet, we do find those fossils. the fact that you guys keep making the goalposts closer together doesn't mean science won't keep scoring on them.
juanfer68 wrote:
This answers rationally the issues I presented as problems in my first post from the evolutionary perspective
there is absolutely nothing rational about anything you just said. you're offering circular definitions, appeals to ignorance, and semantic games. you offer no proof of anything. your dogma has zero predictive power - it simply draws lines in the sand and says "all beyond this line is unknowable, for here is God!"; and science has been blithely stepping over your lines since the 1400s.
juanfer68 wrote:
If it doesn't, please show me how it violates the laws of logic or natural evidence
i have. apparently you choose to ignore it.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
juanfer68 wrote:
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... 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.
Agreed. In my post to Chris I meant exactly that - we can't prove the existence of God in a way that will incontrovertibly convince the unbeliever. There are kinds of evidence that they won't allow, because their intent is to disallow, by their "rules of proof", any train of thought that leads to God before the argument even begins. And they're blinded, in any case (2 Cor 4:3-4). A man who is physically blind will not accept evidence that a sighted man will - which is not altogether unreasonable. That's why we're instructed to approach the whole matter with "meekness", expecting and ignoring, for example, ad-hominem attacks, however unhelpful they may be (2 Tim 2:24-26). In short, there's no reasoning with unbelievers on their ground - and that's the only ground they have. The best we can do, in my view, is to shine the light around and see if anyone blinks. If nobody does, we go on to the next village.
I meant exactly that - we can't prove the existence of God in a way that will incontrovertibly convince the unbeliever
no doubt, if we accept the truth of proposition A without proof, you could clearly then convince us of the truth of proposition A. you've certainly got a point there!
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
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
Fisticuffs, Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I didn't follow a different educational path, this sequence without its problems is presented to us in schools and universities today, in little packages at a time and over longer periods of time, but all unified in answering the question: How did we get here? And naturally so, is it not the ultimate goal of the scientific quest to arrive to the unified theory of human knowledge? If we are part of the same universe, is it not irrational to say that conflicting results among the different areas of knowledge are acceptable? Now, I have to admit my ignorance and commend you for your knowledge in the area of biology, which will not try to compete or contradict by any means. Now with that said, I think I, as any other rational being, am in a position to cross-examine the reasons behind the conclusions you draw and ask you, as a scientist, the same questions I asked Chris in another post: how do you determine that you know something for sure? Is it by empirically, rationally, or pragmatically? You mention your trust in the findings of experts in other fields, which is good. The problem with this is that, if we appeal to the authority of other human beings, as soon as we find one with similar knowledge arriving to different conclusions, we have to either let go of our argument, or prove that the latter is not reall an expert in the field. In other words, do experts in any field all agree today that evolution is true? If they don't, does a scientist get automatically dismissed and stop being consired an expert if he arrives to a different conclusion? Please check the following list for some of them: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html I hope you agree that an appeal to authority or popularity does not prove anything and distracts us from the main argument about evolution, so let's stay focussed on your field of expertise. In analyzing what is useful and what not in your study of the DNA, what do you use as a standard of 'what works'? When you examine the facts, is the evolution of the species the objective necessary and only conclusion you can arrive to, or do you have to start believing evolution to believe the numbers support your observations? For example: What assumptions do we need to make in order to determine that the 44% of non-coding crap DNA is to be categorized as 'non-coding crap'? It looks like part of DNA in mice previously categorized as 'junk' turned out to have a function in mice during their embrionary stages.