Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

[LNC]

The fossil record shows that this is exactly what happened.

 

I have gone back to look at the evidence and apparently there is some new research to indicate that life may have survived the late heavy bombardment after all.

 

Again, that's what the fossil record shows. That animal was a primordial single-celled animal living in the oceans.

 

There were single cell life forms, although I don't believe that they could be categorized as animals; however, it is not possible to trace all life form back to these entities. IOW, we don't have an uninterrupted pathway from them to us.

[LNC]

Okay, I get it, here's the Christians scientific evidence of Creationism: Evolution is wrong.

 

Wow. I'm so impressed. ... *not*

 

My theory is that it is a combination of creation and evolution. As I have indicated, I don't think that evolution is a robust enough theory to account for everything that we observe, yet I see evidence of evolution in the world as well. I think that I have already said this, so I am not sure if you are reading my posts.

[LNC]

Hey.... I've got an idea. How about you answer the question that was asked instead of the one you wished had been asked. STOP TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND TELL US YOUR HYPOTHESIS. GIVE US YOUR EVIDENCES. Let's just take it from Day 1 and tell us where life came from.

 

Unfortunately, you seem to have failed to read my posts as well. As I have indicated I think it is a combination of creation events by an intelligent agent and evolutionary processes. I cannot avoid speaking about evolution since it is part of my hypothesis. Did you want me to abandon that part of my hypothesis so that you can have your way? I am not sure what you expect. Maybe you just have a preconceived idea of what you want me to say so that you can bring out the long knives.

[Justin]

Your fundie comrades LNC would be throwing a hissy fit right now if they heard your views on evolution. Ken Ham, for example, would be saying how do you account for millions of years of death if death did not come into the picture until after man sinned?

 

I'm curious, do you believe humans evolved from ape like ancestors, and before that lower forms of life all the way back to single cell organisms?

[LNC]

I wasn't suggesting that PE is THE answer, but as stated above it was a hypothesis presented by Gould. Scientists are free to consider and examine various hypothesis against the data. That's doing science. If however as a believer in a Faith-Based Science you should challenge the God hypothesis, you are risking your very eternal soul in so doing. And is that really science then?

 

Now I'd like to point out that you seem prone to NOT want to accept PE as a possible explanation for these relatively "sudden" (30 - 60 million year period referred to as "sudden" against geological time - not sudden as in "instantly" as in God spoke it into existence) so-called "explosions" of evolution. You are looking for an answer that supports Miracle explanations. This however is not doing science. Because we see data that we have yet to have good working models for, in no way shape or form negates the mountains of data that we do have good explanations for. In fact, one should expect it to have a natural explanation like the rest. But it appears you hope that by poking a hole into this one idea here, or that one idea there, you can undermine the entire structure that the Theory of Evolution rests upon. That is simply desperate thinking.

 

Seriously, why do you NEED it to support a reading of Genesis that is uniquely modern and literal? Will your faith fall if how you read the Bible needs revision? If so, how strong is what your faith is built upon?

 

I just see PE as an ad hoc explanation without evidential support. What is the mechanism that allows the natural process to speed up and slow down? I don't see the support for that idea via natural processes. I am not merely looking for an answer that supports miracle explanations, just trying to interpret the data. If you or someone can show me the mechanism that allows evolution to speed up to these rates, I will be glad to look at the evidence and data. Let's face it, I don't have to poke holes, it is quite apparently there without my help. We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities. Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part. I, on the other hand, keep my mind open to the possibility of the supernatural as a valid explanatory option.

 

I have said nothing about my reading of Genesis, why do you infer that I read it a certain way and that that way is "modern". Since you don't know how I read Genesis, you are not in a position to judge this. BTW, what is the modern way of reading Genesis and why is it considered "modern"?

 

Question-begging? No. I'm well aware of that fallacy and am not that sloppy in my argument.

 

Here's the line of reasoning:

 

1. We have evidence that all animal species evolved from a single animal.

 

2. We have NO evidence that you have entirely unique animal life forms on this planet, i.e., some sort of entirely unrelated makeup coming into existence out of nothing independently.

 

3. With this evidence in hand (viz, the entire evidence presented for the Theory of Evolution (genetics, fossil records, etc), to say that ALL animals went extinct would require a new set of "creation" of animal life to occur all over again. There is zero data supporting that, nor does any scientist hint at it.

 

4. Therefore, with both the evidence in hand showing a continuity of life from the first animal until now, in addition to no scientist (using the tools of science as opposed to a Bible) suggesting a model that has unique creation events of unique, unrelated animals, it is safe to make the connection as I did that if all life ended, we would not be here.

 

This is not begging the question.

 

What's the first animal? Likely the sponge, but some are moving back to something even before that. But for now, here's a blurb on the DNA map leading back to the ancient sea sponge: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...apeoflife1.html

 

My response,

 

1. No, you don't have a pathway, just an assumption based on the first living organism and life today. To make the connection between the two you need to show the pathway.

 

2. I don't know what you mean by entirely "unique animal life forms" nor do I know what that has to do with anything. We have roads in America and there are roads in Australia; however, that doesn't mean that the two sets of roads are related to one another - they don't connect.

 

3. Actually, until this past May that was the prevailing theory; however, recent discoveries by a team in Denver seem to have changed that view.

 

4. Your evidence is still ad hoc, it doesn't necessarily connect the necessary dots. To do so you need a pathway from the first life to life today not just the similarities that you have pointed out.

 

So, yes you are still question-begging, sorry.

 

I don't think understanding that the mind evolves from nature leads to the conclusions of reductionism. There are plenty who don't, without needing to resort to the supernatural to talk about it. From wiki:

Limits of reductionism

 

A contrast to the reductionist approach is holism or emergentism. Holism recognizes the idea that things can have properties as a whole that are not explainable from the sum of their parts (emergent properties). The principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

 

The term Greedy reductionism, coined by Daniel Dennett, is used to criticize inappropriate use of reductionism. Other authors use different language when describing the same thing.

 

In philosophy

 

The concept of downward causation poses an alternative to reductionism within philosophy. This view is developed and explored by Peter Bøgh Andersen, Claus Emmeche, Niels Ole Finnemann, and Peder Voetmann Christiansen, among others. These philosophers explore ways in which one can talk about phenomena at a larger-scale level of organization exerting causal influence on a smaller-scale level, and find that some, but not all proposed types of downward causation are compatible with science. In particular, they find that constraint is one way in which downward causation can operate.[9] The notion of causality as constraint has also been explored as a way to shed light on scientific concepts such as self-organization, natural selection, adaptation, and control.[10]

 

In science

 

Phenomena such as emergence and work within the field of complex systems theory pose limits to reductionism. Stuart Kauffman is one of the advocates of this viewpoint.[11] Emergence is strongly related to nonlinearity.[12] The limits of the application of reductionism become especially evident at levels of organization with higher amounts of complexity, including culture, neural networks, ecosystems, and other systems formed from assemblies of large numbers of interacting components. Symmetry breaking is an example of an emergent phenomenon. Nobel laureate P.W.Anderson used this idea in his famous paper in Science in 1972, 'More is different'[13] to expose some of the limitations of reductionism. The limitation of reductionism was explained as follows. The sciences can be arranged roughly linearly in a hierarchy as particle physics, many body physics, chemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, ..., physiology, psychology and social sciences. The elementary entities of one science obeys the laws of the science that precedes it in the above hierarchy. But, this does not imply that one science is just an applied version of the science that precedes it. Quoting from the article, "At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

 

Sven Erik Jorgensen, an ecologist, lays out both theoretical and practical arguments for a holistic approach in certain areas of science, especially ecology. He argues that many systems are so complex that it will not ever be possible to describe all their details. Drawing an analogy to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, he argues that many interesting and relevant ecological phenomena cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions, and thus cannot be measured or observed without influencing and changing the system in some way. He also points to the importance of interconnectedness in biological systems. His viewpoint is that science can only progress by outlining what questions are unanswerable and by using models that do not attempt to explain everything in terms of smaller hierarchical levels of organization, but instead model them on the scale of the system itself, taking into account some (but not all) factors from levels both higher and lower in the hierarchy.[14]

 

Disciplines such as cybernetics and systems theory strongly embrace a non-reductionist view of science, sometimes going as far as explaining phenomena at a given level of hierarchy in terms of phenomena at a higher level, in a sense, the opposite of a reductionist approach.[15].

 

So, do you hold to the property dualist approach to explain the mind? That is what you seem to be indicating by the pull quotes above. If so, can you tell me what a mental event consists of (i.e., is it physical in nature or non-physical)? Is a mental event explained by natural or scientific explanations? Do you personally ascribe to downward causation and all of its implications? Would you consider yourself an epiphenomenalist? Do you believe that free-will is still viable based upon your understanding, and if so, how? If not, I wonder what your purpose is in this conversation?

[LNC]

Eh, okay. So you do believe in Evolution then? No, wait, you don't totally discount all aspect of evolution, i.e. you discount much of it... the theory that you don't know if you agree to or what?

 

I think you're spinning to avoid answering the question.

 

What spinning? I have said that I accept that evolution is involved to some extent but that it is not a robust enough explanation to account for all that we see. Now, shall I go back to discussing evolution to tell you why or do you want me to lay off that subject as you have told me to do so many times?

 

Because you are. I'm not being defensive by calling you out.

 

And why are you so defensive about it?

 

I am not the one being defensive, it is you who seem to want me to avoid discussing evolution, that is what I would call being defensive. The question is why? BTW, a nice attempt to turn the tables on me by avoiding answering my question and then just turning it back on me.

 

No, the question is why you are you reluctant to explain your theory.

 

You don't seem to want me to touch evolution which is part of my theory and also part of the reason that I don't accept it as the complete explanation. What more do you want me to say about an intelligent agent being involved, that he is intelligent? That he is an agent? I think that is implied in the name.

 

So, you DO know what evolution is then? Otherwise, how can you say you accept some aspects of it? There's no "it" if there is debate of what "it" is!

 

In other words, you're trying to avoid answering by attacking us instead. You have done this over, and over, and over again. Avoiding to really answer anything, but attacking everyone for whatever they say, and throw logical fallacies left and right and for minor stuff and things that had nothing to do with the core of the arguments, and you do it with some overly "sophisticated" language to sound more educated, meanwhile you miss point after point people make, and fail to understand even the simplest arguments.

 

I know what I mean by evolution, not what you mean by it. That is what I was asking and what you weren't answering. You failed to explain the scope of evolution by your understanding. When does evolution start and by what processes? How do you account for the mechanisms of evolution? From where do the laws that govern evolution come? Those are the questions that I wanted answered and that you wanted to avoid. Care to jump in with some answers from your perspective?

 

I have given my viewpoint on my position. I believe that an agent started life and intervened at different points along the process. I believe that man is a special creation as man has certain characteristics for which I believe that evolution can't account, namely the mind, the immaterial nature of man allowing him to reason and reflect, act as a free agent, etc. This is why I believe that man is a moral agent. These are characteristics for which evolution cannot adequately account.

 

Alas? You're a poet from the 19th century England?

 

No, you haven't given any explanation at all, except for making a hypothesis. The question is, what is your theory. Since you're so educated and learned, then you perhaps can give the proper scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

And when it comes to beat up your ideas... well, if that is what worries you, then why are you even here? There's only one reason to why you keep on debating with us, and it's that you're worried that you're wrong and we're right.

 

---

 

But wait, I can use your method of arguing your theory, and apply it to Evolution too.

 

Why is Evolution right? Because.

 

How does it work? It just magically does.

 

How do we know it is true? Because it says so in books.

 

Okay, so with that part over with. Now we can go on to Creationism or LNC-modified-Evolution theory, and see what kind of reasonable science is behind it.

 

Ah, poetry, another reason that I believe that evolution is inadequate to explain man, our appreciation and creation of aesthetic beauty, thanks for the reminder. I thought that this was about sharing our hypothesis or theory? I mean, evolution is a theory as well, is it not?

 

Hey, if we are not worried that we may be wrong wouldn't we be guilty of the arrogance for which you have accused me? I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have all of the answers. I simply take a look at the world and test the theories against reality to determine which seems to fit most accurately. I assume that you guys are going to beat up my ideas, it seems to be the basis of this thread, at least.

 

I think you have summed up evolutionary naturalism very well, congratulations. At least, that seems to be the way that textbooks seem to portray it.

[Ouroboros]

So, you believe in parts of evolution and some in divine intervention... still doesn't answer the question.

 

The opening post from RO states:

I want to hear from Christians who don't believe in Evolution. Tell us in detail what you believe.

"I believe what the Bible say's" does NOT COUNT.

Have you?

 

No.

[Justin]

We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities. Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part. I, on the other hand, keep my mind open to the possibility of the supernatural as a valid explanatory option.

 

The reason for this, LNC, is that there is no evidence to support the supernatural/paranormal. To do as you suggest is to believe in actual hocus pocus magic. You go to Vegas and catch Chris Angel or any magic show, and while most everyone else will say that it was all illusions and tricks, you apparently will walk out of there thinking it was all real. After all, you can't explain it so it must be real life actual magic.

 

If there were any evidence for the supernatural/paranormal, then you would have a case. But it cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or sensed by science. It cannot be proven so it rightfully isn't given the time of day. We may as well go off and search for mole people and say they are the reason why we have life on earth. Hey, why not? They can't be proven anymore than a god or actual magic, so why think mole people are to far fetched?

[RationalOkie]

We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities. Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part. I, on the other hand, keep my mind open to the possibility of the supernatural as a valid explanatory option.

 

LNC - Give me 1 'Supernatural' event, outside of Christianity, that you are willing to accept as being true.

[Ouroboros]

LNC - Give me 1 'Supernatural' event, outside of Christianity, that you are willing to accept as being true.

I wonder if he'll pick Joseph Smith and the visitation of Moroni, or Mohammad and Gabriel?

 

Here is an article in Swedish, about real Asatru in Sweden today: http://www.svenskhistoria.se/forskning.aspx?newsid=1978.

 

But I don't know if the believers have any recorded miracles, except perhaps healing and good fortune. (just for anyone who might be interested in trying to read my native language.)

[Antlerman]

Seriously, why do you NEED it to support a reading of Genesis that is uniquely modern and literal? Will your faith fall if how you read the Bible needs revision? If so, how strong is what your faith is built upon?

I noticed you didn't answer this question. Why?

 

I just see PE as an ad hoc explanation without evidential support. What is the mechanism that allows the natural process to speed up and slow down? I don't see the support for that idea via natural processes.

And you, as a non-scientist, have thoroughly examined this data and have found fault with Stephen J. Gould and other well recognized specialists who suggest this as a plausible explanation to be in error? I didn't think so. So on what actual basis are you disputing these scientists as a non-scientist yourself? Faith? Maybe common sense? That's got to be it. The lay person can see the fault of their research just through common sense. Right?

 

So anyway, here's something for you to read about PE, if for no other reason than to maybe make you realize you as a non-scientist dismissing it out of hand betrays your desire for it to not be valid. Rather than a pursuit of possible explanations. I return to your motives for NOT wanting to accept it.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

 

I am not merely looking for an answer that supports miracle explanations, just trying to interpret the data.

Bull. Pure bull. You're not looking at the data.

 

You are not a scientist. You wouldn't know how to interpret it.

 

If you or someone can show me the mechanism that allows evolution to speed up to these rates, I will be glad to look at the evidence and data.

So you as a non-scientist can judge good science? Surely you're intelligent enough to see the utter fallacy of this, aren't you?

 

Let's face it, I don't have to poke holes, it is quite apparently there without my help.

Yes, those scientists are idiots! Thanks for clarifying for the ignorant masses what's really going on in science, just how wrong they are.

 

We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities.

More correctly stated, you dismiss natural explanations first because it doesn't square with faith, at first glance because of a marriage to theology and doctrine.

 

So honestly, have we exhausted all natural explanations here?? Have we even begun to really understand them enough to exhaust them?? Hardly. Remember the plea for God because science couldn't explain the bumble bee flight? How foolish the criticism of science was then, as now.

 

Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part.

I don't eliminate them. I'd love for their to be an explanation that cannot be explained any other way than something that defies and go beyond outside natural rules! What a stupendous, phenomenal, revolutionary discover it would be! Proof of God!! That would be the greatest achievement of all time!! Who would NOT want to discoverer that?!!?? They would have fame and recognition beyond anyone. Their name would be ranked among Galileo, Newton, and Einstein!

 

I am dead serious! Any scientist would give anything to discover God. Don't doubt that for a second.

 

 

But of course, you will delude yourself to think people are so against the idea of God they want to hide the data! It's a spiritual warfare thing, right?

 

 

I'll leave the rest of this response to later if time permits.

[Ouroboros]

So let me get this right:

 

Evolution can't be true because a multitude of scientists aren't as smart as LNC, and they don't have enough credentials to "know" what the truth is about nature. Tests, experiments, mathematical analysis, computer models, and even simulations, aren't good enough. But on the other hand, LNC knows better, because he is going to school. And Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, and other similar "scientists" are much better authorities, because they must be right, since they can "prove" science wrong. (They practically got their degrees from a Kellogg's cornflakes box)

 

And then we have Ehrman, Price, and many other scholars, who are not skilled enough, and does not have enough credentials to properly analyze the Bible or history, because they are not "real" historians. But Sir William Ramsay (a chemist, 100 years ago) is the "real" historian and knows better than the modern scholars.

 

Amazing...

 

[Neon Genesis]

But of course, you will delude yourself to think people are so against the idea of God they want to hide the data! It's a spiritual warfare thing, right?

And I have to wonder if he has so much proof of his claims of an intelligent agent that's somehow not God that created evolution expect for humans for some unknown mysterious reason, why doesn't LNC try to win a Nobel prize?

[Antlerman]

So let me get this right:

 

Evolution can't be true because a multitude of scientists aren't as smart as LNC, and they don't have enough credentials to "know" what the truth is about nature. Tests, experiments, mathematical analysis, computer models, and even simulations, aren't good enough. But on the other hand, LNC knows better, because he is going to school. And Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, and other similar "scientists" are much better authorities, because they must be right, since they can "prove" science wrong. (They practically got their degrees from a Kellogg's cornflakes box)

 

And then we have Ehrman, Price, and many other scholars, who are not skilled enough, and does not have enough credentials to properly analyze the Bible or history, because they are not "real" historians. But Sir William Ramsay (a chemist, 100 years ago) is the "real" historian and knows better than the modern scholars.

 

Amazing...

 

There was something else I caught in what LNC said earlier that was scornfully laughable. He said that the Theory of Evolution was not robust enough to be believable. Not robust enough??!! The ENTIRE FIELD OF BIOLOGY IS BASED ON IT! How robust can you get? In fact there is scarcely a field of science where it doesn't touch in foundational ways. It is as fundamental to science as to be nearly considered a Law of Science.

 

Good God, how can this person expect us to respect his belief in God when he has no respect for intellectual integrity? LNC has no idea how gracious I am towards religious belief. I always take exception to the Dawkins term of "delusion" in reference to belief in God. I find plenty of room for it as acceptable within human experience along with reason and rationality. But LNC in his Denialist mentality, in fact, I hate to use the term myself, does display a delusional belief system, not a spiritual one.

 

There is no way I could find anything respectable or appealing about someone who does not attempt to see the truth of thing with a sincere desire for what it can inform us of. Use the word God if you wish, to me to dismiss knowledge like this is in fact to spit right into the face of God. It is insincerity. It is hypocrisy. It is the true definition of carnality. The opposite of a heart the desires truth.

 

This is a delusional faith. In no way does it appeal to myself, and I can easily assume anyone else here. I doubt one soul has felt "God" tugging at their hearts through this display of willful ignorance. In fact I am ashamed of it. Ashamed because I myself was as foolhardy in my fearful ignorance in youth, needing to defend the religion that I was choosing to adopt. It's not faith. It's cowardice. True Cowardice ™.

[Legion]

Um... I don’t believe it is accurate to say that the entire field of biology is based on evolution. I believe most of medicine for instance has little need of the theory. And a great deal of biological research transpires with the aim of furthering medicine.

 

I know, as well as I can know anything, that evolution has happened and continues to happen. But I also believe it is possible to overstate it's importance.

[Antlerman]

Um... I don’t believe it is accurate to say that the entire field of biology is based on evolution. I believe most of medicine for instance has little need of the theory. And a great deal of biological research transpires with the aim of furthering medicine.

 

I know, as well as I can know anything, that evolution has happened and continues to happen. But I also believe it is possible to overstate it's importance.

Really? Can you supply some references from scientists who agree? From everything I know the ToE is pretty fundamental to it. Any biologists in the room?

[Legion]

Really? Can you supply some references from scientists who agree? From everything I know the ToE is pretty fundamental it. Any biologists in the room?

I will try to dig up some quotes tomorrow my man. I am feeling too lazy at the moment.

[Antlerman]

You gotta love Wiki:

Foundations of modern biology

 

There are five unifying principles of biology[2]:

 

* Cell theory. All living organisms are made of one or more cells, the basic living unit of function in organisms. All cells come from preexisting cells that multiply through cell division.

* Evolution. Through natural selection and genetic drift, a population's inherited traits change from generation to generation.

* Genes. A living organism's traits are encoded in DNA. Segments of DNA that, taken as a whole, specify a trait are known as genes. In addition, traits are passed on from one generation to the next by way of these genes. All information transfers from the genotype, the unobservable genetic traits, to the phenotype, the observable physical or biochemical characteristics of the organism. Although the phenotype expressed by the gene may adapt to the environment of the organism, that information is not transferred back to the genes. Only through the process of evolution do genes change in response to the environment.

* Homeostasis. The physiological processes that allow an organism to maintain its internal environment notwithstanding its external environment.

* Energy. The attribute of any living organism that is essential for its state. (e.g. required for metabolism)

 

In either case dude, whether you find it fit with Rosen's theories or not, it is foundational to modern biology. And for LNC to say it's not "Robust" is absurd. That was my point.

[Legion]

In either case dude, whether you find it fit with Rosen's theories or not, it is foundational to modern biology. And for LNC to say it's not "Robust" is absurd. That was my point.

Your point is well taken. And I agree that to say evolution is not robust is absurd.

 

One quick point about Rosen though. He didn't deny evolution. And If he had then I never would have taken him as seriously as I do.

 

I am hoping to persuade you, one of these days, to turn that sharp mind of yours on Rosen's work Antlerman.

[Ouroboros]

There was something else I caught in what LNC said earlier that was scornfully laughable. He said that the Theory of Evolution was not robust enough to be believable. Not robust enough??!! The ENTIRE FIELD OF BIOLOGY IS BASED ON IT! How robust can you get? In fact there is scarcely a field of science where it doesn't touch in foundational ways. It is as fundamental to science as to be nearly considered a Law of Science.

Well, I kind of agree with LR that perhaps it's a bit over the top to say "ENTIRE FIELD", but I agree there's definitely an incredible large part of it. If anyone reads the subject of sex and reproduction in biology, at least deeper into the subject, they can't deny the process which has been observed. And even more, if evolution was completely wrong, then we have to throw out DNA evidence, since it's a "fingerprint". A fingerprint can't be unique, if we all have the same DNA as only TWO unique individuals. Mutations MUST have happened, even if Creationism is true. And mutations MUST have neutral effects to a large extent, otherwise we all would be quickly dying at this very moment. (See you in heaven in 5 seconds!.... *gasp*)

 

Since they have tested mDNA and DNA and compared between a large set, the statistics is clear, we have mutated DNA, and mutated DNA that doesn't necessarily kill us immediately, or even within tops 120 years. That's a frigging long time, compared to most animals. We even live longer in average today, than 100 years ago. What does that say about "negative" mutations?

 

Anyway, I keep on repeating that there has been computer simulations to verify the fundamental concept or theory behind evolution. The question they asked was: can the basic principle of mutation, reproduction, and selection, bring improvements to a virtual group of "beings." And the answer is: Yes. And it's undeniable.

 

There's no way to produce a regular mathematical proof, since it's a process, not a state. It's not a relationship between given, known, values, but the outcome of a process with random and selective features. And as such, only simulations can really show the strength of the process.

 

Besides, they have seen DNA mutations in fruit flies, rats, flowers, and more. Based on the knowledge of the original families. I don't have the article anymore, but I read once an article about rats on an island, which was not originally indigenous. They knew exactly when, how, and what rats from where, that populated it, and they could compare the new generations at the original place, with the new generations on the island. If mutations didn't happen, they would have to be identical. But they were not. In only 200 years (I think it was), even the chromosome count had changed, but they were still rats.

 

Good God, how can this person expect us to respect his belief in God when he has no respect for intellectual integrity? LNC has no idea how gracious I am towards religious belief. I always take exception to the Dawkins term of "delusion" in reference to belief in God. I find plenty of room for it as acceptable within human experience along with reason and rationality. But LNC in his Denialist mentality, in fact, I hate to use the term myself, does display a delusional belief system, not a spiritual one.

I'm surprised. You're usually much more patient than I!

 

And I did lift my eyebrow a bit when I saw your comment.

 

There is no way I could find anything respectable or appealing about someone who does not attempt to see the truth of thing with a sincere desire for what it can inform us of. Use the word God if you wish, to me to dismiss knowledge like this is in fact to spit right into the face of God. It is insincerity. It is hypocrisy. It is the true definition of carnality. The opposite of a heart the desires truth.

What I find most frustrating is that I have given him both arguments, links, resources, quotes (even from the Bible) to prove him wrong in several things, and to such a degree that it was undeniable, then he just went quiet on those things. Didn't respond to my post. But then later, he responded to some other posts instead, and two weeks later, he brings up the same frigging argument which I (and many others) already proved to him to be wrong. He shuts his eyes and ears. He is willingly making himself blind, and call it truth. And why does he do it? Because he thinks that HE is the truth. And that kind of pride was even condemned by the Bible (IIRC).

 

This is a delusional faith. In no way does it appeal to myself, and I can easily assume anyone else here. I doubt one soul has felt "God" tugging at their hearts through this display of willful ignorance. In fact I am ashamed of it. Ashamed because I myself was as foolhardy in my fearful ignorance in youth, needing to defend the religion that I was choosing to adopt. It's not faith. It's cowardice. True Cowardice ™.

True. Real bravery is to look in the mirror, and see oneself for who he is. And it's an awakening to the fact that there can't be an absolute good or evil, because we, God, nature, whatever you pick, have little of both. To see it, is true honesty to oneself, and is the first step to real "spiritual" maturity. Anything else is just the obstinate kid who think he can take on the world and tell the older people how they really should run things.

 

A while ago, I learned one possible etymology of "sophomore," which is: sophia and moros. Which means: wise fool. And it's the common sign of those who get to know a little and get excited over their new knowledge, and they want to share it, and they are certain they are better, truer, and wiser, than everyone else (even the professors). By the next year or two, they calm down, because they suddenly become overwhelmed by the complexity, and that it's not that simple or black-and-white.

[Antlerman]

I am hoping to persuade you, one of these days, to turn that sharp mind of yours on Rosen's work Antlerman.

It's on my radar, especially after us talking about the emergent properties of things. I'm sure there are some inspiring insights in there. I only have so much time and energy to go into different areas of interest.

 

Well, I kind of agree with LR that perhaps it's a bit over the top to say "ENTIRE FIELD", but I agree there's definitely an incredible large part of it.

Alright. I did somewhat overstate it in my zeal to obliterate the absurd comment that Evolution isn't a very robust theory. It did make it sound like the entire field was based solely on it, which really can't be true. It's true in a way as it is part of a foundational understanding of biology that modern biology is built upon, but it isn't what the whole field is entirely based on. Regardless though, its position is most certainly betrays just how robust a theory it is.

 

Good God, how can this person expect us to respect his belief in God when he has no respect for intellectual integrity? LNC has no idea how gracious I am towards religious belief. I always take exception to the Dawkins term of "delusion" in reference to belief in God. I find plenty of room for it as acceptable within human experience along with reason and rationality. But LNC in his Denialist mentality, in fact, I hate to use the term myself, does display a delusional belief system, not a spiritual one.

I'm surprised. You're usually much more patient than I!

 

And I did lift my eyebrow a bit when I saw your comment.

Do you think I'm being too harsh? I certainly would like to know if I'm not being gracious enough. I don't like being unfair, and I know I can be sometimes too rash. I certainly am willing to reconsider the critical perspective I'm taking here.

 

 

 

This is a delusional faith. In no way does it appeal to myself, and I can easily assume anyone else here. I doubt one soul has felt "God" tugging at their hearts through this display of willful ignorance. In fact I am ashamed of it. Ashamed because I myself was as foolhardy in my fearful ignorance in youth, needing to defend the religion that I was choosing to adopt. It's not faith. It's cowardice. True Cowardice ™.

True. Real bravery is to look in the mirror, and see oneself for who he is. And it's an awakening to the fact that there can't be an absolute good or evil, because we, God, nature, whatever you pick, have little of both. To see it, is true honesty to oneself, and is the first step to real "spiritual" maturity. Anything else is just the obstinate kid who think he can take on the world and tell the older people how they really should run things.

 

A while ago, I learned one possible etymology of "sophomore," which is: sophia and moros. Which means: wise fool. And it's the common sign of those who get to know a little and get excited over their new knowledge, and they want to share it, and they are certain they are better, truer, and wiser, than everyone else (even the professors). By the next year or two, they calm down, because they suddenly become overwhelmed by the complexity, and that it's not that simple or black-and-white.

The foolishness of youth armed with what is interpreted as an absolute truth is a recipe for a fall for them. The most obstinate, the most vocal, the most unwilling to bend, the weaker their faith really is. They are set for the greater fall when the first crack forms in the shell. Then the pendulum swing happens and they take this approach and switch religions to a new faith that True™, and so forth until they realize that reality is far more complex, fluid, dynamic, shaded, intertwined, and ultimately more fascinating than the binary, black and white world of their youth.

 

Youth seeks to make the world simple because they're not ready to look into the abyss of reality. They want a landscape of easy to identify borders in which to make decisions as an adult. And the sign of being able to navigate life via their own discernment in this fuzzy landscape, is a true sign of emotional maturity, of bravery. Prior to that, the world is full of straw soldiers with which to develop skill to use in real battle. The coward is one who fears leaving the practice fields. Religion for them becomes their mother's breast they refuse to wean themselves away from, rather than one of many ways of navigating life on their own.

 

 

I heard LNC is working on a Masters. You know, a PhD is where you have to demonstrate you can apply knowledge, not just master a book knowledge of it. Mastering the teachings of a Bible College, to me, honestly doesn't demonstrate very much at all.

[Neon Genesis]

Do you think I'm being too harsh? I certainly would like to know if I'm not being gracious enough. I don't like being unfair, and I know I can be sometimes too rash. I certainly am willing to reconsider the critical perspective I'm taking here.

I think that sometimes you have to be harsh with fundies because they won't listen to anything you say otherwise and it just goes one ear out the other. LNC will pop into a thread, start harassing ex-christians, refuse to answer our questions if he doesn't have a cliched response to it. Then, he'll later accuse you of not having answered his questions when we already did earlier in the thread but he just refused to listen because it wasn't a question he didn't have a sound bite answer to. Then when we call him out on it and refuse to go along with his script, he cries persecution and start ranting about how we're evil people for making fun of him when nobody forced him to come here in the first place yet he acts like Ruby forced him to come here. If he was truly interested in learning about evolution, he would just read through talkorigins.org himself. But if he has to debate a subject where there's nothing to debate on, then he's obviously not interested in actually learning about it and only wants to get on his soapbox to preach. It's like trying to "debate" whether or not the Earth is flat with a flat earther because the bible says it is. If the flat earther is already convinced the Earth is flat in spite of the evidence to the contrary, they're not going to listen to anything anyone says because they're convinced it's all a conspiracy plot to cover up the truth. If the flat earther actually cared about what other people said, they wouldn't be flat earthers. Or in LNC's case, he's like someone who believes the Earth is somehow both spherical and flat at the same time so he can have his cake and eat it too.

[Ouroboros]

Do you think I'm being too harsh? I certainly would like to know if I'm not being gracious enough. I don't like being unfair, and I know I can be sometimes too rash. I certainly am willing to reconsider the critical perspective I'm taking here.

No, you're not to harsh. Rather the opposite, I'm glad to see it. And in this particular case, you were definitely not over the top. It was just a surprise to see you indicate that someone was delusional. I think he is, so it was definitely not in error, in my view.

 

My understanding of "delusional" is when someone has a belief that doesn't correspond with reality. When LNC, in the beginning came here, and only argued "God" from a philosophical perspective and using Kalaam etc, I didn't call him delusional because that discussion is on a level beyond of what we can know about reality (as of now), but when he started to talk about his Christian belief and tried to support it with obscure "scholars", meanwhile reject real scholars left and right, and now do the same with science, I can't see how that would not be beliefs contrary to reality. Ergo, delusions. And especially when it comes to his overwhelming conviction that he is always right, and think he's even more correct than leading authorities in the different subjects. Amazing.

 

The foolishness of youth armed with what is interpreted as an absolute truth is a recipe for a fall for them. The most obstinate, the most vocal, the most unwilling to bend, the weaker their faith really is. They are set for the greater fall when the first crack forms in the shell. Then the pendulum swing happens and they take this approach and switch religions to a new faith that True™, and so forth until they realize that reality is far more complex, fluid, dynamic, shaded, intertwined, and ultimately more fascinating than the binary, black and white world of their youth.

Agree.

 

There are another personality type that fits too, besides the sophomore, which is an older male, lower middle class, low income, and probably sad life conditions. Religion is their only hope, and they need an explanation to why life is unfair. And they want punishment for those who are higher up on the ladder. They need Hell and Heaven to explain life, and basically become ritualists to overcome the cultural strain between the goals of society (money, cars, success) and the means (job, income, talents, status).

 

Youth seeks to make the world simple because they're not ready to look into the abyss of reality. They want a landscape of easy to identify borders in which to make decisions as an adult. And the sign of being able to navigate life via their own discernment in this fuzzy landscape, is a true sign of emotional maturity, of bravery. Prior to that, the world is full of straw soldiers with which to develop skill to use in real battle. The coward is one who fears leaving the practice fields. Religion for them becomes their mother's breast they refuse to wean themselves away from, rather than one of many ways of navigating life on their own.

Very true. They are still working their way from Piaget's concrete operational stage into the formal operational stage. But unfortunately, some people get stuck in the concrete operational stage, and never really grow up. They never manage to climb to the top of Bloom's taxonomy pyramid and perhaps get stuck at application/analysis, and never reach synthesis.

 

I heard LNC is working on a Masters. You know, a PhD is where you have to demonstrate you can apply knowledge, not just master a book knowledge of it. Mastering the teachings of a Bible College, to me, honestly doesn't demonstrate very much at all.

That's the part which is so contradictory. But I've seen that many courses don't require the formal operations of thinking, so sometimes, a person can be the unlucky one who goes through years of college and never really break through. He's not done yet though, so we'll see in a few years, maybe the tone will be different then? Or, like you hint, he might be going to a Bible College. (I taught in a Christian high-school many years ago, so I saw the inside of it, and the religious driven politics. So single minded. The meme virus is vicious.)

 

--

 

Now I need a cup of coffee, and then back to my books.

[LNC]

I want to let everyone know that I am on the road for the next two weeks and most likely will not be able to post. I am back on the 20th and can pick it up then if the threads are still live.

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

I want to let everyone know that I am on the road for the next two weeks and most likely will not be able to post. I am back on the 20th and can pick it up then if the threads are still live.

 

LNC

 

Don't worry, if the threads die Jesus can resurrect them if it is his will.