quote:And since most of the religious start out believing scripture to be literal, I'd say there are plenty of religious who have "converted" to evolutionism.
A literal reading of the Bible does not support creationism, in that there are two stories that are logically mutually exclusive.
I'm of the opinion that creationism generally doesn't come from humility and respect for the Bible, but rather an outside need that is used to twist/ignore what the Bible says.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, here is an article that discusses what Pixiest is talking about in more detail. It's a pretty interesting read.
Nathan, there's a history here; Jay isn't being jumped this way in his first post. I'm usually a pretty compassionate person, but I can't really muster any sympathy for Jay, in this circumstance.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I generally agree with you kmbboots. I say "generally" because I don't know everybody on that list. At least not until I hit up Wikipedia later.
But I think the "wasting your life" part implies all the religious activities that help no one. The hours of prayer, ceremonies and scripture study that, you could argue as a non-believer, is a waste of time.
(Just to be sure, I'm just saying that I think that's what he meant...not that I necessarily agree.)
The prayers, ceremonies, scripture study and so forth are often what fuels and inspires and nourishes people to do these things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon: That is very interesting! Thanks for linking it, I've read the first 2 pages, but I'll have to get through the rest in about an hour.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I generally agree with you kmbboots. I say "generally" because I don't know everybody on that list. At least not until I hit up Wikipedia later.
But I think the "wasting your life" part implies all the religious activities that help no one. The hours of prayer, ceremonies and scripture study that, you could argue as a non-believer, is a waste of time.
(Just to be sure, I'm just saying that I think that's what he meant...not that I necessarily agree.)
The prayers, ceremonies, scripture study and so forth are often what fuels and inspires and nourishes people to do these things.
True, but one isn't necessary for the other.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but there can never be a conclusive law regarding our origins, since our origins can't (As of yet) be repeated.
Evolution does not address origins. I think it's unlikely that there will ever be a conclusive theory of abiogenesis given the distance of time, though the available evidence strongly contradicts the theory that everything was created all at once.
The question of whether, say, horses were created by God during a single day of creation is not refuted by evolution because evolutionary theory predicts a different type of creation, but because the evidence indicates that horses have a very old and rich pedigree.
Creation points to a street corner and says "this road begins there." Evolution points into the distance and says "but I can see it continuing for at least 10 more blocks", then pulls out the binoculars and says "and it seems to continue for several miles beyond that." Evolutionary theory doesn't say when or how the road began, but it demonstrates that it stretches far beyond the point which Creationism claims to be the beginning.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that article yesterday. It's fascinating, and a bit comforting, somehow. I mean, if Mother Teresa had doubts, it's clearly okay for me to have them too Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saved a copy of this thread, by the way, in anticipation of Jay eventually deleting it. I'll try to remember to get a new copy of it every now and then, and will just repost the whole thing as a mammoth first post in a new thread if the deletion does occur.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zoh: He will never know that he's spent a good portion of his precious time alive preaching ridiculous views to people who know better, people who are smart enough to question the disease that is religion.
That view is ever bit as distasteful, and untruthful, as Jay's are, and I would be ashamed to agree with either of you.
How would you know? Moreover, if there is no afterlife, then indeed Jay will never know that he is wrong, which admittedly is a little unfortunate.
My distaste has to do with the lack of respect for those who are still living. I could care less about anyone's religious views are, to be honest. It's the lack of compassion and empathy that makes both ends of the spectrum diagreeable to me.
quote:You know a lot of religious people who were Creationists but no longer are? Of all the religious people I know, about seven of them fit this description.
What about people who believed in Evolution but then abandoned it later? After the age of 20, I might add?
(Hint:) This guy.
Also, someone touched on this earlier; I don't think it's the actual scientists who are so dogmatic about their beliefs. I think that when they discover some piece of evidence, it is their commitment to their professionalism that has them publish rather than conceal. It is the pseudo-scientists and activists who take up the flag and start trying to incorporate the new evidence into the rigid structure of their religion (i.e; Darwinism.) I think the problem here is not truth, but interpretation. This goes for both camps. The annoying thing is when my camp is constantly reminded of how ignorant and closed minded it is, and then we receive patient explanations of how the other side is immune from these faults, because they are "scientific."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zoh: He will never know that he's spent a good portion of his precious time alive preaching ridiculous views to people who know better, people who are smart enough to question the disease that is religion.
That view is ever bit as distasteful, and untruthful, as Jay's are, and I would be ashamed to agree with either of you.
How would you know? Moreover, if there is no afterlife, then indeed Jay will never know that he is wrong, which admittedly is a little unfortunate.
My distaste has to do with the lack of respect for those who are still living. I could care less about what anyones religious views are, to be honest. It's the lack of compassion and empathy that makes both ends of the spectrum diagreeable.
Sorry to jump in to the middle of your guys' conversation here, but I don't understand. Who is being disrespectful, and what does the person's beliefs have to do with it?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related evolution note, has anyone read Michael Behe's new book? He argues that, if the frequency of random mutations in bacteria is any indication of the frequency of mutations in all life forms, the probability is very low that random mutations resulted in all the current life forms of Earth in the amount of time available. Of course, natural selection still causes some changes in living things, and the fact that the theory of evolution has gaps doesn't entail intelligent design.
posted
Ok, about Mother Teresa: In the first place, she did not help people, she helped herself to other people's money. In the second place, she didn't sit about on the Interweb arguing about evolution, which is what Jay was being criticised for. Neither did anyone else on that list.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't read it yet. Did anyone see him on Colbert? He didn't get a chance to say anything. I think Colbert was a little scared.
There is a creationist theory that I'm interested in, and that is that there are many specific "kinds," as the bible says, but that these are far less numerous than the number of actual species. Natural selection results in a loss of genetic information, but causes advantages for the animal in it's particular environment. An example is a bacterium that develops immunity from anti-bacterial substances. They actually lose the genetic information that regulates the production of resistant enzymes, which under normal circumstance would be detrimental.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And smoking isn't necessary to get lung cancer. But it sure increases the probability.
But praying, participating in religious ceremonies and studying scripture doesn't increase the probability of helping people.
Being in social groups does, which religions are wonderful at doing.
But those particular groups wouldn't exist if not for the common relationship....their religious background.
I think religion is important, not because it gives us all the answers, but because it teaches us to question things that matter. A lot of the way right will tell you ALL answers are there in the bible, but I know not all of those answers are the correct answers for today's society.
Religion has evolved, or at least changed, over the years too. Funny how they forget that when discussing science, isn't it?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The annoying thing is when my camp is constantly reminded of how ignorant and closed minded it is
If your side is Creationism, then the arguable standard bearer is Answers in Genesis. At least they're spending the most money on promoting what they claim to be scientific argument for creationism.
Here's what they say about evidence that disagrees with their interpretation of scripture:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
You may not obtain a position as a scientist in their organization without signing the Statement of Faith that includes that text. It's hard to view such a position as anything but closed minded and ignorant. Even the most strident scientist will admit the possibility that new evidence may invalidate existing theories.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ok, about Mother Teresa: In the first place, she did not help people, she helped herself to other people's money. In the second place, she didn't sit about on the Interweb arguing about evolution, which is what Jay was being criticised for. Neither did anyone else on that list.
Hah! Best post in the thread, if you ask me. I don't know if that's true about Mother Theresa, but it's hilarious regardless.
Are you British, or Canadian? You spell "criticize" with an "s."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The annoying thing is when my camp is constantly reminded of how ignorant and closed minded it is
If your side is Creationism, then the arguable standard bearer is Answers in Genesis. At least they're spending the most money on promoting what they claim to be scientific argument for creationism.
Here's what they say about evidence that disagrees with their interpretation of scripture:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
You may not obtain a position as a scientist in their organization without signing the Statement of Faith that includes that text. It's hard to view such a position as anything but closed minded and ignorant. Even the most strident scientist will admit the possibility that new evidence may invalidate existing theories.
I can't comment on this book, or whatever it is. I would like to point out that when you say: "At least they're spending the most money on promoting what they claim to be scientific argument for creationism," all I have to do is change the word "creationism" to "evolution," and you get a pretty accurate description of what the scientific community is doing, and with MY tax dollars, no less.
[edit] "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Same thing here. Just exchange "scriptural record" with "evolutionary theory."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: On a related evolution note, has anyone read Michael Behe's new book? He argues that, if the frequency of random mutations in bacteria is any indication of the frequency of mutations in all life forms, the probability is very low that random mutations resulted in all the current life forms of Earth in the amount of time available. Of course, natural selection still causes some changes in living things, and the fact that the theory of evolution has gaps doesn't entail intelligent design.
The key science used in his book has been debunked pretty thoroughly. He makes claims that "X" can't happen and specialists in the relevant fields have pointed out that "X" has indeed happened, multiple times in some cases.
For instance, he claims that resistance to an anti-malarial drug (chloroquine) required two simultaneous amino acid changes, which are very unlikely to happen simultaneously and would therefore require a large amount of time to occur.
It turns out that there are known examples of only one of those changes occurring which still provide some resistance to chloroquine, meaning that the more resistant form containing both changes could have evolved in multiple steps - a much more likely and less time-consuming process.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The discussion of Mother Teresa brings to mind that, at least for me, faith is not based on feelings. I think that feeling the presence of God is a somewhat shaky foundation. For most people, it comes and goes at best. Lots of faithful people experience a "dark night of the soul". Even God Incarnate felt forsaken. Faith, for me, is a decision.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, I was talking about why I dislike both extreme ends of this argument. They act a lot alike in their disrespect for anyone who disagrees with their point of view, which is ironic, but mot fun to be around.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ken Miller From a report that spontaneous resistance to the drug can be found in roughly 1 parasite in 1020, he asserts that these are the odds of both mutations arising in a single organism, and uses them to make this sweeping assertion:
"On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years. Since that is many times the age of the universe, it's reasonable to conclude the following: No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years."
Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn't. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.
posted
I only read the first part of that blog post, about how Irreducible Complexity has been thoroughly debunked. Actually, it was been subjected a couple of straw man arguments, and since some people are already convinced that evolution had to happen, well, any argument against his theory, no matter how fallacious, will do.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dawkins If mutation, rather than selection, really limited evolutionary change, this should be true for artificial no less than natural selection. Domestic breeding relies upon exactly the same pool of mutational variation as natural selection. Now, if you sought an experimental test of Behe's theory, what would you do? You'd take a wild species, say a wolf that hunts caribou by long pursuit, and apply selection experimentally to see if you could breed, say, a dogged little wolf that chivies rabbits underground: let's call it a Jack Russell terrier. Or how about an adorable, fluffy pet wolf called, for the sake of argument, a Pekingese? Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming. Your wolves would stubbornly remain unchanged. Dogs are a mathematical impossibility.
Don't evade the point by protesting that dog breeding is a form of intelligent design. It is (kind of), but Behe, having lost the argument over irreducible complexity, is now in his desperation making a completely different claim: that mutations are too rare to permit significant evolutionary change anyway. From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs — every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Resh, I was talking about why I dislike both extreme ends of this argument. They act a lot alike in their disrespect for anyone who disagrees with their point of view, which is ironic, but mot fun to be around.
Oh yeah, I'm with you on that. I of course, find it ironic that I dislike the extremes and the disrespect, but then actively engage in taking an extreme and disrespectful angle.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't comment on this book, or whatever it is.
Answers in Genesis is an organization. They built the $35M Creation Museum that's been in the news lately and they employ a large portion of the credentialed scientists that advocate Biblical creationism as a scientific conclusion.
quote:Just exchange "scriptual record" with "evolutionary theory."
Can you point out one scientist who would agree that any evidence that contradicts their current theory is automatically invalid just because it conflicts with their theory rather than conflicting with the balance of existing evidence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Same thing here. Just exchange "scriptural record" with "evolutionary theory."
Except that's not true, as proven by the news item that prompted this thread. New evidence was discovered which contradicted the current evolutionary theory. It wasn't rejected -- it was accepted, and evolutionary theory was changed to fit the new data.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The discussion of Mother Teresa brings to mind that, at least for me, faith is not based on feelings. I think that feeling the presence of God is a somewhat shaky foundation. For most people, it comes and goes at best. Lots of faithful people experience a "dark night of the soul". Even God Incarnate felt forsaken. Faith, for me, is a decision.
I feel the same way about love -- it's much more a decision and a commitment than it is a feeling.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not how it works, at least as far as I believe, Matt. All data is interpreted according to Evolutionary theory. Nothing is invalidated; it is just shaped and fitted accordingly. On the flip side, there are many things that should have been invalidated, such as the geologic column, uniformitarianism, or the various age-dating techniques, that are still in use because they prop up the theory.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, uniformitarianism is an example of rejection of evidence. The evidence shows that the entire surface of the earth has probably been subject to cataclysmic changes in the past. But this would invalidate much of the evidence used to support evolution, and so it is still being adhered to.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not how it works, at least as far as I believe, Matt. All data is interpreted according to Evolutionary theory. Nothing is invalidated; it is just shaped and fitted accordingly. On the flip side, there are many things that should have been invalidated, such as the geologic column, the various age-dating techniques, that are still in use because they prop up the theory.
I recognize that this is the general view of more sophisticated creationists, but I don't believe that this view is supported by evidence.
The potential flaws in the dating methods that are employed by geologists and other specialists which deal with geochronology are well understood and accounted for. The results are very consistent and, for the methods which deal in the same time ranges, mutually validating.
There is no evidence for the mechanisms which creationists believe cause these dating methods to be flawed, such as the suggestion that radioactive decay rates have not been constant over time. Such assertions are made only because they are necessary to fit the evidence to the creationist young earth view.
Even the somewhat interesting creationist claims about dating conflicts, such as the helium diffusion rates in New Mexico zircons, have been shown to have serious methodological flaws. Scientists point out the errors but the creationist scientists seem rather resistant to actually address the criticisms.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, those uniformitarians and their numerous theories of cataclysmic events such as asteroid impacts, theories frequently validated by new discoveries of layered deposits consistent with such huge, catastrophic impacts . . .
Perhaps by 'uniformitarian' you mean 'has many theories of the impact of cataclysmic events, and about specific cataclysmic events occuring-arian'?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Trolling
I am above the age of 20 and still believe Evolution is the most plausible explanation for the origins of intelligent life and I have considered all the evidence, intelligent and otherwise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not how it works, at least as far as I believe, Matt. All data is interpreted according to Evolutionary theory. Nothing is invalidated; it is just shaped and fitted accordingly. On the flip side, there are many things that should have been invalidated, such as the geologic column, uniformitarianism, or the various age-dating techniques, that are still in use because they prop up the theory.
May I ask where you get your information? Are you a research scientist? (I'm asking seriously...I realize that can be read as sarcasm.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have considered all the evidence, intelligent and otherwise.
I seriously doubt you've considered all of it.
I wonder if there's a single person alive who could fully consider all the evidence from all the fields.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if there's a single person alive who could fully consider all the evidence from all the fields.
That would be physically impossible. There are thousands of papers published every year in the relevant disciplines. Even 24/7, one person could not read all of them.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's not how it works, at least as far as I believe, Matt. All data is interpreted according to Evolutionary theory. Nothing is invalidated; it is just shaped and fitted accordingly. On the flip side, there are many things that should have been invalidated, such as the geologic column, uniformitarianism, or the various age-dating techniques, that are still in use because they prop up the theory.
Prove it. Prove that you have any idea what you are talking about. Back this up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I have been saving a copy of this thread as well.
I switched from being a pretty die-hard young earth creationist to accepting that the Biblical account couldn't be literal sometime around the age of 16 or 17. I wasn't happy about it, but I was unable to deny the evidence. I got a bit tired of disbelieving huge swaths of biology, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, and geology. So I guess you can decide if my age disqualifies me, Tom. Did I need to be an old young earth creationist for you to put me on your list?
Anyhow, having been a reasonably intelligent young earth creationist, I think it would be wrong to say that people who believe that sort of thing are stupid. Likewise, it's quite unfair to say that accepting evolution is in any way abandoning faith in God or embracing immorality. Look, I wasn't stupid then, and I'm not evil now.
Also, keep in mind that evolutionary theory is actually kind of useful in studying biology. For example, we need to understand how pathogens evolve so that we can develop defenses against them. And you know, some of the things you find out are just pretty darn cool, even mind-blowing. During a genomics class, I compared a gene from the typhus bacterium with a gene from the human mitochondrion. The theory goes that some common ancestor of the two either infected or was eaten by the ancestor of eukaryotes, and ended up in a symbiotic relationship.
Anyhow, a billion or so years later, the genes I was looking at were ridiculously similar. Amazing, isn't it?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Look, if you're going to go about posting this kind of outrageous claim you're going to need some to post some pretty reliable evidence if you want any of us to believe you.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I just saved a copy of this thread, by the way, in anticipation of Jay eventually deleting it. I'll try to remember to get a new copy of it every now and then, and will just repost the whole thing as a mammoth first post in a new thread if the deletion does occur.
posted
You saw me interacting with two small children in Las Vegas, and I didn't even take a nibble. I think that should be sufficient. I didn't short-sheet Rivka's bed, either. That must have been someone else Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Funny how they forget that when discussing science, isn't it?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
