RE: My two cents.

RE: My two cents. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 4:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I am interested in the contention that, "That kind of thinking has held back our development as humans for centuries and it's time to stop." Presumably the 'kind of thinking' being considered here is that life and certain aspects of nature bear earmarks of design, and that this fact should lead us to the conclusion there is a Designer. How can be it said that this 'kind of thinking' has held us back, when indeed it was the thinking of some of the greatest scientists and philosophers of all time? And when we know that societies that have devoted themselves to other sorts of thinking (for example, that God does not exist) have been notably backwards in their scientific thinking? It would seem this assertion is demonstrably false. Clearly the "kind of thinking" I was talking about was the "it doesn't match my belief so it must be wrong" kind of thinking. I don't know of any society that was based on or devoted to God not existing. Maybe you can tell me of one. And quite a few scientific advances in knowledge were made in spite of religion telling people otherwise.

drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 5:01:12 PM)
quote: I don't know of any society that was based on or devoted to God not existing. Maybe you can tell me of one. Communism.

Jhud -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 5:25:30 PM)
quote: Clearly the "kind of thinking" I was talking about was the "it doesn't match my belief so it must be wrong" kind of thinking. I don't know of any society that was based on or devoted to God not existing. Maybe you can tell me of one. And quite a few scientific advances in knowledge were made in spite of religion telling people otherwise. drMark gave you one, but you are avoiding the point - understanding that science as you know it is primarily the product of a Western Christian history and culture, how can you say that a belief in God, "has held back our development as humans for centuries "?

tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 5:30:13 PM)
You're right. The USSR and specifically Marx and Stalin were anti religion. Although I really doubt a case could be made stating that as the reason for it's downfall. Although to state communism as a whole as being anti God would be wrong. There are Christian and other various religious groups that are communist. Even the Pilgrims were considered to be communist at least in the begining.

tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 5:36:00 PM)
After the end of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity the European states regressed backward in development and it wasn't until fairly recently we as a group finally pulled ourselves out of that whole it put us in. The dark ages and the Inquisitions were not a time of much scientific advancement. I think we finally started making progress in spite of religion holding us back.

Jhud -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 5:37:14 PM)
quote: You're right. The USSR and specifically Marx and Stalin were anti religion. Although I really doubt a case could be made stating that as the reason for it's downfall. Although to state communism as a whole as being anti God would be wrong. There are Christian and other various religious groups that are communist. Even the Pilgrims were considered to be communist at least in the begining. People often confuse 'communal' and 'communist' a la Marx - they are quite different, and early American settlers certainly weren't Marxists. Either way, it still doesn't respond to the fact that Christian beliefs can't be shown to hinder science.

falcnjet -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 9:14:16 PM)
quote: Drmark:No, observational experiments show that population can adapt. All the guppies still remain guppies! No evolution has occurred, so do you have another real example, or just more posturing about RM + NS = adaptation. quote: Aristocrat: Adaptation was a primary concept as Darwin honed his knowledge about Evolution. Remember, that was the Galapogos Finches. Combined with transitional fossils and other scientific factors, evolution stands tested and proven. That's just fact. Nothing can change it. You guys need to define your argument. Adaptation (Natural Selection) is a proven fact undisputed by anyone (truly). But variation within created kinds is not Evolution in the sense of one kind or type of creature changing into another over time. Variation is bounded by the DNA possessed by the original kind. That DNA can be varied in hundreds and sometimes thousands of ways, but it only contains so much information. So frogs change color and size, but don't turn to princes. Darwins finches remained finches. And no definitive transitional fossils have ever been found, despite Darwin's claim that if we didn't find thousands, his theory would be invalidated. (I know there are a very few disputed candidates, so spare me Archeopteryx). Appealing to variation (or speciation or adaptation) as evidence of Evolution (the advancement of species from simple to complex by random accident) is a red herring. So Aristocrat, you still need an argument.

gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 9:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet You guys need to define your argument. Adaptation (Natural Selection) is a proven fact undisputed by anyone (truly). But variation within created kinds is not Evolution in the sense of one kind or type of creature changing into another over time. The problem with the word "kind" is that (unlike "species") it has no scientific definition. But given that examples of "kind" provided in creationist literature usually fall out around the family level or sometimes order or genus then "Evolution in the sense of one kind or type of creature changing into another over time" is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. Species do not evolve out of their genus/family/order/whatever. They do not switch taxonomic categories. In creationist vocabulary they do not change from one kind to another. This is not contrary to the theory of evolution. It is part and parcel of the theory of evolution. All evolution will ever do is increase the number of species in the existing "kind" (or to use scientific vocabulary "taxon"). So if anyone's problem with evolution is species changing kinds, that is really a strawman problem. The theory of evolution doesn't allow for that. The more thorny problem is how one discerns the boundaries of a kind. Generally speaking, those who accept evolution will set those boundaries much more widely than creationists do. quote: Variation is bounded by the DNA possessed by the original kind. That DNA can be varied in hundreds and sometimes thousands of ways, but it only contains so much information. No, this is not true, but we can discuss this further in the genetic information thread. The fact is that in order for DNA to be varied in hundreds and sometimes thousands of ways within the kind, it is necessary that information increase. Especially if the population of the kind has ever been subjected to a bottleneck.

falcnjet -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 9:36:09 PM)
quote: Drmark: ...it's rather sad and shows the depth of compromise to which many in the church have fallen when they place the authority of man's "science" above God's Word! This is the most sensible thing I've read in this forum in the last few days. Christians, like others, have always been afraid of being different than their peers. Yet that's exactly what we've always been called to do. I am convinced that it is fear of being ridiculed and ostracised that makes many Christians so readily reject the bible's clear record in favor of what "everybody believes". If they can only integrate this inane theory into their beliefs, then they won't have to face ridicule. We need Christians with the courage to believe God.

falcnjet -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 9:42:31 PM)
quote: Gluadys: The problem with the word "kind" is that (unlike "species") it has no scientific definition. But given that examples of "kind" provided in creationist literature usually fall out around the family level or sometimes order or genus then "Evolution in the sense of one kind or type of creature changing into another over time" is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. Species do not evolve out of their genus/family/order/whatever. They do not switch taxonomic categories. In creationist vocabulary they do not change from one kind to another. This is not contrary to the theory of evolution. It is part and parcel of the theory of evolution. All evolution will ever do is increase the number of species in the existing "kind" (or to use scientific vocabulary "taxon"). So if anyone's problem with evolution is species changing kinds, that is really a strawman problem. The theory of evolution doesn't allow for that. The more thorny problem is how one discerns the boundaries of a kind. Generally speaking, those who accept evolution will set those boundaries much more widely than creationists do. This is a very interesting claim. I noticed you made it before. Of course, Evolution does indeed claim that random chance mutations coupled with natural selection have, over tremendous time, brought us from the simplest life forms all the way to homo sapiens. Are you claiming that it does not? Are you saying that evolution does not claim that creatures climbed out of the sea, grew legs, wings, etc., (e.g. birds to dinosaurs) and became new kinds? If so, where did these taxonomic categories out of which creatures can't evolve come from? Please clarify.

gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/21/2008 10:00:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet This is a very interesting claim. I noticed you made it before. Of course, Evolution does indeed claim that random chance mutations coupled with natural selection have, over tremendous time, brought us from the simplest life forms all the way to homo sapiens. Are you claiming that it does not? By no means. quote: Are you saying that evolution does not claim that creatures climbed out of the sea, grew legs, wings, etc., (e.g. birds to dinosaurs) and became new kinds? They did all this without exiting the kind they already were. The key here is that what you are thinking of as "new kinds" which populations change into do not exist beside or outside the older kind. They exist within the older kind. So there is no need to switch from one kind to another. Consider the mallard duck. It is one kind of duck. Did a mallard have to stop being a duck when a duck became a mallard? No. It is still a duck. Which is the originally created kind: the mallard or the duck? Now a duck is a kind of bird. Does the fact it is a duck mean it is not a bird? Did the first duck change kinds from being a bird? Of course not. But now which is the originally created kind: duck or bird? Birds are a kind of therapod dinosaur. Just as a mallard is still a duck, and ducks are still birds, birds are still therapod dinosaurs. They never evolved out of the dinosaur kind. But now, which is the original created kind: bird or therapod dinosaur? quote: If so, where did these taxonomic categories out of which creatures can't evolve come from? Please clarify. They came through speciation within the original kind.

falcnjet -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 12:17:05 AM)
quote: Gluadys: They did all this without exiting the kind they already were. The key here is that what you are thinking of as "new kinds" which populations change into do not exist beside or outside the older kind. They exist within the older kind. So there is no need to switch from one kind to another. Consider the mallard duck. It is one kind of duck. Did a mallard have to stop being a duck when a duck became a mallard? No. It is still a duck. Which is the originally created kind: the mallard or the duck? Now a duck is a kind of bird. Does the fact it is a duck mean it is not a bird? Did the first duck change kinds from being a bird? Of course not. But now which is the originally created kind: duck or bird? Birds are a kind of therapod dinosaur. Just as a mallard is still a duck, and ducks are still birds, birds are still therapod dinosaurs. They never evolved out of the dinosaur kind. But now, which is the original created kind: bird or therapod dinosaur? Okay, Gluadys, now you're saying that the original gene pool in the first simple cell was rich enough to create all life through mutation and natural selection. I know, you think the original genetic material has been added to by incredible orders of magnitude by random chance over eons. You know, I'm sure, that many evolution scientists believe that the first cell would have required about 600 proteins to survive (an incredible barrier to spontaneous generation, by the way). How many proteins are required for a human body? I've read it more than once, but I've forgotten the number. Hundreds of thousands at least. Probably millions. The DNA strand in the first viable cell would have been miniscule compared to human DNA. Yet random mutations and environmental pressures added all that to that original cell. All this in spite of the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of a mutation adding information to a cell that wasn't there before. And you say the YEC point-of-view appalled you? What an incredibly high level of faith you have.

HHV5 -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 12:23:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet Okay, Gluadys, now you're saying that the original gene pool in the first simple cell was rich enough to create all life through mutation and natural selection. I know, you think the original genetic material has been added to by incredible orders of magnitude by random chance over eons. You know, I'm sure, that many evolution scientists believe that the first cell would have required about 600 proteins to survive (an incredible barrier to spontaneous generation, by the way). How many proteins are required for a human body? I've read it more than once, but I've forgotten the number. Hundreds of thousands at least. Probably millions. The DNA strand in the first viable cell would have been miniscule compared to human DNA. Yet random mutations and environmental pressures added all that to that original cell. All this in spite of the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of a mutation adding information to a cell that wasn't there before. And you say the YEC point-of-view appalled you? What an incredibly high level of faith you have. OK I know this wasn't addressed to me, but: Hundreds of thousands is pushing it. Millions is highly unlikely, even with alternative splicing. The human genome is very sparse in terms of functional genes.

gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 1:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet Okay, Gluadys, now you're saying that the original gene pool in the first simple cell was rich enough to create all life through mutation and natural selection. Oh good heavens, no. It would be very simple--and the precursors of the cell simpler still. You think that is impossible because you think that genetic information cannot increase. But it does. Ask any biologist. Like Method. Or go to the library and check out Kenneth Miller's new book Only a Theory. He has some nice illustrations in there of new genetic information being created. I don't know of any reason why genetic information cannot increase, so you really have to make a case for this alleged limitation. quote: How many proteins are required for a human body? I've read it more than once, but I've forgotten the number. Hundreds of thousands at least. Probably millions. No, as HHV5 says, the human genome is not all that large. About 25,000 coding genes. There are many other species with larger genomes and more functioning genes, so if quantity of information is a measure of biological superiority we are far from being the most evolved species. quote: The DNA strand in the first viable cell would have been miniscule compared to human DNA. Yet random mutations and environmental pressures added all that to that original cell. All this in spite of the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of a mutation adding information to a cell that wasn't there before. Tell me, just what would added information look like? If it is additional base nucleotides, it is trivial to show that this happens all the time. If it is something else, what is it? How would one know if information has been added or subtracted? quote: And you say the YEC point-of-view appalled you? Theologically, it most certainly does. I have seen horrendous exegesis and much theology that borders, if not crosses into, heresy used to justify this notion. The Omphalos doctrine is just the beginning of its weaknesses.

ianz -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 2:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Actually, e1ng, the "proof of the pudding" lies in the impressive list of dozens of creation scientists who have founded their respective disciplines of scientific endeavor. Our side has "gotten it right" innumerable times in the history of scientific thought. As Jack points out, agno-atheists "have been notably backwards in their scientific thinking" for essentially all of recorded history. Of course, the a-a crowd revises history as readily as they revise scientific terminology! What about non-Creationist (in the YEC sense), Christian scientists?

drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 11:35:02 AM)
quote: Theologically, it most certainly does. I have seen horrendous exegesis and much theology that borders, if not crosses into, heresy used to justify this notion. The Omphalos doctrine is just the beginning of its weaknesses. Why don't you take this discussion, gluadys, to the Bible Forum where it properly belongs? quote: What about non-Creationist (in the YEC sense), Christian scientists? Do you feel, Ian, that their "thinking has held back the development of humans for centuries" any more or less than creationists?

Method -> RE: My two cents. (7/22/2008 2:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet You know, I'm sure, that many evolution scientists believe that the first cell would have required about 600 proteins to survive (an incredible barrier to spontaneous generation, by the way). Actually, most researchers in abiogenesis are leaning towards the RNA World hypothesis. This would mean that the first cell would not have had protein at all. quote: Yet random mutations and environmental pressures added all that to that original cell. All this in spite of the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of a mutation adding information to a cell that wasn't there before. If I gave you a random DNA sequence would you be able to tell me what that DNA sequence would look like after information had been added to it?

wayward1 -> RE: My two cents. (7/29/2008 8:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: falcnjet quote: Drmark: ...it's rather sad and shows the depth of compromise to which many in the church have fallen when they place the authority of man's "science" above God's Word! This is the most sensible thing I've read in this forum in the last few days. Christians, like others, have always been afraid of being different than their peers. Yet that's exactly what we've always been called to do. I am convinced that it is fear of being ridiculed and ostracised that makes many Christians so readily reject the bible's clear record in favor of what "everybody believes". If they can only integrate this inane theory into their beliefs, then they won't have to face ridicule. We need Christians with the courage to believe God. Yeah, sensible. You would deeply long for the masses to "show the depths of compromise to which" they're willing to go if it was a different god's word that held sway over society. You'd long for modernity and for people to embrace science if you were a member of a minority religion. People are embracing science because it is universal. It is HUMAN based, not race color or creed based. You can learn all about it and it will apply to your life the same way it applied to every single other human on the planet. What religion can you say that about? If you want people to stop putting the "authority of man's science above Gods Word" then which God do they side with? You're fine with your theory so long as they side with your God, but if everyone on the earth does what you wish for will they all pick Christianity, or is there a chance they'll pick a religion that views Christians as infidels? I don't see how you all keep missing this point. We as humans absolutely have to side with the things in life that are unbiased and universal. The only thought experiment you need to do is to imagine living in a world where your religion is now severely reduced in size and a determination is made that the world would be better without all remaining Christians in it. This kind of thing has happened before, and it is the understanding we gain from science that brings us closer to understanding each other enough to never let it happen again.

Thessa -> RE: My two cents. (8/22/2008 12:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tbull97580 Why would a God give you the ability to critically think and problem solve then want you to not do either of these things? Don't stop seeking answers to the great mysteries of the universe and life itself. To stop looking for answers and explanations, and simply state "God did it", is in my opinion a truly blasphemous act. God gave us a mind to use, you are correct. But what we choose to use it on is our decision. Some choose to use their minds to spend their whole lives trying to disproove there is a God. Some use it to lay awake every weekend and do drugs and abandon their children. Some use it to do nothing at all. Then there are some that use their minds in which GOD gave us to do good things. Such as preach to the world of Gods love, love their children and families as they should, choose to reject Satan and his evil wicked ways. So again you are correct. We all have minds and are given free will. But one thing we all know for sure is there is a bible that tells exactly what happened...exactly who created this Earth and exactly who came to die for our sins. So really all a person needs to do to figure out most all things is to read it. And a person can learn to read at age 2.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI