Evolution True or False?
-
Bloodthroe
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Hidden in Malice
- Contact:
I applaud your attempt to be deft, but alas you’ve failed to concern me.
I kill two dwarves in the morning, I kill two dwarves at night. I kill two dwarves in the afternoon, and then I feel alright. I kill two dwarves in time of peace and two in time of war. I kill two dwarves before I kill two dwarves, and then I kill two more.
I may be bad, but I feel good.
I may be bad, but I feel good.
Any sincere post deserves at least respect and a bit of courtesy.
There is no doubt in my mind about the truth of evolution but the way I posted the topic was an invitation for genuine debate.
That said. Now that we are talking about being polite, this quote here:
Is a terrible strawman and could well be taken as an insult. No one here (to my knowledge) has ever put this forward as an objection to the bible's account of creation.
If you wan't some real objections than we can go on all day. The light of day is created before the sun. birds and fish are created at the same time. etc etc. But maybe I am being too literal - let me know how literally you want me to take the bible and we can work from there.
There is no doubt in my mind about the truth of evolution but the way I posted the topic was an invitation for genuine debate.
That said. Now that we are talking about being polite, this quote here:
Originally posted by maverick8088
As with so many arguments over the Bibles accuracy, many problems would be avoided if you wouldn't focus on nitpicky liitle details like whether or not Noah put fish in the Ark, and use your brain a little. It was a Flood! Fish live in the water! Why would he need to save them from anything? They had a bigger place to live for a year! The Bible only talks about the creatures moving on the Earth, Land animals and birds, on the ark.
Is a terrible strawman and could well be taken as an insult. No one here (to my knowledge) has ever put this forward as an objection to the bible's account of creation.
If you wan't some real objections than we can go on all day. The light of day is created before the sun. birds and fish are created at the same time. etc etc. But maybe I am being too literal - let me know how literally you want me to take the bible and we can work from there.
I am of on holiday - enjoy - as I shall be back 
And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.
"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.
"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
Hello Maverick, and welcome to this long discussion! I really hope you have read the entire thread, since most of what I have to say about the subject is already stated in previous posts.
When debating a subject, any subject, it is of crucial importance that the different sides are:
1. Debating the same topic
2. Familiar with how the concepts and terms used in the discussion are defined in case there are standard definitions.
3. Debating the topic and it's actual issues, not side issues irrelevant to the topic, or other topics involving invalid arguments or personal attacks.
The reason why this is of importance, is that very often in debates, you will see that people area actually not debating the same topic, or that people use different definitions of the same word, which is the cause of much unnecessary misunderstanding. For this reason, it is good if you have read the earlier posts in this thread so we all have a clear understanding of what science is and how it works, what a scientific theory is versus other types of "theories" and what creationism states and what is is based on, and what science states and what it is based on.
With this done, I will start by commenting the three books you recommended. My posts will be long, so I take one at the time, and I start with the one I am most familiar with:
Firstly, Behe equals evolution with the concept of gradual natural selection as described by Darwin. He totally excludes the major observations done in modern time regarding other evolutionary mechanisms such as punctual equilibrium and mutation. He also excludes the entire area of molecular biology and molecular genetics, and instead claims there is no molecular evolutionary science. So Behe selects a small part of the field of evolutionary science (ie gradual natural selection) and then he criticise only this part as if it was the only part. Very strange.
Secondly, I think it is a major flaw that Behe presents several false statements. His proposal that there is no scientific literature or experiments performed in the area of molecular evoution is simply not true, and I don't understand at all how Behe can have missed this major field within biology, that has produced a vast literature and thousand of studies over the last 40 years. If he has missed 40 years of research in his own field, I must question how well educated and how knowledgable he is in the field, since this is common knowledge among people working in the field and has been tested and many times. Furthermore, Behe gives evidence to his own opinions by using erranous and selected quotations, and stating things about biology that are false. He also claims that Darwin stated certain things, and that evolutionary science states certain things, that they simply do not. Why is Behe both presenting a false image of evolution and of science?
Behe says about cell biology: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements of the history of science...
This is his personal opinion. He uses examples from molecular biology such as the blood clotting process and the proteins that make up RNA and DNA. This may sound very scientific because Behe uses all the technical terms, but we must look at the line of reasoning, ie how is he using these terms and what conclusions does he make?
One example: Behe believes in what he calls "irreducible complexity" and to illustrate this concept, he takes a mousetrap as example. A mousetrap consists of several different parts, but those parts will not be functional as a mouse trap taken seperatly, they must be put together in a certain construction in order to work properly. Behe claims that it's the same with proteins and makes an analogy to bacterial flagella. He claims that bacterial flagella consist of 240 proteins and that they, just like the mousetrap, does not function if they don't have all these 240 proteins. However, this is completly untrue, and any person who has studied basic medicine, biology or is just interested enough in immulogy/bacteriology knows that there are many different bacterial flagella and some are larger than 240 proteins, whereas others are as small as about 30 proteins and are still fully functional flagella. So what he is saying in his book, is not true.
It all boils down to that the book presents Behe's personal opinion, which is that the cell, the compartments of the cell and the moleculus of life, are so complex so it cannot have happened by evolutionary mechanisms, it must have been designed by and intelligent designer. This is the same argument as creationists have used for many years - the eye is so complex so it must have been designed, the brain is so complex so it must have been designed, etc. However, complexity is no evidence of anything at all - there mere observation that something is complex says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a god. For instance, the genome of a garlic is more complex than the genome of a human being - what does it prove? That it is more likely that a god made the garlic than humans?
I am sure Behe's book seems serious and scientific to a layman, but what I dislike about it is that it contains untrue statements which he presents as if they were facts. If you want to discuss the book more closely, I'd gladly provide you with hundreds of scientific articles and literature that demostrates what science says, as opposed to what Behe says. Science is impersonal and unsubjective, it doesn't matter what a scientist thinks or what believes s/he holds - repeated, controlled experiments testing hypothesis is how science works. It is very important to understand that science and religion are dealing with two different aspects of life and have nothing in common - which also means there can (or rather should) not be any conflict between the two.
When debating a subject, any subject, it is of crucial importance that the different sides are:
1. Debating the same topic
2. Familiar with how the concepts and terms used in the discussion are defined in case there are standard definitions.
3. Debating the topic and it's actual issues, not side issues irrelevant to the topic, or other topics involving invalid arguments or personal attacks.
The reason why this is of importance, is that very often in debates, you will see that people area actually not debating the same topic, or that people use different definitions of the same word, which is the cause of much unnecessary misunderstanding. For this reason, it is good if you have read the earlier posts in this thread so we all have a clear understanding of what science is and how it works, what a scientific theory is versus other types of "theories" and what creationism states and what is is based on, and what science states and what it is based on.
With this done, I will start by commenting the three books you recommended. My posts will be long, so I take one at the time, and I start with the one I am most familiar with:
This book, although it is written by a biochemist, gives a view of biochemistry and molecular biology that is not shared by a majority of scientists working the field of biochemisty and molecular biology, but is instead the author's private interpretation of certain phenomena. It is not a scientific text, it is a popular text where the author refers to some selected biochemical phenomen and interprets this in his own way. Behe does not present scientific arguments for the existence of a god, Behe presents his personal, subjective opinions of why he believes certain biological observations means a god exists. I realise that a layman may get the impression that Behe's arguements are scientific arguments, but they are not and will try to explain why.Originally posted by maverick8088
[Darwins Black Box written by Michael J. Behe, a biochemist: Dr. Behe here presents a scientific argument for the existence of God
Firstly, Behe equals evolution with the concept of gradual natural selection as described by Darwin. He totally excludes the major observations done in modern time regarding other evolutionary mechanisms such as punctual equilibrium and mutation. He also excludes the entire area of molecular biology and molecular genetics, and instead claims there is no molecular evolutionary science. So Behe selects a small part of the field of evolutionary science (ie gradual natural selection) and then he criticise only this part as if it was the only part. Very strange.
Secondly, I think it is a major flaw that Behe presents several false statements. His proposal that there is no scientific literature or experiments performed in the area of molecular evoution is simply not true, and I don't understand at all how Behe can have missed this major field within biology, that has produced a vast literature and thousand of studies over the last 40 years. If he has missed 40 years of research in his own field, I must question how well educated and how knowledgable he is in the field, since this is common knowledge among people working in the field and has been tested and many times. Furthermore, Behe gives evidence to his own opinions by using erranous and selected quotations, and stating things about biology that are false. He also claims that Darwin stated certain things, and that evolutionary science states certain things, that they simply do not. Why is Behe both presenting a false image of evolution and of science?
Behe says about cell biology: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements of the history of science...
This is his personal opinion. He uses examples from molecular biology such as the blood clotting process and the proteins that make up RNA and DNA. This may sound very scientific because Behe uses all the technical terms, but we must look at the line of reasoning, ie how is he using these terms and what conclusions does he make?
One example: Behe believes in what he calls "irreducible complexity" and to illustrate this concept, he takes a mousetrap as example. A mousetrap consists of several different parts, but those parts will not be functional as a mouse trap taken seperatly, they must be put together in a certain construction in order to work properly. Behe claims that it's the same with proteins and makes an analogy to bacterial flagella. He claims that bacterial flagella consist of 240 proteins and that they, just like the mousetrap, does not function if they don't have all these 240 proteins. However, this is completly untrue, and any person who has studied basic medicine, biology or is just interested enough in immulogy/bacteriology knows that there are many different bacterial flagella and some are larger than 240 proteins, whereas others are as small as about 30 proteins and are still fully functional flagella. So what he is saying in his book, is not true.
It all boils down to that the book presents Behe's personal opinion, which is that the cell, the compartments of the cell and the moleculus of life, are so complex so it cannot have happened by evolutionary mechanisms, it must have been designed by and intelligent designer. This is the same argument as creationists have used for many years - the eye is so complex so it must have been designed, the brain is so complex so it must have been designed, etc. However, complexity is no evidence of anything at all - there mere observation that something is complex says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a god. For instance, the genome of a garlic is more complex than the genome of a human being - what does it prove? That it is more likely that a god made the garlic than humans?
I am sure Behe's book seems serious and scientific to a layman, but what I dislike about it is that it contains untrue statements which he presents as if they were facts. If you want to discuss the book more closely, I'd gladly provide you with hundreds of scientific articles and literature that demostrates what science says, as opposed to what Behe says. Science is impersonal and unsubjective, it doesn't matter what a scientist thinks or what believes s/he holds - repeated, controlled experiments testing hypothesis is how science works. It is very important to understand that science and religion are dealing with two different aspects of life and have nothing in common - which also means there can (or rather should) not be any conflict between the two.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
maverick8088
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Center of the 'Husker Nation
- Contact:
Guys, I have no interest in debating this topic. I have been through it in another thread ad nauseum.
I simply saw my specific faith mentioned as I was reading this thread and thought you might like to know the stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take on this matter, just for your personal information and interest.
As to being insulting, Tom, I apologize if it came across that way. I read a post questioning the Flood Account based on this argument in this thread and seemed to be not well thought out.
Perhaps this is a failing of my own post as well...sorry.
@moonbiter: I never said the clouds were radioactive, I said the density of the clouds would block radiation from reaching the Earths surface. Thus throwing off c-14 dating methods. Read and understand the post before you criticize.
I simply saw my specific faith mentioned as I was reading this thread and thought you might like to know the stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take on this matter, just for your personal information and interest.
As to being insulting, Tom, I apologize if it came across that way. I read a post questioning the Flood Account based on this argument in this thread and seemed to be not well thought out.
Perhaps this is a failing of my own post as well...sorry.
@moonbiter: I never said the clouds were radioactive, I said the density of the clouds would block radiation from reaching the Earths surface. Thus throwing off c-14 dating methods. Read and understand the post before you criticize.
They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Maged'on - Revelations 16:14,16
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
Hey everyone,
Every now and then, a pile of "Forum Violation" emails spawn from the depths of GameBanshee and flood my inbox, as was the case today. The Speak Your Mind forum offers a lot of freedom for members to post their opinions and thoughts, but there are still a set of concrete rules that must be followed in order to keep the place civil and free of insults.
So, as Fable mentioned, please take a look at our posted rules if you're not already familiar with them. I'm not going to pointing out any particular members that I feel are out of line just yet, but if this thread degenerates any more, then I will start issue warnings.
Every now and then, a pile of "Forum Violation" emails spawn from the depths of GameBanshee and flood my inbox, as was the case today. The Speak Your Mind forum offers a lot of freedom for members to post their opinions and thoughts, but there are still a set of concrete rules that must be followed in order to keep the place civil and free of insults.
So, as Fable mentioned, please take a look at our posted rules if you're not already familiar with them. I'm not going to pointing out any particular members that I feel are out of line just yet, but if this thread degenerates any more, then I will start issue warnings.
Let me add my comments to what Buck said...
1. Please don't spam this thread, it is a serious discussion thread and there are plenty of other places to spam
2. Be civil, you may not agree with someone but you don't need to be insulting or rude about it.
Bloodthroe, I think your reply was rude, Fable asked a simple question asking for clarification, you didn't need to respond like that. Buck may not have given an official warning but I am.
I apologize for not getting in here sooner but I don't have internet at work. I am off work for a few days now and I will be watching this thread.
1. Please don't spam this thread, it is a serious discussion thread and there are plenty of other places to spam
2. Be civil, you may not agree with someone but you don't need to be insulting or rude about it.
Bloodthroe, I think your reply was rude, Fable asked a simple question asking for clarification, you didn't need to respond like that. Buck may not have given an official warning but I am.
I apologize for not getting in here sooner but I don't have internet at work. I am off work for a few days now and I will be watching this thread.
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]GameBanshee[/url] Make your gaming scream!
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
-
maverick8088
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Center of the 'Husker Nation
- Contact:
OK, I wasn't going to, but this comment sucked me in...
If that is the case, does that mean that automobiles, houses, watches, computers, television sets, etc. have no designer? My brother-in-law designs bridges for a living, should I call him tomorrow and tell him he'd be better off putting raw steel and concrete in a pile on the ground with some C-4 expolsive and he'd get the same result? Even flint arrowheads are give more credit than the astounding ability w/in the human body.
Cray supercomputers have less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the abilty of the human brain. Your body is self cleaning, self maintaining, self operating, and self motivated. All things which are beyond human ability to explain much less copy.
For that matter tell me, if all evolutionary steps are for the better survival of the species, what purpose does art serve? Poetry? Discussions such as this one? Honestly, why do we have thoughts about the future? Dreams and aspirations are meaningless for the obtaining of food and shelter. Thoughts of beauty are unnecessary and irrelevant.
Lastly, abiogenesis is a deeply flawed theory. Life cannot spring from non-life. Spontaneous Generation was disproven centuries ago, and that's all abiogenesis is. Different words, same thing. The protien molecules necessary to make up a D/RNA strand are simply too complex and too fragile to have come together by chance. I remember reading that is something like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 even to get them together by chance w/o taking into consideration the volatile environment. Also, with the experiments that go on in order to prove abiogenesis, who does the scientist arranging the experiment represent? Even in the models to simulate chance, intelligent design is inherent.
Simply put Evolution and Abiogenesis are just as faith-requiring as any religion. The scientists who dig the fossils and conduct the experiments are just as prone to human failings as any of us. They see what they want to see. You denounce Dr Behe for writing his own opinions, I say that is what the scientific community has done for years in order to force these theories on us as fact. Evidence can be interpreted many ways and Evolution has been less about let's see if this is true than let's find a way to prove it.
But most of my points have been covered by Sailor Saturn earlier in the thread, before his/her unfortunate fate. As I said, I just wanted to provide CE with some info on JW beliefs which he seemed curious about on pg 2 or 3. I will read your thoughts on the other two books, and wiegh them accordingly. Education and discussion are the only way to true knowledge. However, I do think the Bible gets a bad wrap because of the fanatical idiots creating a stereotype of religious people being uneducated and close-minded. Please do not think this of me. I am not fool enough to think the earth is only 6000 years old, nor that God created it with fossils already buried in it. I simply see life in it's incredible variety and splendor and cannot bring myself to say "It just happened".
However, complexity is no evidence of anything at all - there mere observation that something is complex says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a god.
If that is the case, does that mean that automobiles, houses, watches, computers, television sets, etc. have no designer? My brother-in-law designs bridges for a living, should I call him tomorrow and tell him he'd be better off putting raw steel and concrete in a pile on the ground with some C-4 expolsive and he'd get the same result? Even flint arrowheads are give more credit than the astounding ability w/in the human body.
Cray supercomputers have less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the abilty of the human brain. Your body is self cleaning, self maintaining, self operating, and self motivated. All things which are beyond human ability to explain much less copy.
For that matter tell me, if all evolutionary steps are for the better survival of the species, what purpose does art serve? Poetry? Discussions such as this one? Honestly, why do we have thoughts about the future? Dreams and aspirations are meaningless for the obtaining of food and shelter. Thoughts of beauty are unnecessary and irrelevant.
Lastly, abiogenesis is a deeply flawed theory. Life cannot spring from non-life. Spontaneous Generation was disproven centuries ago, and that's all abiogenesis is. Different words, same thing. The protien molecules necessary to make up a D/RNA strand are simply too complex and too fragile to have come together by chance. I remember reading that is something like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 even to get them together by chance w/o taking into consideration the volatile environment. Also, with the experiments that go on in order to prove abiogenesis, who does the scientist arranging the experiment represent? Even in the models to simulate chance, intelligent design is inherent.
Simply put Evolution and Abiogenesis are just as faith-requiring as any religion. The scientists who dig the fossils and conduct the experiments are just as prone to human failings as any of us. They see what they want to see. You denounce Dr Behe for writing his own opinions, I say that is what the scientific community has done for years in order to force these theories on us as fact. Evidence can be interpreted many ways and Evolution has been less about let's see if this is true than let's find a way to prove it.
But most of my points have been covered by Sailor Saturn earlier in the thread, before his/her unfortunate fate. As I said, I just wanted to provide CE with some info on JW beliefs which he seemed curious about on pg 2 or 3. I will read your thoughts on the other two books, and wiegh them accordingly. Education and discussion are the only way to true knowledge. However, I do think the Bible gets a bad wrap because of the fanatical idiots creating a stereotype of religious people being uneducated and close-minded. Please do not think this of me. I am not fool enough to think the earth is only 6000 years old, nor that God created it with fossils already buried in it. I simply see life in it's incredible variety and splendor and cannot bring myself to say "It just happened".
They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Maged'on - Revelations 16:14,16
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
Cray supercomputers have less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the abilty of the human brain. Your body is self cleaning, self maintaining, self operating, and self motivated. All things which are beyond human ability to explain much less copy.
This is, of course, another completely false statement with no basis in reality. Every single working of the human body is explained, every mechanic charted, to such an extent that genetic science today can not only copy the human body, but actually improve on "God's" own creation to a massive extent. If it was not for a set of laws that are eroding as we speak, humans would have started giving birth to designer babies 10 years ago. We do not even need the male and female reproductive system anymore.
@moonbiter: I never said the clouds were radioactive, I said the density of the clouds would block radiation from reaching the Earths surface. Thus throwing off c-14 dating methods. Read and understand the post before you criticize.
My statement was about as serious as the post it was referring to. If you have the audacity to post barefaced falsehood like your Mt. Ararat schtick, an untruth that it would have taken anyone, and probably took fable about 30 seconds to blow out of the water, you can not expect anyone to reply seriously. And yet, here you go with another lengthy post of statements that are just that: statements.
However, I do think the Bible gets a bad wrap because of the fanatical idiots creating a stereotype of religious people being uneducated and close-minded.
Just out of curiosity: What part of the Jehova's Witnesses do you belong to? That church has branded fantasy literature demonic and un-Christian, even going so far as to demonstrate outside cinemas showing LoTR and screaming in the media about Tolkien's works being Satanic. And yet here you are, posting on a board dedicated to fantasy roleplaying games, with a Robert Jordan quote in your sig, saying you speak as a JW. So please enlighten me: How does this work within the doctrines of your church?
As for the Bible getting a bad rap, it's a lifestyle book. Period. A grab-bag of tribal stories and jingoist posturings that the believers, not the rest of us, use as a VERY easy way to answer absolutely every question in life with no answers of any substance at all except faith. It is tailor made for everything. For instance, your Old Testament God lastet for thousands of years before It was actively redefined by a much more civilized if somewhat schizophrenic New Testament deity. Even the newer and weaker version has lasted about 1500 years or so before being on the verge of being sneezed out of existence by the allergy of modern science.
Every day millions of people work very hard providing solid proof of scientiffic theories. Nobody does the same for the bible, they just preach. It is no more the truth than the Koran, Kaballah, Sanskrit or the Pod People. Until you present a statement that can't be blown out of the water with a 30 second Google search, I'm sorry, but your Bible will still get a bad rap.
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Originally posted by maverick8088
<snip>
Life cannot spring from non-life. <snip>
Just fell over this sentence, because I love that statement when it comes in such debates as this - because this statement, as always, poses the ever-interesting paradox of creation.
If nothing can spring from non-life - where did "God" come from, so "He" could create everything. I mean he had to come from somewhere, and if there was nothing before God, then how did God come to existance.
It is mearly a version of "Chicken -> Egg -> Chicken".
Now - I know the often given answer to this - "God has always been" or something similar. Well if God has always been - why is that more plausible then a state of energy existed creating the "Big Bang"?
(It isn't more plausible that a God existed out of nothing, by the way - just more "convient").
Insert signature here.
It seems to me you misunderstand on purpose. If not please read CE's comment again;
and then read yours;
Complexity is not a sign of a creator. Cars are complex. Hence cars are not created.
This is the argument you but forward to show that CE's position leads to an absurd conclusion.
But the argument is not good. It would work if CE had said "complexity shows that there is no creator". But she said "complexity is no evidence of anything at all". I trust you see the difference.
I am sure that CE will reply far better than I to your point about 'abiogenesis'. I just want to ask this. How was it disproved? Explain how an experiment could prove that it could not happen?
As for the possibility of DNA spontaneously happening - sure that is very unlikely and nobody thinks that is what happened anyway. What could and probably did happen is the formation of a simple self-replicating molecule.
Originally posted by CE
However, complexity is no evidence of anything at all - there mere observation that something is complex says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a god.
and then read yours;
Surely you can see that your reply cannot be a relevant objection. It is a question of logic.Originally posted by Maverick
If that is the case, does that mean that automobiles, houses, watches, computers, television sets, etc. have no designer? My brother-in-law designs bridges for a living, should I call him tomorrow and tell him he'd be better off putting raw steel and concrete in a pile on the ground with some C-4 expolsive and he'd get the same result? Even flint arrowheads are give more credit than the astounding ability w/in the human body.
Complexity is not a sign of a creator. Cars are complex. Hence cars are not created.
This is the argument you but forward to show that CE's position leads to an absurd conclusion.
But the argument is not good. It would work if CE had said "complexity shows that there is no creator". But she said "complexity is no evidence of anything at all". I trust you see the difference.
I am sure that CE will reply far better than I to your point about 'abiogenesis'. I just want to ask this. How was it disproved? Explain how an experiment could prove that it could not happen?
As for the possibility of DNA spontaneously happening - sure that is very unlikely and nobody thinks that is what happened anyway. What could and probably did happen is the formation of a simple self-replicating molecule.
I am of on holiday - enjoy - as I shall be back
And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.
"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.
"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
-
maverick8088
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Center of the 'Husker Nation
- Contact:
Neither the Jehovah's Witnesses nor the Watchtower corporation (non-profit) has ever released a statement to the media that Tolkien, Jordan, or any other fantasy works are demonic. Statements like that would be the quickest way to get sued. This is something that is left for the individual to decide. Some people have a problem with it and you may have run afoul of one of our more 'enthusiastic' members. And I have never met one of our members stupid enough for a anti-LOTR demonstration outside a movie theater. Such an action would not be sanctioned by the World Headquarters in New York, anyway. So don't tell me what my faith believes, OK?
Actually, the argument does work considering what CE was talking about in her post. Read the context, next time.
So, in other words, complexity is not evidence of a design. The world around us is full of complex things, all of them needed a designer. Noone would deny that man designs and builds wonderous things, all of them complex. Why is it so hard to see that infinitely more complex structures like the precision of the universe and the human brain couldn't simply happen? In this regard, the following observations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica are enlightening:
“Man’s accomplishments [in establishing standards] pale into insignificance when compared with standards in nature. The constellations, the orbits of the planets, the changeless normal properties of conductivity, ductility, elasticity, hardness, permeability, refractivity, strength, or viscosity in the materials of nature, ._._. or the structure of cells, are a few examples of the astounding standardization in nature.”
Showing the importance of such standardization in the material creation, the same work says: “Only through the standardization found in nature is it possible to recognize and classify ._._. the many kinds of plants, fishes, birds or animals. Within these kinds, individuals resemble each other in minutest detail of structure, function and habits peculiar to each. [Compare Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24,_25.] If it were not for such standardization in the human body, physicians would not know whether an individual possessed certain organs, where to look for them ._._. In fact, without nature’s standards there could be no organized society, no education and no physicians; each depends upon underlying, comparable similarities.”
God created time, started the flow in the universe. He resides outside of it and is unaffected by it. Aware, but unaffected. Therefore, he has existed since before time existed and cannot be assigned an age or starting point.
Who's not dealing with reality? It is true that that the human body has been intensely studied and much of its function understood, but ask any MD and they will tell you, not all of it. Many functions and areas of the brain and body are not fully understood. As to it being copied, changing DNA doesn't count. That is using an existing design as a basis.
What I am talking about is AI. No matter how much Sci-Fi you read and no matter how much you love Lt Cmdr. Data, you can't be seriously suggesting that computers can do anymore than has been programmed into them? Are you? Or perhaps you were watching too much Star Wars and suddenly we have Spaarti Cloning Cylinders lying around everywhere. C'mon man, my Ararat story at least has CIA photos to back it up!
Cloning still relies on the cloned creature being implanted in a natural womb, as does In Vitro fertilization. Even these methods do not take the father out of the picture. Last I heard, they still use his sperm for that.
Read your Bible, man, there is no difference between the two. In fact, there is no two, they are the same god, his name is Jehovah. That you even had the audacity to say other wise says to me that you don't know what you are talking about. But this is not the place for a discussion on the nature of God, or his qualities of love and patience, which are expounded to no end in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Ps 36:7; 62:12; Mic 7:18; Ex 34:6; Nu 14:18, just to cite a few)
Anyway, I gotta go to work, but it's been fun!
Actually, the argument does work considering what CE was talking about in her post. Read the context, next time.
there mere observation that something is complex says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a god.
So, in other words, complexity is not evidence of a design. The world around us is full of complex things, all of them needed a designer. Noone would deny that man designs and builds wonderous things, all of them complex. Why is it so hard to see that infinitely more complex structures like the precision of the universe and the human brain couldn't simply happen? In this regard, the following observations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica are enlightening:
“Man’s accomplishments [in establishing standards] pale into insignificance when compared with standards in nature. The constellations, the orbits of the planets, the changeless normal properties of conductivity, ductility, elasticity, hardness, permeability, refractivity, strength, or viscosity in the materials of nature, ._._. or the structure of cells, are a few examples of the astounding standardization in nature.”
Showing the importance of such standardization in the material creation, the same work says: “Only through the standardization found in nature is it possible to recognize and classify ._._. the many kinds of plants, fishes, birds or animals. Within these kinds, individuals resemble each other in minutest detail of structure, function and habits peculiar to each. [Compare Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24,_25.] If it were not for such standardization in the human body, physicians would not know whether an individual possessed certain organs, where to look for them ._._. In fact, without nature’s standards there could be no organized society, no education and no physicians; each depends upon underlying, comparable similarities.”
If nothing can spring from non-life - where did "God" come from, so "He" could create everything. I mean he had to come from somewhere, and if there was nothing before God, then how did God come to existance.
God created time, started the flow in the universe. He resides outside of it and is unaffected by it. Aware, but unaffected. Therefore, he has existed since before time existed and cannot be assigned an age or starting point.
Cray supercomputers have less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the abilty of the human brain. Your body is self cleaning, self maintaining, self operating, and self motivated. All things which are beyond human ability to explain much less copy.
This is, of course, another completely false statement with no basis in reality. Every single working of the human body is explained, every mechanic charted, to such an extent that genetic science today can not only copy the human body, but actually improve on "God's" own creation to a massive extent.
Who's not dealing with reality? It is true that that the human body has been intensely studied and much of its function understood, but ask any MD and they will tell you, not all of it. Many functions and areas of the brain and body are not fully understood. As to it being copied, changing DNA doesn't count. That is using an existing design as a basis.
What I am talking about is AI. No matter how much Sci-Fi you read and no matter how much you love Lt Cmdr. Data, you can't be seriously suggesting that computers can do anymore than has been programmed into them? Are you? Or perhaps you were watching too much Star Wars and suddenly we have Spaarti Cloning Cylinders lying around everywhere. C'mon man, my Ararat story at least has CIA photos to back it up!
Cloning still relies on the cloned creature being implanted in a natural womb, as does In Vitro fertilization. Even these methods do not take the father out of the picture. Last I heard, they still use his sperm for that.
For instance, your Old Testament God lastet for thousands of years before It was actively redefined by a much more civilized if somewhat schizophrenic New Testament deity. Even the newer and weaker version has lasted about 1500 years or so before being on the verge of being sneezed out of existence by the allergy of modern science.
Read your Bible, man, there is no difference between the two. In fact, there is no two, they are the same god, his name is Jehovah. That you even had the audacity to say other wise says to me that you don't know what you are talking about. But this is not the place for a discussion on the nature of God, or his qualities of love and patience, which are expounded to no end in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Ps 36:7; 62:12; Mic 7:18; Ex 34:6; Nu 14:18, just to cite a few)
Anyway, I gotta go to work, but it's been fun!
They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Maged'on - Revelations 16:14,16
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
So, in other words, complexity is not evidence of a design. The world around us is full of complex things, all of them needed a designer.
Is it? Maybe it's all so simple, and we're just not at a point where we can perceive this. There are, after all, many objects that are relatively simple both to create and understand in our techno-civilization that cultures which still use stone age tools would regard as "of the gods" as being beyond comprehension.
This whole simplicity/complexity argument leaves me uneasy. It reflects too easily similar arguments which date back to the so-called Post-Nicene Fathers of the original Orthodox Church (which eventually became the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc). According to them, things that were beyond comprehension were positive proof of a God, and many of the examples they gave are now both easy to grasp and scientifically reproducable. Perhaps we should be less inclined to regard the terms of this discussion as concerned with fixed elements in time, and allow for the possibility that complexity and simplicity are extremely relativistic terms.
Is it? Maybe it's all so simple, and we're just not at a point where we can perceive this. There are, after all, many objects that are relatively simple both to create and understand in our techno-civilization that cultures which still use stone age tools would regard as "of the gods" as being beyond comprehension.
This whole simplicity/complexity argument leaves me uneasy. It reflects too easily similar arguments which date back to the so-called Post-Nicene Fathers of the original Orthodox Church (which eventually became the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc). According to them, things that were beyond comprehension were positive proof of a God, and many of the examples they gave are now both easy to grasp and scientifically reproducable. Perhaps we should be less inclined to regard the terms of this discussion as concerned with fixed elements in time, and allow for the possibility that complexity and simplicity are extremely relativistic terms.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable
[B<snip>
This whole simplicity/complexity argument leaves me uneasy. It reflects too easily similar arguments which date back to the so-called Post-Nicene Fathers of the original Orthodox Church (which eventually became the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc). According to them, things that were beyond comprehension were positive proof of a God, and many of the examples they gave are now both easy to grasp and scientifically reproducable. Perhaps we should be less inclined to regard this argument as fixed elements in time, and allow for the possibility that complexity and simplicity are extremely relativistic terms. [/b]
Can only agree with this. Complexity is a subjective view based on our current understanding of things.
What we see as complex now, would eventually be conviced as basic knowlegde, much as it has happened up until now.
Originally posted by maverick8088
<snip>
God created time, started the flow in the universe. He resides outside of it and is unaffected by it. Aware, but unaffected. Therefore, he has existed since before time existed and cannot be assigned an age or starting point.
<snip>
So basically - you are saying that there is a force (by you called God), outside our context of universe, from before our concept of time that has created our universe and everything in it?
Insert signature here.
-
RandomThug
- Posts: 2795
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
- Location: Nowheresville
- Contact:
-
InfiniteNature
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:51 am
- Location: In the infinite abyss, between dreams and nightmar
- Contact:
Jehovahs frighten us all, myself I was only really listening one time, because the Jehovah girl was really hot; unfortunately after about a minute or so, she got realllllllllllll ugly realllllllllll fast.
"In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me--but by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Pastor Martin Neimoller
Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.
Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
Pastor Martin Neimoller
Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.
Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
-
Bloodthroe
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Hidden in Malice
- Contact:
Fable didn't care for what I had to say, he was just messing with me, like he likes to do and if he wasn't then I apologize. That aside, people who expect to be treated nice by people they look down to have got serious mental problems, but it's not necessarily their fault. It's just what they're used to.Originally posted by T'lainya
Bloodthroe, I think your reply was rude, Fable asked a simple question asking for clarification, you didn't need to respond like that. Buck may not have given an official warning but I am.
For the record I do believe in evolution. Also if you have something to say to me aren't you supposed to send it in a private message or email. I think that was the first of the rules Fable sent me. I mean in this thread, not in a private message.
I kill two dwarves in the morning, I kill two dwarves at night. I kill two dwarves in the afternoon, and then I feel alright. I kill two dwarves in time of peace and two in time of war. I kill two dwarves before I kill two dwarves, and then I kill two more.
I may be bad, but I feel good.
I may be bad, but I feel good.
RT, Infinite... No spamming the thread.
@ Bloodthroe, The rule applies to disagreements between individual members..when there is a problem within a thread the mods generally post within the thread as there are usually multiple violators.
@ Bloodthroe, The rule applies to disagreements between individual members..when there is a problem within a thread the mods generally post within the thread as there are usually multiple violators.
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]GameBanshee[/url] Make your gaming scream!
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
-
RandomThug
- Posts: 2795
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
- Location: Nowheresville
- Contact:
Apologies for spamming the thread.
I just wrote a large semi Johovah bashing post. After reviewing I noticed it did nothing to this thread.
Evolution is the only explantion because god in all "his/her" greatness is as real as the easter bunny. And for the same reasons, to comfort. The book of the bible was a verbal tale for how long? Its fiction.
Faith is in its whole there because it is something to fall to, something to believe in without proof... by definition faith can not be proven. God can't be proven real or unreal. It doesnt make him real because of such, I cant prove giant dragons live in Elkar Non three hundred light years away.
I just wrote a large semi Johovah bashing post. After reviewing I noticed it did nothing to this thread.
Evolution is the only explantion because god in all "his/her" greatness is as real as the easter bunny. And for the same reasons, to comfort. The book of the bible was a verbal tale for how long? Its fiction.
Faith is in its whole there because it is something to fall to, something to believe in without proof... by definition faith can not be proven. God can't be proven real or unreal. It doesnt make him real because of such, I cant prove giant dragons live in Elkar Non three hundred light years away.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
The Dude: On you maybe.
Thank you RT, I was going to point that out but you did a nice job of apologizing
@ Bloodthroe Your post that Fable asked about wasn't at all clear as to what you were referring to. He was not talking down to you or messing with you and implying that he's got mental problems is insulting and a personal attack. Abide by the rules or you risk losing posting privileges
@ Bloodthroe Your post that Fable asked about wasn't at all clear as to what you were referring to. He was not talking down to you or messing with you and implying that he's got mental problems is insulting and a personal attack. Abide by the rules or you risk losing posting privileges
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]GameBanshee[/url] Make your gaming scream!
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"