Questions for "Evolutionary Christians"

[Darwin]

That is,scientifically literate xians with a taste for evolutionary biology.
These thoughts have bothered me a while.Assuming that there are evolutionist xians hanging around at the board ("liberal christians"?) I´d like to hear you answering some of my questions about how evolution and philosophy of yours,do mix.I apologize for any misunderstanding that may result from my relative ignorance of christianity itself.
For the rest of the board (majority?) do help me out here,and extend on the subject.
Let´s see,I hope you can follow me here (late being,my thinking may appear confused)

Do you think evolution was directed,guided by the hand of God?
I mean,do you think evolution was meant to produce human beings (since it would have been the way God created) ?
If you go "yes",I´d like to know whether you consider this kind of a view of evolution as "progressive"? The old misinterpretation of evolution inevitably striving for perfection,which would be humans,for some.How about the idea that should we rewind the "tape of life",there might not be nothing like us?

Since humans descend from animals (as far as I see,this is a touch piece to swallow for many) do you think that a clear line should be drawn between "animals and man (which would now inevitably be,another species of animals)".
What about soul? Would this require any life,the great string of DNA,to be either entirely with or without soul?
If only humans can have soul (opposed to such living genetical relatives as chimps) at which point does the soul step in?

What about human habit of eating meat to grow larger brain,which could be used,as a modern day equivalent for the old argument concerning the hierarchy of creation ("clearly man is superior,with brains such efficient") ?
Considering that homo sapiens might be just another predator,technically unable to be aware of God,without such "help"?

What about future evolution? Should we still believe in the immutability of the species,which now has to be considered obsolete? I´m trying to say that if evolution was "guided" by an invisible hand,leading to us as an important example,what does future evolution mean? While one human life is not enough to observe macroevolution,we know that it goes on.
An estimated age of survival for a single species would be a few million years (hard to predict).Would future evolution also be guided by God? Unless we assume ourselves to be some kind of a perfection of it,therefore rendered "immutable" (again,boiling down to the fallacy of progress)

(I´ll quit for now,try to elaborate on this later,keeping possible mistakes and confusion in mind)

[Yahweh]

Welcome back, Darwin! :)

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Welcome back, Darwin! :)


...back from the dead? :eek:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



...back from the dead? :eek:
It doesnt count unless he dies and ressurrects 3 days later (on Easter more specifically).

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh

It doesnt count unless he dies and ressurrects 3 days later (on Easter more specifically).

So Mithras doesn't count now?

[DialecticMaterialist]

How do Christians reconcile evolution and Christianity? Why, they just add a lot of superfluous entities.

Pretty ironic, seeing as if we added superfluous entities we could just throw out evolution altogether....

[Some Friggin Guy]

How do Christians reconcile Christianity and evolution?

Well, I have heard someone state it this way:


The Bible is simply a book of stories inspired by, but not written by, god.

The idea is that we are all god's children adn that our predecessors (ie homo habilus and various others whose names I can't remember, scince I am a philosopher, not a palentologist) were god's children in their infancy. As we have grown up, we have become more and more god-like. We are currently entering our "teen-age" years. Evenmtually, we will all become gods ourselves.


Now, as a philosopher, I find this idea interesting, although entirely unlikely, since it poses the belief that there is a god and that we are that god's children. I find it more likely that were are here because we have not found anything better to do.

Hey, I said I was a philosopher. I never said I was a GOOD philosopher!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
How do Christians reconcile Christianity and evolution?

Well, I have heard someone state it this way:


The Bible is simply a book of stories inspired by, but not written by, god.
I try to look at it this way: The bible is not to be taken literally, but as a book of fables to teach people how to live morally and love one another.

The idea is that we are all god's children adn that our predecessors (ie homo habilus and various others whose names I can't remember, scince I am a philosopher, not a palentologist) were god's children in their infancy. As we have grown up, we have become more and more god-like. We are currently entering our "teen-age" years. Evenmtually, we will all become gods ourselves.
Scientology... ITS GONNA GET YOU AND YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS IN YOUR SLEEP!

Now, as a philosopher, I find this idea interesting, although entirely unlikely, since it poses the belief that there is a god and that we are that god's children. I find it more likely that were are here because we have not found anything better to do.
People are always trying to apply a higher meaning and purpose to life... some even suggest that we are here to serve god, well, I'm happy to say that I SERVE NO ONE! I REFUSE TO BOW DOWN! Sorry 'bout that, I have many psychological issues that stem from my youth.

Hey, I said I was a philosopher. I never said I was a GOOD philosopher!
The Illogical Philosopher, interesting concept. Kinda like the Bad Astronomer...

Oh, by the way, Hi, I'm Philosopher Yahweh. :)

[Some Friggin Guy]

Hello, Yahweh (wow, I never thought I would ever use that combination of words! Guess the local priest in my home town may have been right....nah!)

You said this (which I'm sure you remember, but I love the quote feature.)

The Illogical Philosopher, interesting concept.

Actually, it is a pretty interesting concept. The way I figure it, only by allowing ourselves to think illogically and realize it, can we truly understand the importance of logic in our thinking.

But, then again, I think the world would be a much happier place if everyone, every day, went up to a random person and gave that person a fish-stick.

[Darwin]

Thank you all. (Thanks,Yahweh)

I must confess that I expected some more responses dealing with my questions,in particular.
I´ll keep the faith.

[Hawk_Watcher]

I'm sure people would describe me as a "Cafeteria Christian". But my take on evolution, and the big picture is the following. God created the laws of the universe, the "Big Bang" occurred, and God waited for a sentient being to develop. Then God attempted to communicate with this creature.

Whether it was all chance, or God helped it along a little, I have no idea. And I do believe if we reran the tape these sentient beings might very well be different. And there may be countless others throughout the universe.

To me, the soul is my consciousness. I just can't conceive of awareness after death. But in the past few years, God has really made an effort to reach to me. He probably has all along, but I've only been receptive recently. If he can reach me, perhaps there are many things I don't understand (Understatement!).

I have no patience with YEC's. God is so technically beyond our imagination, that I cannot fathom why there would be a devil, or hell. Sure , I am often temped by sin, but that is part of human nature. Maybe God tests us, but I don't believe it is Satan.

I know my response is only my take. And it is evolving. It's difficult to explain why I call myself a Christian. But God's interactions with me do seem to be associated with the Christian Church. And I totally admire Jesus. And I admit there is so much I don't understand.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm afraid I can't answer the questions since I'm not someone Darwin is adressing. However ...Originally posted by Darwin
Since humans descend from animals (as far as I see,this is a touch piece to swallow for many) do you think that a clear line should be drawn between "animals and man (which would now inevitably be,another species of animals)".Humans are not descended from animals. We are animals, and like all present examples, the result of the evolutionary process (which is ongoing).

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Hawk_Watcher
I know my response is only my take. And it is evolving.(Chortle.)

[Correa Neto]

Well, so far the attempts to answer the questions by people who belive in God seem to be based on or variations of the anthropic principle. They can also be traced back to platonic concepts of God as a distant deity that has little or no direct contact with his/her/its creation. This is also valid for many people I know personally and for some answers I read here.

At least they do not state the the bible is a litteral truth, with all the implications that such a declaration would have.

Some attempts are... Well, hard for me to digest. For example, a statement that God did this or that. Based on what can such a bold statement be done?

[Silicon]

I'm not a Christian, but I still can postulate a God that does nothing but observe, record, and know our names.

And maybe God's knowledge of me is enough to be immortal, in some form.

[Darwin]

"Humans are not descended from animals. We are animals, and like all present examples, the result of the evolutionary process (which is ongoing)."

That´s obvious (except that humans did descend-) I never said that humans are not animals,I think I´ll leave that to creationists.


The lack of responses,and questions such as those that I raised could,perhaps,be among the reasons that so many xians still reject evolution?
I just thought that perhaps theistic evolution (as it is called) might be closer to Lamarckian than Darwinian evolution,anyone catch my idea?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
How do Christians reconcile evolution and Christianity? Why, they just add a lot of superfluous entities.

Pretty ironic, seeing as if we added superfluous entities we could just throw out evolution altogether....
You meet a shifty-eyed character on the streets of New York.

Hey bud: I'll sell you this genuin Rolex watch and a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge for $50.

You can't fool me, that's not a genuine Rolex.

OK, fuggedabout da watch - I'll sell you the bridge alone for $60.

Deal!

[UnrepentantSinner]

The guy who wrote the 29 Evidences essay on Talk Origins is a Christian. You might dash an e-mail off to him as he does a good job explaining how he reconciles his faith with being a biologist.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Darwin

The lack of responses,and questions such as those that I raised could,perhaps,be among the reasons that so many xians still reject evolution?
I just thought that perhaps theistic evolution (as it is called) might be closer to Lamarckian than Darwinian evolution,anyone catch my idea?

Well. I tried to answer the questions but I couldn't.
Many people that believe in God including myself and have accepted evolution wouldn't be able to answer this questionnaire. I am not explaining the reason because I do not want to derail your thread, if you are interested though I can explain myself.

Just a hint. Your whole concept is an oxymoron because the Christian that has accepted that it wasn't God who created the Universe and the beings he doesn't accept that God " guided" either Evolution or the Laws of Universe.

People who have arrived to believe that God didn't create anything are wondering in which point of the evolution, human realized the existence of God. That is the question and not the vice verca.

And one more think. Maybe there is a problem with the terminology too. I do not know if someone who accepts Evolution can call himself a Christian, I mean that personally this is one of the reasons I do not call myself a Christian although I believe in God.

Unrepentant Sinner's idea sounds good to me. Now I am reading Michael Shermer's book " Why we believe" and he has a lot of stuff for you, maybe you would like to have a look at this book.

[Correa Neto]

A key point is how much of the sacred text the person takes as true and/or how he/she interprets the texts.

As completely being litteral truth or as a collection of texts containing historical facts told by the perspective of a religious person, stories (true ones, miths, fictional ones- all of them intended to provide moral guidelines), texts inspired -directly or indirectly- by a deity and all the possible intermediate members in this complex "solid solution".

So, people will find a way to conciliate evolution (various levels degrees or concepts of guided evolution, anthropic priciple, etc), their religion (regardless of what it is) and their personal concepts of God.

Can still they be called christians, muslims, jews or anything else? Surely they belive so. And surely some integrants of their own religions will also accept them while others will not.

[elliotfc]

Hey Darwin, nice beard.

Do you think evolution was directed,guided by the hand of God?

No.

I mean,do you think evolution was meant to produce human beings (since it would have been the way God created) ?

No.

How about the idea that should we rewind the "tape of life",there might not be nothing like us?

Could you expand on that?

Since humans descend from animals (as far as I see,this is a touch piece to swallow for many) do you think that a clear line should be drawn between "animals and man (which would now inevitably be,another species of animals)".

Ummm, yes and no. Sorry I can't pick one or the other. Yes in that Jesus became a human being, no in that we all run on genetic code and at a fundamental physical level we are very similar.

What about soul? Would this require any life,the great string of DNA,to be either entirely with or without soul?

I can only speak for myself here.

My conception of soul is what God creates to be linked to the human body. Since the human body will die, the soul will be free and in an 'unnatural' human condition, since humans are/were meant to be physical beings.

DNA is akin to a computer language. I see no real reason why DNA absolutely has to be associated with a soul.

I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being.

If only humans can have soul (opposed to such living genetical relatives as chimps) at which point does the soul step in?

Human beings participate in creation. The human soul steps in at the moment of creation. My theological speculation doesn't really extend to animals, like chimps. I have no problem either way, thinking that they have souls or don't have souls would not upset my other opinions.

What about human habit of eating meat to grow larger brain,which could be used,as a modern day equivalent for the old argument concerning the hierarchy of creation ("clearly man is superior,with brains such efficient") ?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the eating of flesh. And you're right, it has to do with hierarchy of creation. It isn't just an extension of the brain being more efficient. I think it rather obvious, myself, that humans are on a totally different level than, say, chimps. I suppose that any of you could theoretically persuade me otherwise, although I'd be more likely to be persuaded otherwise if, say, a chimp were to get me thinking a different way.

Considering that homo sapiens might be just another predator,technically unable to be aware of God,without such "help"?

OK, and thanks for articulating the premise...

What about future evolution? Should we still believe in the immutability of the species,which now has to be considered obsolete?

I can only speak for myself here. Immutability of the species, to me, means that unicellular life won't/didn't eventually (I know, after millionsandmillionsandmillions of years) evolve into pigs. Of course species are MUTABLE in that species may look different now than they did millions of years ago. The question is if the differences are essential, and that is a subjective word. Horses look different now than they did millions of years ago. In that way there is no immutability. But are they still horses? Yes, so in that way there is immutability. To be completely difficult and pedantic, nobody could possibly believe in immutability of species since everybody and everything looks different.

I´m trying to say that if evolution was "guided" by an invisible hand,leading to us as an important example,what does future evolution mean?

Thanks for the "if". The invisible hand could be a metaphor for God, or for nature, or for subterranean demonic manipulators.

With your if, I don't know if the future of evolution matters. You addressed this to evolutionary Christians. As a Christian, I believe God became a human being a couple thousand years ago. So we're it. I'm much more interested in the evolution of ideas than the evolution of the human species. I reckon I could have produced offspring with women from 2000 years ago, so for now that is all that matters. The future could be interesting with the creativity and technologically driven abilities to alter and perhaps reconstruct genes and DNA and whatnot. This could make for interesting speculation; as for evolution, this would be more similar to ideas of ancient astronauts tinkering with earthly life than evolution as driven by environmental conditions.

While one human life is not enough to observe macroevolution,we know that it goes on.

Uhhh...OK...

I don't know. I can understand the theory. Humans did not observe what happened one million years ago, so it's all nice conjecture. And we probably have different definitions for macroevolution.

An estimated age of survival for a single species would be a few million years (hard to predict).

Well that's an understatement. Or not. It's all a matter of waiting for catastrophe, and predicting when catastrophes will happen is anyone's guess. And when a catastrophe happens, it might possibly wipe us all out, and then it wouldn't really matter.

Would future evolution also be guided by God?

I don't know if past evoultion was guided by God, so I can hardly know if future evolution will be guided by God.

Unless we assume ourselves to be some kind of a perfection of it,therefore rendered "immutable" (again,boiling down to the fallacy of progress)

Depends what you mean by progress. Are we physically different from 2000 years ago? Nutritionally and medicinally and hygenically yeah, and those all have repercussions on our physical stature. But I like your phrase "some kind of a perfection". From a certain perspective any species can be thought of as "some kind of a perfection".

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

How do Christians reconcile evolution and Christianity? Why, they just add a lot of superfluous entities.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ? I'm not sure what your point here is. The theory of evolution doesn't have much to do with a man who lived 2000 years ago.

Pretty ironic, seeing as if we added superfluous entities we could just throw out evolution altogether....

Since evolution happens I should hope that we don't throw it away. Superfluous is a matter of perspective and opinion and aesthetic taste, along with a matter of a few thousand other things. Given a stated theory and its premises superfluity doesn't really mean that much. I think there are superfluous entities in evolution, so touche.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So Mithras doesn't count now?

The obvious answer to your question is no. Since I don't know any Zoroastrians (or maybe they just don't get much publicity?), clearly Mithras doesn't count now. If there were a billion or so people who would say otherwise, they would speak for themselves.

The less obvious answer is also no. Pagan cultic worship was inspired by demonic spirits, and it is not surprising that they would want to create parallels to Christian belief. This is understandable. If you want to obscure a truth, mimicry is a nice tool to use. Smoke and mirrors. Screwtape letters.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I try to look at it this way: The bible is not to be taken literally, but as a book of fables to teach people how to live morally and love one another.

"Is not"

A book "is not" a pencil. I can understand that.

I think everyone will/does/has taken the Bible in their own unique way. For you, the Bible "is not" to be taken literally. I can accept that. And I'm glad you say that it has something to teach, which is the fundamental purpose of the Bible.

People are always trying to apply a higher meaning and purpose to life... some even suggest that we are here to serve god, well, I'm happy to say that I SERVE NO ONE! I REFUSE TO BOW DOWN! Sorry 'bout that, I have many psychological issues that stem from my youth.

I would hope that your attitude will not extend past this life. Given your psychological issues I'm sure God will understand, and deal with you in a unique way as that is the only way God deals with us. Of course God doesn't force you to serve, or bow down, and he will never do so.

As for higher meaning/purpose to life, if I would subscribe{i edited that word} such notions to life, it is because I have a conception of a universe chock full of life. I do not live in a vacuum. I am alive, therefore life has meaning and purpose. How could life not have meaning and purpose? Doesn't everything happen for a reason? If you believe in randomness, even randomness can be explained.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hey Hawk Watcher

I'm sure people would describe me as a "Cafeteria Christian". But my take on evolution, and the big picture is the following. God created the laws of the universe, the "Big Bang" occurred, and God waited for a sentient being to develop. Then God attempted to communicate with this creature.

I think you may be onto something. (By the way I live in Lake Grove, go to Stony Brook, I play organ at St. Luke's in Brentwood)

The word "waited" is interesting. I don't know if God "waits" for anything as we do, as he is outside of chronological time. And the word "attempted" implies that the communication could have failed. Let me expand on that. Let's say I attempt to throw a football 100 yards. But I only end up throwing it 40 yards. That's a way of understanding the word "attempt". As for what you say above, when God "attempts" to commuincate with us, he does communicate with us. But it is a kind of communication that is radically different from the obvious everyday communication. That makes it obviously problematic. Plus humans have free will. Plus a relationship between God and each human being is unique.

But I do think that you're onto something. I already said that.

To me, the soul is my consciousness. I just can't conceive of awareness after death. But in the past few years, God has really made an effort to reach to me. He probably has all along, but I've only been receptive recently. If he can reach me, perhaps there are many things I don't understand (Understatement!).

Excellent. I like your attitude!

I have no patience with YEC's.

What is a YEC?

God is so technically beyond our imagination, that I cannot fathom why there would be a devil, or hell.

My conceptions of devil/hell differ from what we may consider popular conceptions. Let me just offer how I view those two words.

Devil would be the crown of creation (Lucifer) who was unsatisfied with his position in the universe, the state of the universe, all that jazz. He took it from there. Why there would be a devil...well, why would anyone be a malcontent about his/her role in the universe? Answer that question, and you'll have an inkling as to how the "devil" thinks/thought. Of course God would allow any one of his created creatures to be a malcontent, because of the whole free will thing.

As for hell, hell is a choice. Hell is disconnect with God. If you want to be disconnected with God, that is hell. The analogies and metaphors we have for hell (burning, or Dante's frozen icecube) exist to make our human understanding comprehend how horrible hell is. I think the focus on divine punishment/retribution is misplaced, but then again people understand things like punishment/retribution, so I am not surprised that concepts of hell would include those ideas. I would use the caveat that God's punishment/retribution is superior to human punishment/retribution, in that it is contingent upon human free will.

Sure , I am often temped by sin, but that is part of human nature. Maybe God tests us, but I don't believe it is Satan.

Yes, but Satan believes in you. Sorry.

Don't believe in Satan. Or, believe in Satan differently from the way that you believe in God. Of course Satan would like nothing better than for everyone to believe that he doesn't exist.

But on a fundamental level the test is besides the point, so it that way it doesn't help much to focus on Satan. Satan doesn't control our free will. But as Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, so Satan tempts all of humanity. I don't believe in horns and pitchforks, but I do believe that a Satan exists.

I know my response is only my take. And it is evolving. It's difficult to explain why I call myself a Christian. But God's interactions with me do seem to be associated with the Christian Church. And I totally admire Jesus. And I admit there is so much I don't understand.

I think you are totally on the right track, but that's only my opinion. ;P

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I'm afraid I can't answer the questions since I'm not someone Darwin is adressing. However ...Humans are not descended from animals. We are animals, and like all present examples, the result of the evolutionary process (which is ongoing).

Good point.

Here is a related question. Are humans descended from non-animals?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Well, so far the attempts to answer the questions by people who belive in God seem to be based on or variations of the anthropic principle. They can also be traced back to platonic concepts of God as a distant deity that has little or no direct contact with his/her/its creation. This is also valid for many people I know personally and for some answers I read here.

If by anthropic you mean anthropocentric, yes, as far as planet Earth goes, I accept the anthropic principle.

As for distant deity, as a Christian I believe God became a human being, so that's a very direct way of contacting humanity.

At least they do not state the the bible is a litteral truth, with all the implications that such a declaration would have.

I would never say that all of the Bible is literally true. I am undecided as to how much of the Bible is literally true. But I can say that with every book that I read.

Some attempts are... Well, hard for me to digest. For example, a statement that God did this or that. Based on what can such a bold statement be done?

Based on faith and intuition and the desire to make sense of the universe that we live in? Also it could be based on the conviction that God has a way of speaking to all of us, if we would listen. Of course if we are talking about the distant past, none of can prove what exactly happened. And if you reject abiogenesis, you're faced with a concept of God, even if that concept doesn't correspond with popular conceptions.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The lack of responses,and questions such as those that I raised could,perhaps,be among the reasons that so many xians still reject evolution?

Do we have anyway of knowing the demographics of people who visit this forum? If I were to guess that, oh, 100 Christians saw your thread. Is that a high guess or a low guess?

I think a fundamental problem with your topic is the words you use. I don't reject evolution. I reject certain statements and assumptions of evolutionary theory, but evolution happens regardless of whether the theory exists or not. If you would have said "reject Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory" perhaps morr responses would have been elicited.

I just thought that perhaps theistic evolution (as it is called) might be closer to Lamarckian than Darwinian evolution,anyone catch my idea?

Ummm...God inserting favorable traits into our genomes? It's a plausible idea I guess. I'm sure a bunch of Christians in fact believe that, but I'd venture to guess that those Chrisitans aren't the type to frequent a skeptic forum.

Perhaps you should visit a different forum, ask your question, and bring back your results? I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. Most likely they'll assault you with Bible quotations, perhaps a few will tell you that you are going to hell. That has happened to me before, and I believe in Jesus!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

You meet a shifty-eyed character on the streets of New York.

Hey bud: I'll sell you this genuin Rolex watch and a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge for $50.

You can't fool me, that's not a genuine Rolex.

OK, fuggedabout da watch - I'll sell you the bridge alone for $60.

Deal!

People do believe what they want to believe...

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Hi Cleopatra, you are very beautiful, and your crocodile is nice too.

Just a hint. Your whole concept is an oxymoron because the Christian that has accepted that it wasn't God who created the Universe and the beings he doesn't accept that God " guided" either Evolution or the Laws of Universe.

Did you mean to say "that has accepted that it WAS God who created the Universe"? I can understand the above statement if that is the case. If not, could you expound?

People who have arrived to believe that God didn't create anything are wondering in which point of the evolution, human realized the existence of God. That is the question and not the vice verca.

Very well put.

And one more think. Maybe there is a problem with the terminology too. I do not know if someone who accepts Evolution can call himself a Christian, I mean that personally this is one of the reasons I do not call myself a Christian although I believe in God.

I call myself a Christian because I believe that God became a human being. I accept evolution as it is, not evolution as it is proclaimed as all-encompassing theory.

Cleopatra, given the above, what am I? Please label me, I don't know how I can get through the day without a box in which I can reside. :P

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
A key point is how much of the sacred text the person takes as true and/or how he/she interprets the texts.

As completely being litteral truth or as a collection of texts containing historical facts told by the perspective of a religious person, stories (true ones, miths, fictional ones- all of them intended to provide moral guidelines), texts inspired -directly or indirectly- by a deity and all the possible intermediate members in this complex "solid solution".

So, people will find a way to conciliate evolution (various levels degrees or concepts of guided evolution, anthropic priciple, etc), their religion (regardless of what it is) and their personal concepts of God.

Can still they be called christians, muslims, jews or anything else? Surely they belive so. And surely some integrants of their own religions will also accept them while others will not.

:th:

[arcticpenguin]

elliotfc:

YEC is a young earth creationist, someone who believes the earth was created ~ 6000 years ago. This is frequently tied together with a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis story.

[Hawk_Watcher]

Elliot,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It's very difficult for me to tie in my recent spirituality with my long time agnostic beliefs (or lack thereof). The conventional view of Satan just seems too story bookish, and does not jibe with my conception of God. But I'm open to discussion.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hi Cleopatra, you are very beautiful, and your crocodile is nice too.

Flattery can lead you everywhere...

Did you mean to say "that has accepted that it WAS God who created the Universe"? I can understand the above statement if that is the case. If not, could you expound?

No, I mean what I said. I was referring to the Christians that do not believe that it was God who create the Universe and the living beings. Those who believe that God didn't create Human they cannot believe that it was God who guided the Evolution because if we accept that he guided the Evolution we must aknowledge him as the creator.


I call myself a Christian because I believe that God became a human being. I accept evolution as it is, not evolution as it is proclaimed as all-encompassing theory.

Cleopatra, given the above, what am I? Please label me, I don't know how I can get through the day without a box in which I can reside. :P
Elliot [/B]

Well, I am a Cristian because in my country they baptise you when you are 6 months old without asking you, my father decided that since we would live in a country that the 99% are Orthodox Christians, our lives would be easier if we were baptised Christians, if we had plans to live in Israel for ever we would become Jews, for the same practical reasons.

I do not believe in the historical existence of Jesus but I consider his story the most nicely invented story in History and the most "succesful" one because it served the needs of millions of people in History for thousands of years and it still does. Other stories of the same nature ( communism for example) didn't make it not even for 50 years.

I am also persuaded that the scientific method is the safest method we have to approach the Natural world that surrounds us, I have some reservations for the things that the scientific method can accomplish for the world that hides in our heads...and yes, I will say it, for the world that hides in our chest.

I do not wish to label you, especially for something like that. I have been labelling people in the past based on their beliefs and I didn't go very far... :)

[Darwin]

"Unrepentant Sinner's idea sounds good to me. Now I am reading Michael Shermer's book " Why we believe" and he has a lot of stuff for you, maybe you would like to have a look at this book."

Sounds familiar.Thank you.


"Do we have anyway of knowing the demographics of people who visit this forum? If I were to guess that, oh, 100 Christians saw your thread. Is that a high guess or a low guess?

I think a fundamental problem with your topic is the words you use. I don't reject evolution. I reject certain statements and assumptions of evolutionary theory, but evolution happens regardless of whether the theory exists or not. If you would have said "reject Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory" perhaps morr responses would have been elicited."

Ah,that´s a good point (the number of visitors).Let´s say that I have the idea that there are xians around these boards who would accept evolution,I do not know how many.

As far as my thread goes,I cannot really see how the way we approach biological evolution (in scientific sense) is the case here,as far as we accept it.Whether we are neo-darwinists or,say,entertain Gaia hypothesis.
What do you mean by rejecting certain statements and assumptions?

"Ummm...God inserting favorable traits into our genomes? It's a plausible idea I guess. I'm sure a bunch of Christians in fact believe that, but I'd venture to guess that those Chrisitans aren't the type to frequent a skeptic forum."

By Lamarckian,I talked of evolution that could still be interpreted as "progress for perfection",leaving some divine down there to be caught.Not that much to do with use& disuse etc.
Lamarck´s theory was called "filth" and such,during those times of Bible belt slashes but Darwin´s theory would have been even more "outrageous" in not progressing towards anything (Darwin called Lamarckian evolution "nonsense").

"Perhaps you should visit a different forum, ask your question, and bring back your results? I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. Most likely they'll assault you with Bible quotations, perhaps a few will tell you that you are going to hell. That has happened to me before, and I believe in Jesus!"

I agree that JREF is a bit of an unusual place for such,but as you say yourself,I might get condemned down there and I cannot stand all those biblical quotations.

"Hey Darwin, nice beard."

Thanks.

"Could you expand on that?"

I´m basically saying that while our existence for an example should not necessarily be associated with "accident" and "random chance" which is the creationist interpretation of evolution (or an odd one nonetheless) I´m saying that should we "start it again",there might be nothing like us or the fauna that we see,at all.
I suppose that a theist who feels that biblical text is "set in cement" might have problems with this.

"I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being."

This interests me.
What do you mean by "lower"? You do realize that all this hierarchy among organisms cannot be scientifically defended? (That is,it may be natural for judeo-christian thought)
For an example;having mentioned to a highly religious person that humans are but one more species,I was quick to "learn" that "God made human!" and things like "Humans have souls!".

"Well that's an understatement. Or not. It's all a matter of waiting for catastrophe, and predicting when catastrophes will happen is anyone's guess. And when a catastrophe happens, it might possibly wipe us all out, and then it wouldn't really matter."

As I said,it is calculation.

"Uhhh...OK...

I don't know. I can understand the theory. Humans did not observe what happened one million years ago, so it's all nice conjecture. And we probably have different definitions for macroevolution."

Should we be accurate,there were humans one million years ago...but prehistory ends where writing begins,so in that sense,yes.
Macroevolution is simply evolution on a large scale.
We can still observe and form a fairly accurate picture of what happened far over a few millions of years ago.


That´s all I feel comfortable or necessary to comment on for now.
I apologize for any confusion that might arise from my disorganized style of writing (according to some,that is)



:cool:

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Christianity is about Jesus Christ? I'm not sure what your point here is. The theory of evolution doesn't have much to do with a man who lived 2000 years ago.


Well they still accept the Bible, which includes a story you may have heard of called Genesis.
Except now its a metaphor or misunderstanding (but still revealed truth from God.)

And now God directs things by means of the cruel and inefficient process of evolution...because He is mysterious.


And the process is telological in a subtle untestable way. Also a soul was added during human evolution, though it has no impact on anything we experience.

Superfluous entities? Naawww.



Since evolution happens I should hope that we don't throw it away. Superfluous is a matter of perspective and opinion and aesthetic taste, along with a matter of a few thousand other things. Given a stated theory and its premises superfluity doesn't really mean that much. I think there are superfluous entities in evolution, so touche.

-Elliot

Superfluous is a matter of reasoning implemented so we don't make stuff up. It is only a matter of perspective in so far as that perspective adds enough data to make the viewpoint necessary.

Taste has nothing to do with it. (Unless you are a cognitive relativist.)

If you think there are superfluous entities in evolution tell me what they are.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well, I am a Cristian...

You're an Icon Kisser????

Och! So much respect to be lost so quickly...

;)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[B]

Flattery can lead you everywhere...

Cleo I am delighted to encounter...well, first and foremost, it is comforting to see females on this forum. If this was purely an exercise in testosterone I reckon that eventually my interest would...well, it's just nice to have a woman around. ;)

I participate in a few forums and e-mail discussion lists, and the women are typically outnumbered, but quality of responses from women (in my experience) are more than commensurate from the quantity of responses from men. If this comes across as patronizing, I can provide evidence to the contrary, I assure you.

I quite enjoy reading all that you have to say, and if I am partially persuaded by your photograph and evident skill in dress and manners, so be it! And your crocodile is very nice, too!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well, I am a Cristian because in my country they baptise you when you are 6 months old without asking you, my father decided that since we would live in a country that the 99% are Orthodox Christians, our lives would be easier if we were baptised Christians, if we had plans to live in Israel for ever we would become Jews, for the same practical reasons.

I'm glad (and I'm sure you'd agree) that your father loved you enough to have your best interest in mind.

Baptism is the most common definition of whether or not one is a Christian. Not belief in the Bible, not whether one goes to Church, not whether holds dogmas XYZ. I, personally, prefer to hold a litmus test for Christianity based around Christ.

I do not believe in the historical existence of Jesus but I consider his story the most nicely invented story in History and the most "succesful" one because it served the needs of millions of people in History for thousands of years and it still does. Other stories of the same nature ( communism for example) didn't make it not even for 50 years.

I'm sincerely glad you can respect the ideas of others, even if you don't accept them on a certain level.



I agree with you completely. I would say that the scientific method has its place, and philosophy/theology has its place. The two may cross/intersect/overlap, and obviously they bumb heads, but clearly they are designed for different things.

[quote]I do not wish to label you, especially for something like that. I have been labelling people in the past based on their beliefs and I didn't go very far... :)

Thanks!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin What do you mean by rejecting certain statements and assumptions?

Hi Darwin.

Does it make sense that an individual may accept anything and everything in evolutionary theory, be it just the most micro of micro-evolutionary thinking, to origin by descent, and yet reject abiogenesis?

I have certain degrees of rejection. I would, as an evolutionary Christian, reject certain things with more absoluteness of rejection than others.

I don't know of any young-earth creationist (YEC I guess is the term) who says that a micro-evolution does not take place. So this sort of person will agree to the evolution that is observed by humans in nature (not necessarily in laboratory conditions), while rejecting the evolution ideas that would have occurred before human history and observation.

Elliot said -"I don't know if non-humans, like dogs, have souls or not. They are definitely lower on the hierarchical chain of being."

To which Darwin replied - "This interests me.
What do you mean by "lower"? You do realize that all this hierarchy among organisms cannot be scientifically defended? (That is,it may be natural for judeo-christian thought)
For an example;having mentioned to a highly religious person that humans are but one more species,I was quick to "learn" that "God made human!" and things like "Humans have souls!".

I agree, for if you pull up any lineage tree every extent species is, in a way of looking at it, an evolutionary dead end. A dog is not lower than me since there are no dogs in my evolutionary past.

Obviously I use "lower" in a non-scientific sense. Maybe.

I *believe*, as a Christian, that God is more interested in humans than non-humans. For only that reason I would consider myself "higher". This is separate from theological chains-of-beings, where angels would be higher than humans, who would themselves be higher than rocks. I'm not talking about that. That could be a fun topic of its own. I simply believe that God is interested in humans in ways that are so far above and beyond other species that it makes me content to use words like "higher" and "lower".

Just Darwin talking here - "Macroevolution is simply evolution on a large scale.
We can still observe and form a fairly accurate picture of what happened far over a few millions of years ago.

Exactly. It is an extrapolation. I see no reason why I have to accept that extrapolation. Combine that with reasons that I feel go against the notion of extrapolation, and you can understand where I cam coming from. As for "form a fairly accurate picture", since we can't travel back in time I don't know how a fairly accurate picture can possibly be formed, that would make people like me content with the theories of people like you. That you are content with your pictures and notions of a few million years ago is apparent, and I accept that your position is reasonable to yourself and millions of others.

Back to extrapolation. Let's say I'm watching dominos fall. I can use my reason to guess that I didn't see the beginning of the domino chain reaction, and where I first started observing the chain reaction was not the beginning of the chain reaction. Then the question is, how far should back should I start the chain reaction? Theoretically I can go as far back as the creation of dominos, but why should I go back that far? I see no reason to extend calculations and theories any farther than can be proven. There may be an aesthetic value to doing so, I admit.

That´s all I feel comfortable or necessary to comment on for now.
I apologize for any confusion that might arise from my disorganized style of writing (according to some,that is)

Considering that you've been dead for over 100 years you're doing a hell of a job.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well they still accept the Bible, which includes a story you may have heard of called Genesis.

OK, so your position is the complete either, or the complete or.

Either you accept everything in the Bible, or you reject everything in the Bible.

Since I read the Bible as an obvious evolution of a race of people's understanding of God, I see no reason why I should accept everything, or reject everything, as you would have me do.

Except now its a metaphor or misunderstanding (but still revealed truth from God.)

It is how human's understand. How a human expresses an encounter with God is dependent upon the human. It is up to every individual to judge such encounters as put on paper.

Listen, I'm not going to try to persuade you to read any portion of the Bible and see what I see. You make your own judgments, I'll make my own judgments. If you chuck the whole Bible in the trash, fine. You *must* be able to comprehend, however, that other people see no reason to act in the complete acceptance/complete rejection fashion.

If I open a bag of trail mix, is it not possible for me to throw away the raisins and eat everything else?

(Personally I wouldn't throw any part of the Bible away, I would just draw truth from each part in different ways).

And now God directs things by means of the cruel and inefficient process of evolution...because He is mysterious.

I don't believe God directs evolution, though I am open to entertaining the notion that he does, and may one day change my mind and think that he does. Who knows.

Some people do believe God directs evolution. Life is cruel, so I don't know why evolution should not be cruel. Life is inefficient, so I don't know why evolution should be efficient. We have the realities of daily existence, which Christian dogma explains, yet you would have the realities of evolution not have the same features of the realities of daily existence. Meaning, if daily life was *not* cruel, or *not* inefficient, I would think you have an excellent point here.

And the process is telological in a subtle untestable way. Also a soul was added during human evolution, though it has no impact on anything we experience.

Was? No, continues to be. Every time a human is born. Whether or not you feel it has an impact is up to you.

Superfluous entities? Naawww.

You don't have to be all sarcastic. Look, I understand your worldview. Yes, God is a superfluous entity in your worldview. If you want to construct a worldview based solely on limiting superfluous entities that is fine.

Superfluous is a matter of reasoning implemented so we don't make stuff up. It is only a matter of perspective in so far as that perspective adds enough data to make the viewpoint necessary.

And I consider abiogenesis making stuff up. You think I make up superfluous stuff, I think you make up superfluous stuff. It is entirely a matter of perspective. You add data that was never observed, could never be observed, etc. And so do I.

Taste has nothing to do with it. (Unless you are a cognitive relativist.)

I am glad you don't find my beliefs distasteful. A lot of people on this forum do.

If you think there are superfluous entities in evolution tell me what they are.

The entities that must have existed, but are not represented in the fossil record. You're the gradualist, not me. There have to be more entities in a gradualistic mindset, right?

-Elliot

[sorgoth]

try to look at it this way: The bible is not to be taken literally, but as a book of fables to teach people how to live morally and love one another.

By genocide, hate, worship, self demeanment and uncritical thought?

Yup...lotsa loving going on there...

[Darwin]

"Hi Darwin.

Does it make sense that an individual may accept anything and everything in evolutionary theory, be it just the most micro of micro-evolutionary thinking, to origin by descent, and yet reject abiogenesis?

I have certain degrees of rejection. I would, as an evolutionary Christian, reject certain things with more absoluteness of rejection than others.

I don't know of any young-earth creationist (YEC I guess is the term) who says that a micro-evolution does not take place. So this sort of person will agree to the evolution that is observed by humans in nature (not necessarily in laboratory conditions), while rejecting the evolution ideas that would have occurred before human history and observation."

It is very hard to take YEC´s seriously,for me that is.
The reasons they reject things for,does have less to do with science than they would like you to think.


"Exactly. It is an extrapolation. I see no reason why I have to accept that extrapolation. Combine that with reasons that I feel go against the notion of extrapolation, and you can understand where I cam coming from. As for "form a fairly accurate picture", since we can't travel back in time I don't know how a fairly accurate picture can possibly be formed, that would make people like me content with the theories of people like you. That you are content with your pictures and notions of a few million years ago is apparent, and I accept that your position is reasonable to yourself and millions of others."

I see.But what a theory refers to,by it´s definition,is something that has been proven over reasonable doubt.
I do not know if you have a problem with that,and I still do not know why.
You are still right in saying that we cannot travel back in time and that´s true.But modern science has allowed us to investigate and learn about things that would seem to be even further out of our reach.Some people ignorant of evolution,for an example,may attack it by saying "well,nobody was there to explore so...".While "skeptics" may always giggle at the probability that everything about the past cannot be known,we can certainly try.
Geology and paleontology for example,can tell us wonders about the past.As a great paleontology enthusiast,I might note that the rocks may not tell everything,but they never ever lie.

[elliotfc]

Hey Darwin. Are you like me, and believe that your granddaddy Erasmus doesn't get the shake he deserves? Now Erasmus, that was a character. And how is Julia. Nice lady.

Originally posted by Darwin
It is very hard to take YEC´s seriously,for me that is.
The reasons they reject things for,does have less to do with science than they would like you to think.

You are correct. Their primary position is not founded on science.

I see.But what a theory refers to,by it´s definition,is something that has been proven over reasonable doubt.
I do not know if you have a problem with that,and I still do not know why.

What is the universal measurement for reasonable doubt?

We are, I think, both reasonable persons. Yet our reasonable doubts differ. I have reasonable doubts about abiogenesis among many things. You have reasonable doubts about the supernatural. As for why I have problems, it is more like I have less of a problem with supernatural creation than I do for abiogenesis. That and the fact that it is self-evident (to me) that a genetic code implies a designer.

You are still right in saying that we cannot travel back in time and that´s true.But modern science has allowed us to investigate and learn about things that would seem to be even further out of our reach.Some people ignorant of evolution,for an example,may attack it by saying "well,nobody was there to explore so...".While "skeptics" may always giggle at the probability that everything about the past cannot be known,we can certainly try.

Don't get me wrong, I admire your effort. Yours is hardly an unreasonable faith.

Geology and paleontology for example,can tell us wonders about the past.As a great paleontology enthusiast,I might note that the rocks may not tell everything,but they never ever lie.

I like that. :)

Note I am resisting the urge to pun on the word *lie*. :)

-Elliot

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by elliotfc

quote:Originally posted by Darwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology and paleontology for example,can tell us wonders about the past.As a great paleontology enthusiast,I might note that the rocks may not tell everything,but they never ever lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I like that.

Note I am resisting the urge to pun on the word *lie*.

-Elliot


Please note that data (ie. geological and fossil record in this case) do not "lie". Data can, however, be misinterpreted and misused.

Interpretation of geological record shows us 4.5 billion years of changes in Earth and in the various species that lived on it. This can not be refuted. If someone does not accept this, he/she should seriously consider the fact that he or she is reading these letters on a computer that was built with plastics and metals. And that these materials were extracted from deposits found using methods based on this very interpretation.

I can´t remember a single ore deposit found using a sacred text. But maybe I´m just ignorant.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Interpretation of geological record shows us 4.5 billion years of changes in Earth and in the various species that lived on it. This can not be refuted.

Sure, if you follow constant extrapolation. And you have no reason to not follow constant extrapolation, so you do.

Whether I follow constant extrapolation or not, whether the earth is 5 billion years old or 5 million, that doesn't mean much to me.

Of course various species have lived on Earth, even YEC's believe that.

If someone does not accept this, he/she should seriously consider the fact that he or she is reading these letters on a computer that was built with plastics and metals. And that these materials were extracted from deposits found using methods based on this very interpretation.

People can believe what they see, but what does that have to do with what happened, as you say, 4.5 billion years ago?

I can´t remember a single ore deposit found using a sacred text. But maybe I´m just ignorant.

No, you're not ignorant. The Bible should not be used to look for rocks. Or it should be. There are better tools to look for rocks, in my opinion.

-Elliot

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by elliotfc


OK, so your position is the complete either, or the complete or.


Nope, just that it is reasonable to go by what's parsimonious and the Bible is not. At least on matters of religion and such.

Either you accept everything in the Bible, or you reject everything in the Bible.

In principle one should either accept the parsimonious or allow the superfluous. Otherwise you just apply such principles when conveniant.

Since I read the Bible as an obvious evolution of a race of people's understanding of God, I see no reason why I should accept everything, or reject everything, as you would have me do.

Parsimony is not a reason?




You make your own judgments, I'll make my own judgments. If you chuck the whole Bible in the trash, fine. You *must* be able to comprehend, however, that other people see no reason to act in the complete acceptance/complete rejection fashion.

I'm not merely positing an either/or. That would be fallacious. However I am positing that such beliefs are superfluous, a very different thing.

If I open a bag of trail mix, is it not possible for me to throw away the raisins and eat everything else?

That's a matter of taste not belief. I can like raisin, and you can dislike them. Both can be true at the same time.

However there cannot be a God and not be a God at the same time.


I don't believe God directs evolution, though I am open to entertaining the notion that he does, and may one day change my mind and think that he does. Who knows.

Well you may not, but many Xians do. Also, what do you think God did then?

In principle what's different from your belief and the belief that, lets say, there is an invisible fairy in the corner of my house, that cannot interact with the physical world in any way?

Some people do believe God directs evolution. Life is cruel, so I don't know why evolution should not be cruel. Life is inefficient, so I don't know why evolution should be efficient. We have the realities of daily existence, which Christian dogma explains, yet you would have the realities of evolution not have the same features of the realities of daily existence.


But one must wonder why any sort of God would work through such means.




And I consider abiogenesis making stuff up. You think I make up superfluous stuff, I think you make up superfluous stuff.

In principle certain theories of abiogenesis work quite wellm giving us the most parsimonious explanations at the moment.



You add data that was never observed, could never be observed, etc. And so do I.

Add data that could never be observed? I'm not sure what you are saying here.

What irrational data have I added?





The entities that must have existed, but are not represented in the fossil record. You're the gradualist, not me. There have to be more entities in a gradualistic mindset, right?

-Elliot

Well perhaps there has to be more entities but they are necessary, seeing as the chance of beneficial mutations by saltations is very, very improbable.


It's like if I can focus my microscope by just making one or two big turns of the knob, I would prefer to do that. However that will in all likelyhood not work, so I make small adjustments.

This means I prefer as few entities as possible when I can get away with it, but sometimes I can't so I have to accept a lot more then I prefer.

[elliotfc]

Hey DM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[B]
Nope, just that it is reasonable to go by what's parsimonious and the Bible is not. At least on matters of religion and such.

In principle one should either accept the parsimonious or allow the superfluous. Otherwise you just apply such principles when conveniant.

Parsimony is not a reason?

If you mean parsimony in the Ockham's razor sense, I have never been able to understand how Ockham's razor would make something true, or make something not true. It's a nice thought.

I don't consider anything in the Bible superfluous to my belief, not just my theological beliefs, but my historical and anthropological interests really compel me to treat the Bible seriously. Of course I don't have to have the interest in the Bible that I admit to having. I want to understand people, and God, and any recorded interactions, whether or not they are completely contrived or completely legitimate.

I'm not merely positing an either/or. That would be fallacious. However I am positing that such beliefs are superfluous, a very different thing.

Do you see how I consider your beliefs to be superfluous?

That's a matter of taste not belief. I can like raisin, and you can dislike them. Both can be true at the same time.

However there cannot be a God and not be a God at the same time.

Good point. My belief in God, however, does not start, or end, with the Bible.

Well you may not, but many Xians do. Also, what do you think God did then?

I'm not exactly sure what God did. I just see him as the Ultimate Creator. I will say that he creates every individual soul, and he was behind the design of all life on Earth. Honestly I don't know how far I would extend God's actions. I am glad that science would explain the machinations of the universe leaving God out of the equation. The theories science generates are available for me to accept or reject, or to partially accept/reject. Just like the Bible. I have to make meaning out of what is available to me. Nothing out there is inherently meaningful outside what humans make of it. There is existence, but I think of meaning as separate from existence.

In principle what's different from your belief and the belief that, lets say, there is an invisible fairy in the corner of my house, that cannot interact with the physical world in any way?

Nothing I guess. I may pressure you to explain to me why you think there is a fairy, or if anyone shares your belief, or if your belief brings any amount of edification to yourself or humanity. See, in principle you would have to have reasons for the expressed belief. As long as you had those reasons, you are correct in that it wouldn't be all that different from my beliefs or any theological beliefs.

But one must wonder why any sort of God would work through such means.

You stated the above in response to my declaration that life as we know it is cruel and inefficient. This is the state of the fallen creation. God is not working through fallen creation, creation is in rebellion. He tolerates this rebellion, and works in spite of it.

In principle certain theories of abiogenesis work quite well giving us the most parsimonious explanations at the moment.

If you say so, but you cannot tell me the exact genetic code of the first *living* organism, or any of the genetic codes of the countless billions if not trillions if not quadrillions of organisms which resulted from this first life. So I could see those as superfluous elements from my way of looking at it.

Add data that could never be observed? I'm not sure what you are saying here.

What irrational data have I added?

Nothing irrational. Did you observe the first *life* on Earth? The abiogenetic incident that started the whole thing? Nothing irrational about the idea. It's very rational, and it's very unobservable.

Well perhaps there has to be more entities but they are necessary, seeing as the chance of beneficial mutations by saltations is very, very improbable.

You got that right. They are improbable, and necessary for your theory. I think you left out about 2800 or so verys.

Heck, maybe you're right DM. Who knows. I'll stick with what makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I guess I may eventually brainwash my children into thinking like me. Then it might matter, particularly if they have kids and brainwash them. The species must manage in spite of all of this.

-Elliot

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Hello, Yahweh (wow, I never thought I would ever use that combination of words! Guess the local priest in my home town may have been right....nah!)

You said this (which I'm sure you remember, but I love the quote feature.)



Actually, it is a pretty interesting concept. The way I figure it, only by allowing ourselves to think illogically and realize it, can we truly understand the importance of logic in our thinking.

But, then again, I think the world would be a much happier place if everyone, every day, went up to a random person and gave that person a fish-stick.

I'm anaphylactically allergic to fish. I would not appreciate a fish-stick.

[Darwin]

"Hey Darwin. Are you like me, and believe that your granddaddy Erasmus doesn't get the shake he deserves? Now Erasmus, that was a character. And how is Julia. Nice lady."

They are fine.I think Erasmus could have had more recognition for starting to get things right,so to speak.

"What is the universal measurement for reasonable doubt?"

Well,you can pick on this one if you wish but to since we were originally talking about a theory (which is where the term "reasonable doubt" kicked in) I raised it for the fact that a theory should have,by definition,considerable amount of evidence for it´s support (and evolutionary theory certainly has,from many branches of science).Having said this,I´ll leave it for you to decide,whether this is proof over reasonable doubt in your opinion.I,and most of the scientific community feel it is.

"We are, I think, both reasonable persons. Yet our reasonable doubts differ. I have reasonable doubts about abiogenesis among many things. You have reasonable doubts about the supernatural. As for why I have problems, it is more like I have less of a problem with supernatural creation than I do for abiogenesis. That and the fact that it is self-evident (to me) that a genetic code implies a designer."

Reading your replies,I would consider you a fairly reasonable person for my standards (considering that you are a christian).
I have come to notice a few things concerning these doubts you bring up.It seems that certain other theistic evolutionists (as called) place a lot of their doubt on abiogenesis too.I recall someone saying that "my position is actually the one supported by data" (or something like that).I suppose this must be the part of theirs,when a divine force needs to kick in to get things done? (I cannot see though,why we could not argue that it was through or before abiogenesis?) I´m yet to see it countered by actual demonstration.
Then there are,of course,the people who would simply tell you how "improbable" it all is or just how bizarre the whole idea is-"from molecules to me?" or "Give garbage enough time and mice will appear". :) (Strawmen).It is my idea that the latter at least,has great (or greater) ideological problems with the theory.

And now,this site has been referred to a great many times in JREF,but it´s all I can redirect you to right now (if books would not count) This is on abiogenesis;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Considering that many actually be objected a strawman version of abiogenesis (or anything about evolution) it can be beneficial to read up.
BTW,I still do not know why,exactly,are you objected to abiogenesis.

Since you are wise to point out that "it is self-evident (to me)..." concerning genetic code,I do not think I need to comment on that.
Creationists (which I cannot treat you as) might as well interpret the fact of common DNA (as used as evidence for evolution from the ultimate common ancestor,world before DNA not counting) as evidence for creation,just like vestigial structures were referred to as the creators fondness of,say,"symmetry" and so on.
Without doing their own research,creating testable hypotheses or anything to that direction,they may pass anything off as "evident design/creation-".Where one sees "irreducible complexity",another may only spot the flaws of it.

"Don't get me wrong, I admire your effort. Yours is hardly an unreasonable faith."

I´m not sure whether I am following.

"I like that.

Note I am resisting the urge to pun on the word *lie*. "

Go ahead! :wink:

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin
And now,this site has been referred to a great many times in JREF,but it´s all I can redirect you to right now (if books would not count) This is on abiogenesis;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Considering that many actually be objected a strawman version of abiogenesis (or anything about evolution) it can be beneficial to read up.
BTW,I still do not know why,exactly,are you objected to abiogenesis.

Perhaps we can turn the talkorigins abiogenesis faq into a separate topic? I read it a couple years ago, I can read it again.

My objection to abiogenesis starts with the fact that life comes from life, and I have no reason to believe, or need to believe, that at any point in the history of the universe that was not the case.

My objection to abiogenesis continues with my understanding of how code-based programming implies a designer.

My objection to abiogenesis ends with it being a mythology that has to compete with other mythologies, and the other mythologies that I accept (or am more accepting of) have more explanatory power for the questions that I have.

-Elliot

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Sure, if you follow constant extrapolation. And you have no reason to not follow constant extrapolation, so you do.
-Elliot

Please define exactly what is "constant extrapolation". Are you refering to the constant related to radioactive isotope decay? If I understood correctly, then there are plenty of reasons to belive in it, since they can be measured and the efects of radioactive decay can be seen and measured

Originally posted by elliotfc

Whether I follow constant extrapolation or not, whether the earth is 5 billion years old or 5 million, that doesn't mean much to me.

Of course various species have lived on Earth, even YEC's believe that.

-Elliot

But the measured time frame for species appearance and extinction is not consistent with YEC ideas. And accepting the current estimates for the Earths´age (which are a little bit -that´s sarcasm- more precise than what YEC people use) means that parts of the Bible have to be taken as mith or lore, and not as litteral truth. Therefore, if someone consider the Bible the basis of your beliefs, or at least an important book to it, the age of earth must mean something to he or she.

Originally posted by elliotfc

...
People can believe what they see, but what does that have to do with what happened, as you say, 4.5 billion years ago?
...
-Elliot

Simple, its a domino effect. Ore and oil deposits take time to be formed, and they can also be dated by geochronolgy, using isotope decay ratios. The vast majority of oil and ore deposits are quite older than, say 5 million years and this is not compatible with YEC ideas. And if you don´t trust these half-life estimates, well, all that I can say is that they can be measured, and if the theory behind isotope decay is flawed, then someone must find a new way to explain how atomic bombs and nuclear reactors work, along many other things.

Originally posted by elliotfc

No, you're not ignorant. The Bible should not be used to look for rocks. Or it should be. There are better tools to look for rocks, in my opinion.

-Elliot

Therefore the Bible should not be used to provide anwers regarding the age of the Earth, the formation of the earth and to examine the paleontologic record. And this brings me to the very first point I made (or tried to)- all evidence we have is not compatible with the genesis as it is stated in the Genesis and many other sacred texts.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
[B]

Please define exactly what is "constant extrapolation". Are you refering to the constant related to radioactive isotope decay? If I understood correctly, then there are plenty of reasons to belive in it, since they can be measured and the efects of radioactive decay can be seen and measured.

Yes it can be measure and calculated, and we can see things in our current time perspective. Nothing unreasonable about extrapolation. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old or 450,000 thousand years old it doesn't make much difference to me.

But the measured time frame for species appearance and extinction is not consistent with YEC ideas. And accepting the current estimates for the Earths´age (which are a little bit -that´s sarcasm- more precise than what YEC people use) means that parts of the Bible have to be taken as mith or lore, and not as litteral truth. Therefore, if someone consider the Bible the basis of your beliefs, or at least an important book to it, the age of earth must mean something to he or she.

Correct. I don't know why they are so hung up about using the Bible to find an exact age of the earth. That's silly.

Simple, its a domino effect. Ore and oil deposits take time to be formed, and they can also be dated by geochronolgy, using isotope decay ratios.

As an aside, do you consider oil to be a fossil fuel?

The vast majority of oil and ore deposits are quite older than, say 5 million years and this is not compatible with YEC ideas. And if you don´t trust these half-life estimates, well, all that I can say is that they can be measured, and if the theory behind isotope decay is flawed, then someone must find a new way to explain how atomic bombs and nuclear reactors work, along many other things.

You misunderstand me. Yes, abombs and nuclear reactors are based on radioactive decay. And those things are created within the human historical record, and obviously work quite well. With the uniformitarian perspective, there is no reason not to extend that back in time. The caveat is *uniformitarian* perspective. That is an assumption that contains assumptions, all of which are reasonable. The link below is simply another way of looking at it. If you put a gun to my head Correa, I'd say that I think you are more right than the are, but I see where both of you are coming from.

http://www.giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/03.shtml

Therefore the Bible should not be used to provide anwers regarding the age of the Earth, the formation of the earth and to examine the paleontologic record. And this brings me to the very first point I made (or tried to)- all evidence we have is not compatible with the genesis as it is stated in the Genesis and many other sacred texts.

You are right, we should not use the Bible to determine the age of the Earth.

The Bible is such a small book it can hardly contain, or deal with, all the evidence and ammunition of science. For that reason it should be used for other things, things that I believe it was meant to do. I don't think guys like Moses and Hosea were very interested in proving how old the Earth was.

-Elliot

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc



My objection to abiogenesis continues with my understanding of how code-based programming implies a designer.

My objection to abiogenesis ends with it being a mythology that has to compete with other mythologies, and the other mythologies that I accept (or am more accepting of) have more explanatory power for the questions that I have.


Funny about those "mythologies" that repeat themselves in a lab.

RNA self-replicates, it's just a chemical process. No magic necessary. The chemicals just do it.

Just because you don't understand bio-chemistry is no reason to suppose a miracle to fill your lack of knowledge.



Code requires a designer?!!? WHOOO BOY.

Just because you call it code, doesn't make it a computer program created by a programmer.

That's the problem with scientific analogies written for laypeople. They take them too far, then have belief in the analogies rather than the data. Or attack them based on an analogy that THEY took too far.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
[B]

Funny about those "mythologies" that repeat themselves in a lab.

RNA self-replicates, it's just a chemical process. No magic necessary. The chemicals just do it.

Just because you don't understand bio-chemistry is no reason to suppose a miracle to fill your lack of knowledge.

So tell me the exact sequences of the first abiogenesetic incidences.

If this mythology has been repeated in a lab, you should be able to give me all of the details.

There's nothing funny about this. :)

-Elliot

[Correa Neto]

I checked the article. It has several errors, misconceptions and out-of-the-context sentences.

Initially, I would say that the writer really does not understand some concepts like error margin and calibration data, as well as the different uses of the various methods cited. It also is very outdated when it comes to currently avaliable geochronologic methods. It does not cites how material is collected, how its analized, what types of methods are adequate for what and what is assayed.

Error margins- Every measure instrument or methodology has an inherent error margin. Values used in science are usually given in a format like 1,555+15. This means that the actual value may be something between 1570 and 1535 (angstroms, light years, calories, years, seconds, etc.) - an error margin of 30 units. The actual precison of an age determination will depend on several things (analytical instruments precision, contamination and calibration). The author seems to use this as an evidence that geochronology is unrealiable. Error margins increase when you reach the upper and lower age limits for a given method, because there will be just small ammount of the parent or daughter isotope present on the sample. Also contamination of the sample may increase the error margin. The use of a given determination based on the error margin will depend on your objectives- 200 years of error on a 2000 years age may be OK to place something in an overall historical context, but not precise enough to place it within the timeframe corresponding to the lifetime of an individual (say, the pottery could or not have been from the time when Christ was alive- use this as an evidence that it was and you will be subject to fire, say it may have been and its OK).

C14. This type of dating can only be used up to evaluate relatively recent material. And this is not just because of the lack or calibration charts, but also due to the increase in error margin due the resolution of analytical methods. The ammount of radioactive isotope just becomes so small that its hard to detect. I also find quite intriguing why people use these techniques and accept its results when it provides dates that fit with events or facts that can be correlated with biblical passages, but when it points to an age older than what they belive earth was formed, the data and the method are said to be inadequate or faulty.

The other methods are not used to evaluate ages in organic material, but in rocks and minerals. When a igneous rock crystallizes from lava or magma, its minerals have say, 100% of isotope A. But isotope A decays to B at a constant rate, and this happens just below a certain temperature. Above this homogeneization temperature, you´ll have just isotope A. If you heat the rock, you´ll get a resetting of the system, that may be partial or complete. As you can see, chances are that you will get an younger rather then an older age in this case. And even these younger ages are quite older than what YEC avocate. To get an age that is older then that of crystallization of the rock, you will have to contaminate the magma or lava with older material (there are some documented cases).

K/Ar is no longer being routinelly used. That´s mainly because better methods (Pb/Pb, Sm/Nd for example) are nowdays avaliable. But they are still sometimes reffered to in the scientific litterature. Its also more sensitive to be altered by later heating events, thereby offering a date that is younger than the actual one. And even these are quite older than what YEC avocate.

Regarding the uniformitarian approach. C isotopes ratios varies with time. This is true. A supernova explosion there, intense wildfires, pollution, etc, all of this can change the ratios. There are, however, calibration charts for C14 that are quite precise, so changes in the proportion of C isotopes is fairly well know. How? Taking sample from from various independent sorces, that can even include gas trapped in bubbles within ice from glaciers.

Sorry but I can not see how an universal deluge (for which there are absolutely no evidences, by the way) could alterate isotopic rates. Suppose Earth has passed trhough a period where there was a grater abundance of a given radioactive isotope. This would not affect the age determinations, unless our planet was bathed in one of the isotopes used in geochronology. Even then the effect would not be big, because (1) we would be able to date the event, since dating is based on decay rates and (2) most rocks older then the event would not have its original isotopic composition altered by the event.
Geochronology is not based on the abundance of isotopes, but on the decaying rate of the isotopes, and there is no evidence that the decaying rate have changed.

And just because someone spoke about the shortcomings of the methods (as I just did, just as every single scientist does), it does not means that they are inherently wrong. Isolated declarations, out of their original context, have no meaning. And its not ethical to use this sort of proceedure.

At last, I have no intention of pointing guns to someone´s head...

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
And just because someone spoke about the shortcomings of the methods (as I just did, just as every single scientist does), it does not means that they are inherently wrong. Isolated declarations, out of their original context, have no meaning. And its not ethical to use this sort of proceedure.

At last, I have no intention of pointing guns to someone´s head...

No, there is nothing inherently wrong about what you express, and I probably lean more your way than the other way. Thanks for reading and responding to the article as you did, it will give me something to think about over lunch.

I'm glad you aren't going to put a gun to my head.

-Elliot

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


So tell me the exact sequences of the first abiogenesetic incidences.


I do that, and I win the Nobel prize! The exact sequence of that first self-replicating RNA that we all come from is probably lost to the memory of time.


But RNA self-replicates. It's just a chemical process. The fact that you don't understand it, or choose not to, may just be lazyness on your part. Much easier to postulate a miracle.


If this mythology has been repeated in a lab, you should be able to give me all of the details.


Or you could learn about it yourself, rather than make us teach you.


From time immemorial, Religion has answered all of the questions.

God creates the lightning.
God creates disease.
God creates volcanos.

Then folks come in and try and figure out the phenomenon. Before they figure it out, the religious shout "That is GOD'S WORK! IT is sinful to look into it!"

Then they learn that lightning is electricity, and disease is caused by germs and volcanoes are functions of geothermic processes.

Then the religious folks damn the scientists to eternal hell for speaking blasphemy. Torture, the rack, etc.

And eventually, once a couple of generations have passed, the religious change their tune:

"GOD CREATES LIGHTNING THROUGH HIS DIVINE MECHANISM OF ELECTRICITY! GLORY BE TO GOD!"


How many generations until "Evolution is GOD's Mechanism!!!"? We'll see. Already happening with a lot of people. I guess abiogenesis is the current dark corner for these folks to answer with a miracle. Does that mean you're done arguing over the Monkey thing?


Religious explanations of scientific questions are the END of all inquiry into the natural world.

We might have ended with lightning, disease, tornadoes, earthquakes, life-science, but we haven't.

If we're content to postulate a miracle for everything we don't understand yet, we'd never understand ANYTHING. All learning would stop.

Do you WANT to go back to the dark ages, Elliotfc?






Abiogenesis link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


Here's a couple of graphics and a quote that I rather like:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

"Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in
organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap."

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
But RNA self-replicates. It's just a chemical process. The fact that you don't understand it, or choose not to, may just be lazyness on your part. Much easier to postulate a miracle.

Of course RNA self-replicates. What was the first RNA though? I've taken molecular biology and biochemistry, but they didn't teach about the origin of RNA, I think there were some general theories in the textbooks but they weren't talked about in the lectures. Self-replication doesn't explain origin, does it?

Or you could learn about it yourself, rather than make us teach you.

I'm not sure if you get my drift. If RNA is life, how did the first RNA come about, what was the initial base-pair sequence, etc etc etc.

From time immemorial, Religion has answered all of the questions. Then they learn that lightning is electricity, and disease is caused by germs and volcanoes are functions of geothermic processes.

Right. Lightning happens all the time, and so does disease. Volcanoes happen sometimes. These are all contemporary phenomenon, and I'm not taking issue with contemporary phenomenon. Other people may, and I'll join you in poking them with the stupid-stick.

How many generations until "Evolution is GOD's Mechanism!!!"? We'll see. Already happening with a lot of people. I guess abiogenesis is the current dark corner for these folks to answer with a miracle. Does that mean you're done arguing over the Monkey thing?

Interesting. I don't know what will be going through the heads of the religious 100 years from now. I have set up a distinction between current phenomenon, and past phenomenon that have been reasoned to occur. Perhaps we can discuss whether such a distinction is a real one. Sorry, not following you about the monkey thing, are you referring to the Scopes incident?

Religious explanations of scientific questions are the END of all inquiry into the natural world.

I believe in free inquiry, and am thankful for the results. I won't be placed into a either/or with religion or science. I'll take both, and I think millions and billions of reasonable people do the same.

If we're content to postulate a miracle for everything we don't understand yet, we'd never understand ANYTHING. All learning would stop.

I don't want to postulate miracles for everything. I am glad that there exists a non-miraculous explanation for origins. I'm quite familiar with it, and I do not wish to stamp it out of existence. Why should I? Competition of ideas is healthy, and as far as I can tell it makes people think harder, makes the concepts sharper, and works against intellectual stagnation.

Do you WANT to go back to the dark ages, Elliotfc?

Sometimes. Sometimes I think that in a less complicated time I could very well be happier than I am today. So many things that I feel are important are only important because of the complexity of the world. Plus I do enjoy medieval literature, both religious and secular. If I lived in the dark ages I reckon I'd be married by now, have kids, etc. Plus I have many questions about facts about medieval life that I could verify first hand.

Abiogenesis link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Replicating polymers? Protobionts?

Do such things exist today? Just wondering, they weren't covered in the university level biochem and molecular bio courses I took. But that was back in 2000, and they say scientific knowledge increases exponentially. Please forgive my ignorance.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
Code requires a designer?!!? WHOOO BOY.

Code doesn't require a designer?

Just because you call it code, doesn't make it a computer program created by a programmer.

It isn't me who calls it a code, I didn't come up with that word or associated idea.

No, I don't think that DNA or RNA is a computer program, but it's a terrific analogy. Of course God's *computer program* would be much more extraordinary than our computer programs, and on a totally different level. Yet analogous, nonetheless.

In other words, if we were to discover a computer code from thousands of years ago, we'd scratch our heads wouldn't we? And we see a genetic code, and we are not supposed to scratch our heads?

I'm not saying that we should scratch our heads and don't even try to analyze or study, or yes EVEN EXPLAIN DNA/RNA. I'm talking about origins, so don't accuse me of saying we should completely ignore anything about DNA/RNA and not try to scientifically explain it. And I'm glad there is a scientific explanation for the origin of DNA/RNA, and I hope you guys continue to improve upon that explanation.

That's the problem with scientific analogies written for laypeople. They take them too far, then have belief in the analogies rather than the data. Or attack them based on an analogy that THEY took too far.

Funny, replace scientific with theological and I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL.

-Elliot

[DialecticMaterialist]

If you mean parsimony in the Ockham's razor sense, I have never been able to understand how Ockham's razor would make something true, or make something not true. It's a nice thought.



Occam's Razor was invented in order t o stop people from making stuff up. If people were allowed to posit an endless amount of assumptions, then we would get nowhere. Philosophy would turn to a guessing game, as would science.

Hence while Occam's Razor may not create anything in reality, it helps us avoid error when looking into reality.


I don't consider anything in the Bible superfluous to my belief, not just my theological beliefs, but my historical and anthropological interests really compel me to treat the Bible seriously. Of course I don't have to have the interest in the Bible that I admit to having. I want to understand people, and God, and any recorded interactions, whether or not they are completely contrived or completely legitimate.

And you obviously aren't going by reason and evidence then by accepting such superfluous stuff.




Do you see how I consider your beliefs to be superfluous?

Nope, explain.



I'm not exactly sure what God did. I just see him as the Ultimate Creator. I will say that he creates every individual soul, and he was behind the design of all life on Earth. Honestly I don't know how far I would extend God's actions. I am glad that science would explain the machinations of the universe leaving God out of the equation. The theories science generates are available for me to accept or reject, or to partially accept/reject. Just like the Bible. I have to make meaning out of what is available to me. Nothing out there is inherently meaningful outside what humans make of it. There is existence, but I think of meaning as separate from existence.


You can do this but it is irrational and superfluous.






You stated the above in response to my declaration that life as we know it is cruel and inefficient. This is the state of the fallen creation. God is not working through fallen creation, creation is in rebellion. He tolerates this rebellion, and works in spite of it.

How could rebelion work in the face of an all powerful God?

Also for many years the cruel process of evolution occured with nonsentient beings. Tell me, how were chimps, bacteria and dinosaurs rebelling against God?




If you say so, but you cannot tell me the exact genetic code of the first *living* organism, or any of the genetic codes of the countless billions if not trillions if not quadrillions of organisms which resulted from this first life. So I could see those as superfluous elements from my way of looking at it.

That isn't necessary. I don't have to know every little detail about a process to declare it parsimonious, if that were the case we wouldn't get everywhere. Geologists know continents move, they don't need to know every single rock on each continent to know that. The above is a red herring.

Also what is the alternative solution to abiogensis? Posit an infininately more complex organism, who's existence is unexplained i.e. God? That's supposed to be as parsimonious as an explanation that works in principle, works via stuff we already know exists, has some confirmation and explains things via simpler elements?

We are instead supposed to consider a supernatural being, who's complexity is beyond imagination, that works by unknown/unrepeated means for uknown reasons, that is made of an unknown substance and who's location cannot be specified as equally parsimonious? Wouldn't this being just require far more explanation then whatis was meant to explain?

If those two are equally parsimonious I'm throwing out theories of crimonology in favor of the crime gremlin. I'm throwing out theories of condensation in favor of the rain elf.




Nothing irrational. Did you observe the first *life* on Earth?

I didn't observe the fall of Rome either, that mean Ceasar is still in power?

The abiogenetic incident that started the whole thing? Nothing irrational about the idea. It's very rational, and it's very unobservable.


Well I can't say exactly why Rome fell either, do we then invoke the anarchy demon? A being that myseriously ruins empires? Would that really be as parsimonious and rational as other theories?




You got that right. They are improbable, and necessary for your theory. I think you left out about 2800 or so verys.

What are you talking about? I said saltaions i.e. large mutations. Not small, gradually accumulating ones.

What are the chances of me getting across the street in one step? Very small. How about in a lot of little steps? Almost certain.

Also your calculations, if they refer to abiogenesis, are incorrect. They make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and attack a straw man.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Occam's Razor was invented in order t o stop people from making stuff up. If people were allowed to posit an endless amount of assumptions, then we would get nowhere. Philosophy would turn to a guessing game, as would science.

William of Ockham was a Franciscan...a believer in the Jesus guy...

-Elliot

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm not saying he applied his own principle to his own beliefs all the time, only that is why it is used. Also keep in mind in those times people couldn't explain as much, so a lot of beliefs were not as superfluous as they are today.

[elliotfc]

Hey DM

Regarding the concept of superfluity...

I don't know about using it as guiding principle, or anti-guiding principle. Now, if someone was telling themselves "what belief system could I construct that would include the most number of entities that I could possibly handle", I would probably think them to be a bit daft. At the same time, if someone was telling themselves "what belief system could I embrace that include the fewest number of entities", I'd wonder what their hang-up with entities is.

Occam's Razor as it is called states specifically that Entities should not be needlessly multiplied. I guess that makes sense. But the key word is "needlessly" I think. Who can possibly judge need, and by what standard? If you have a bad attitude about a belief system, you can say that the belief system has needless components.

Since our belief systems do not correspond, it goes without saying that I have superfluous beliefs by your standard, and you have superfluous beliefs by my standard.

How could rebelion work in the face of an all powerful God?

Depends what you mean by work. If the point of rebellion is to *defeat* God, then it could not possibly work. If the point of the rebellion is to make God unhappy, then it works all the time. Can an omni-whatever being ever be unhappy? Sure, why not, why shouldn't am omni-being feel unhappy sometimes? Since God creates creatures who can make decisions, a variety of rebellious decisions could be made. Their efficacy is not the point, since no one can conquer God. The rebellion is in the choices, and since I believe that every human being values the ability to make choices, this I think is understandable, if disagreeable.

Also for many years the cruel process of evolution occured with nonsentient beings. Tell me, how were chimps, bacteria and dinosaurs rebelling against God?

The planet Earth is not controlled by God, and I do not believe that God continually tinkers with every single thing that happens.

That isn't necessary. I don't have to know every little detail about a process to declare it parsimonious, if that were the case we wouldn't get everywhere. Geologists know continents move, they don't need to know every single rock on each continent to know that. The above is a red herring.

Correcet. Geologists know continents move.

Regarding every single rock...every single rock exists. Every single rock can be known if we do enough digging. When referring to abiogenesis you can't possibly know the exact genetic code of the first RNA, or whatever. See the difference? Present events (continental drift) and present existing entities (rocks), versus past events (abiogenesis) and past existing entities (the first replicating RNA(s)). Is there a distinction between the two classes? I think so, and if you disagree I think this could make an excellent new topic header. I'll be away on a vacation starting tonight, so when I come back I'll go ahead and start a new topic for this.

Also what is the alternative solution to abiogensis? Posit an infininately more complex organism, who's existence is unexplained i.e. God?

I'd prefer to consider the existence to be intuitively deduced, but that may be commensurate to unexplained by your standards of knowledge and belief.

That's supposed to be as parsimonious as an explanation that works in principle, works via stuff we already know exists, has some confirmation and explains things via simpler elements?

Some people think that God is the simplest explanation for reality.

As for simpler elements, sure, an explanation that does not include the supernatural does in fact exist. Every person has to decide the worth of that explanation.

As for confirmation, it seems that each explanation has non-confirmable elements.

We are instead supposed to consider a supernatural being, who's complexity is beyond imagination,

Ummm, sort of. I don't know. The complexity could be sort of like Anselm's ontological conception. Or, God could be the most ridiculously simple entity, if you view the ability to make imperfect chioces as a needlessly complicated attribute. He's definitely of a different kind. Complexity is one way of looking at it. Since I believe Jesus was God, that tells me something about God and how God operates, so at least in that instance his complexity is not beyond imagination.

that works by unknown/unrepeated means for uknown reasons,

As for means, since we can't control God that goes without saying.

As for reasons, I think the whole point of theology is to discuss reasons, and with the existence and importance I place on Jesus I disagree that the reasons are unknown.

that is made of an unknown substance and who's location cannot be specified as equally parsimonious? Wouldn't this being just require far more explanation then whatis was meant to explain?

Yes, it does require more explanation, and since are explanations are inherently limited I can see your concern.

To give you my perspective, this *being* essentially exists and it would take more of an explanation to make this being not essentially exist to me. It's a personal thing, I admit that.

If those two are equally parsimonious I'm throwing out theories of crimonology in favor of the crime gremlin. I'm throwing out theories of condensation in favor of the rain elf.

See, crime is a contemporary phenomonon, and so is condensation, so I don't want you to throw those things away at all, and I don't throw them away either. If we agree on present phenomenon, but disagree about past phenomenon, is there something to that disagreement, or not?

I didn't observe the fall of Rome either, that mean Ceasar is still in power?

No, but other people observed the fall of Rome, and you know the answer to the Caesar bit.

Well I can't say exactly why Rome fell either, do we then invoke the anarchy demon? A being that myseriously ruins empires? Would that really be as parsimonious and rational as other theories?

Well there were contemporary reasons, observed reasons, and much thought, put into the fall of Rome. It's an incident of human history. About the prehistoric stuff, surely you can see how that could be more problematic from various perspectives.

Is there disagreement over why Rome fell? Sure, minor disagreements among historians. I don't think anybody invokes an "anarchy demon" who destroys civilizations at whim. Sure, I guess some people believe that God struck down Rome, but I don't share their belief.

What are the chances of me getting across the street in one step? Very small. How about in a lot of little steps? Almost certain.

But you already exist, you are a mobile being. When does the entity in question come into being? And how? And what are the specifics? And how does it initiate self-directed motion?

Yes, we are self-organized entities that do things in small steps. I don't deny that. I scratch my head over origins.

Also your calculations, if they refer to abiogenesis, are incorrect. They make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and attack a straw man.

Well I do agree that abiogenesis is made of straw.

-Elliot

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hey DM
Regarding every single rock...every single rock exists. Every single rock can be known if we do enough digging. When referring to abiogenesis you can't possibly know the exact genetic code of the first RNA, or whatever. See the difference? Present events (continental drift) and present existing entities (rocks), versus past events (abiogenesis) and past existing entities (the first replicating RNA(s)). Is there a distinction between the two classes? I think so, and if you disagree I think this could make an excellent new topic header. I'll be away on a vacation starting tonight, so when I come back I'll go ahead and start a new topic for this.
-Elliot

Sorry but I have to disagree with the affirmative that "Every single rock can be known if we do enough digging." The history of every single rock is partially written on them. there are pieces of this history that will never be known, because they were erased by younger events such as metamorphism.

And a parallel can be traced in this case. There are types of rocks that no longer can be formed (ex. Komatiites and Superior-type banded iron formations) because Earth has changed since 2.1 Gy ago (internal structure and atmosphere, respectiveyly), and the process that originated them can no longer happen. There are also rocks that are abundant nowdays but in the past non-existent (ex. blueschists) for the very same reasons. Both are present and past events and entities. And there is no reason to suppose any other driving force for these examples other than the evolution of the system called Earth due to physical and chemical reactions.

What rocks have to do with living beings?
-Most rocks are composed by silicates that are silica (SiO4)-4 polymers and known living beings are carbons polymers;
-The silicates that compose rocks are minerals, and minerals have crystalline structure- atoms and molecules placed in positions that follow geometric laws determined by the electrical charges of the atoms tha compose them. Its can be defined as organised information, it can be called a code. And crystals grow. In some cases they can divide themselves, change in to other mineral species and so on.

To me, it just shows that all atoms and molecules follow the same set of rules, and that if an event took place billions or millions of years ago and no longer takes place (or the opposite- it happens now but not millions or billions of years ago) this is not evidence for an intelligence behind it. Its just the evolution of a natural system. [edited just to add- And there is no evidence that if we could restart the process, human beings would appear again after 4.5 Gy, despite what followers of the strong anthropic principle claim. end edit]

OK, you may also interpret crystal structure as a signature, its up to you, but I don´t.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Code doesn't require a designer?


Code is a human word. It implies a designer. That's why you like it. That's probably why Watson and Crick liked it.

The human genome is not a code. It is not a blueprint. It is not a design. (Unless you NAME it that. DNA had no name before humans came along to name it.)


It's a set of chemicals that reacts in a predictable way. It's a structure that has been built step-by-tiny-step, changed and refined with the steady flow of countless generations of life.


(Beware, another analogy)
It's like a riverbed, carved by the steady flow of water. When the rainy season returns, the river comes (Magically?)to the same place. You might say, the riverbed is the "code" or "blueprint" or "design" of where the water needs to flow to get to the sea sucessfully.


BTW, elliotfc, what's with your reasoning on the post I'm responding to? I say that CODE is a human word, an ANALOGY for what's really happening. I say it's an analogy that folks take too far if they posit a designer of that code.

You then come back and just talk more about how code requires a designer.

Are you reading these posts, or just parroting them?

Is there any reason for us to go around and around on this any more times, where I say "code" isn't the word to use if it causes you to imagine a designer, and you say code requires a designer, and I say "code" isn't the word to use if it causes you to imagine a designer....


Can we just say riverbed, and leave it at that?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Occam's Razor as it is called states specifically that Entities should not be needlessly multiplied. I guess that makes sense. But the key word is "needlessly" I think. Who can possibly judge need, and by what standard? If you have a bad attitude about a belief system, you can say that the belief system has needless components.

Reason and evidence determine this. Otherwise what's the point in having it? Again people can just make stuff up.

Since our belief systems do not correspond, it goes without saying that I have superfluous beliefs by your standard, and you have superfluous beliefs by my standard.

No, you just have a superfluous belief by rational standards.

Depends what you mean by work. If the point of rebellion is to *defeat* God, then it could not possibly work. If the point of the rebellion is to make God unhappy, then it works all the time.

Unhappu=effected by=hurt. So we have effected and hurt an all powerful, omnipotent, unchanging God? We can hurt God?



The planet Earth is not controlled by God, and I do not believe that God continually tinkers with every single thing that happens.

That doesn't answer my question in any relevant manner.

You said God allowed/used suffering because His creation rebelled. I asked how pre-human animals rebelled. Whether or not God chose to control the Earth is irrelevant to this, for you said He used the process because His creation rebelled. So either God had no control then, or God acted on His creation's rebelion.

Regarding every single rock...every single rock exists. Every single rock can be known if we do enough digging.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is we don't know now, nor do we have to know.



When referring to abiogenesis you can't possibly know the exact genetic code of the first RNA, or whatever. See the difference?


Just like they can't know every rock from around 1,000 years ago plus....

Doesn't mean any geology from that long ago is an "anything goes" no holds bar.



Some people think that God is the simplest explanation for reality.

As for simpler elements, sure, an explanation that does not include the supernatural does in fact exist. Every person has to decide the worth of that explanation.

Simply thinking God is a parsimonious explanation does not make it so.

As for confirmation, it seems that each explanation has non-confirmable elements.

How so?

Ummm, sort of. I don't know. The complexity could be sort of like Anselm's ontological conception. Or, God could be the most ridiculously simple entity, if you view the ability to make imperfect chioces as a needlessly complicated attribute.

That's a big IF. A perfect being seems like a very complicated thing indeed.



As for means, since we can't control God that goes without saying.

But you said we can hurt him, control whether or not He is happy, is that not a kind of control?



See, crime is a contemporary phenomonon, and so is condensation, so I don't want you to throw those things away at all, and I don't throw them away either. If we agree on present phenomenon, but disagree about past phenomenon, is there something to that disagreement, or not?


Condensation demands we make certain assumptions about the past as does crime.


No, but other people observed the fall of Rome, and you know the answer to the Caesar bit.


But it was still in the past. Since it was in the past, according to you, that should make it up for grabs. Now we invoke the "no one was there standard."

But again does that matter?

We know how stars are created and black holes are formed, even though no one is there when it happens. Are you saying we should instead invoke the "gravity gremlin"?

Well there were contemporary reasons, observed reasons, and much thought, put into the fall of Rome.

Just like with abiogensis.



It's an incident of human history. About the prehistoric stuff, surely you can see how that could be more problematic from various perspectives.


Not really as we have evidence and parsimony there too.


But you already exist, you are a mobile being. When does the entity in question come into being? And how? And what are the specifics? And how does it initiate self-directed motion?

What are you talking about? I'm just showing that small steps have much less chance of error then large ones.

A small enough mutation, lets say if we alter the length of an animal's leg slightly, has maybe a 50 percent chance of improvement and a 50 percent chance of doing harm. (Actually the main chances are likely very different with "no effect" being the biggest.) But alter the length of the horses leg greatly, and it will almost certainly do harm.